I am guessing that some of you may be a bit disappointed at the content below given the title of this post; that you were expecting something a tad more provocative. I do think the content is a relevant and worth considering, given what is going on right now.
Whether or not you agree with the articles being proposed for the Special Town Meeting (see previous post for more info), two of the proposed articles do address areas of town government which at a minimum warrant some consideration.
I have stated publicly on a number of occasions that serious consideration should be given to forming a Charter Commission. It has been more than 25 years since there has been any serious review of Fairhaven's governmental structure. Times have definitely changed. Yet in many ways not much else has.
Some may argue that is a good thing. With the ever increasing demands, legal requirements and new technology, if you stand still in the middle of the real world highway too long, you are going to get flattened.
Whether or not you agree with the articles being proposed for the Special Town Meeting (see previous post for more info), two of the proposed articles do address areas of town government which at a minimum warrant some consideration.
I have stated publicly on a number of occasions that serious consideration should be given to forming a Charter Commission. It has been more than 25 years since there has been any serious review of Fairhaven's governmental structure. Times have definitely changed. Yet in many ways not much else has.
Some may argue that is a good thing. With the ever increasing demands, legal requirements and new technology, if you stand still in the middle of the real world highway too long, you are going to get flattened.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is the lack of any central authority with the ability to actually govern day to day operations. We can argue about whether we should go from a 3 member Select board to a 5 member board; but, unless you change the day to day operational structure, expanding the board won't cure anything (in fact it would probably make matters worse). Expanding the number of bosses from 3 to 5, each with equal authority, isn't the way to go.
Government, whether you like it or not, has become a big business. Our little town, when you combine the general levy, enterprise funds and other funding sources, is a $50,000,000.00 a year business (plus or minus a few million).
Someone needs to be in place who not only has the ability to oversee day to day operations, but has the actual authority to direct those operations. Decisions need to be made in a more timely fashion and at least in my opinion, more uniformly.
We have multiple boards and committees dealing with numerous employees and multi-million dollar budgets and projects, and at times with overlapping jurisdiction, and very often it seems with competing concerns.
We need to take a long and hard look at each and every elected, appointed board and committee in our Town, along with each and every elected and appointed office, and we need to determine each one's viability and effectiveness, along with whether the same is even necessary.
As important as any concern, however, is the simple fact, as mentioned above, is the lack of any central day to day authority. No one has control of the helm.
Because of certain laws, we would still have certain areas where boards or committees would be somewhat or completely autonomous. Yet to the extent possible, Fairhaven needs to refine and in some ways reform government and its operation.
A charter review would take at a minimum 12 months (more likely 24). There would be expenses. It would require some hard work from some very dedicated people. Done properly, however, the results could and should last another 25 years or more and should save the Town a great deal.
In many ways I believe the form of government we have presently is (and if it isn't all ready, it will soon be) inadequate to meet today's needs and demands. We manage, we are getting by, but we need to figure out how to do it better.
We have multiple boards and committees dealing with numerous employees and multi-million dollar budgets and projects, and at times with overlapping jurisdiction, and very often it seems with competing concerns.
We need to take a long and hard look at each and every elected, appointed board and committee in our Town, along with each and every elected and appointed office, and we need to determine each one's viability and effectiveness, along with whether the same is even necessary.
As important as any concern, however, is the simple fact, as mentioned above, is the lack of any central day to day authority. No one has control of the helm.
Because of certain laws, we would still have certain areas where boards or committees would be somewhat or completely autonomous. Yet to the extent possible, Fairhaven needs to refine and in some ways reform government and its operation.
A charter review would take at a minimum 12 months (more likely 24). There would be expenses. It would require some hard work from some very dedicated people. Done properly, however, the results could and should last another 25 years or more and should save the Town a great deal.
In many ways I believe the form of government we have presently is (and if it isn't all ready, it will soon be) inadequate to meet today's needs and demands. We manage, we are getting by, but we need to figure out how to do it better.
I'll have to admit it's an interesting concept, controversial, but worthy of discussion, and this is what this blog is about, pure discusion and opinions?
ReplyDeleteSo, let's dare to ponder the Charter structure, would it be the one that would transform the "constitutional officers" to an electable office(Police, Fire, Town Clerk, Tax Collect, etc,) or would it be a 6 member council representing their respective precinct with one CEO? Would this changee the term limit arguement, wherby, we as a Town enter into a Charter and write in a provision to recall a member? There are some interesting concepts. So what do you think?
Great comment. I don't have time to respond right now in great detail(if it was my response you were looking for). Most of the things mentioned are what a charter commission would and should look into. Note that a new town charter would not change the term limit argument (the Town cannot excuse itself from state law). Again I note I am not personally opposed to term limits. As to electing police and fire, not something I would go for. Does not mean present arrangements should be ignored however. Other offices/positions should all be looked at. I am very intrigued by the 6 member council suggestion, but it would have to be coupled with a strong town manager (at least for me). A concept worthy of further discussion at a later time. As for a recall provision, if that is what was voted, so be it (ultimately charter would need to go to town wide vote).
ReplyDeleteEveryone please chime in!
Offices such as tax collector, treasurer and the police and fire chiefs would really have to remain appointed positions, because those jobs require specialized knowledge/education that a person elected by popular vote might not have. (Some of those positions were once elected and were changed so that trained professionals could be hired.) Think about it. Any registered voter could be elected to office. Would you want just any registered voter handling all of the town's millions of dollars of financial transactions? A town manager and a six person town council is a very interesting idea. I'm against term limits and I understand why the state constitution doesn't allow it. Each time a person is up for reelection is when it can be decided by majority vote if that person stays or goes.
ReplyDeleteJust want it out there that I was the one who first posted the interested concept comment, hope my name appears this time.
ReplyDeleteChris you are right, I don't know if you can stop a candidate for an elected position if they were not qualified, but in the private sector you really are unemployable in certain fields without licenses and special qualifications. Can we have prerequisite qualifications for an elected office?
Term limits can be argue to the cows come home, which returns the opinions to fairness, and the perception of an elite society of encumbent officials with their massive war chest being unbeatable to anyone other than another wealthy opponent. How would the average Joe walk off the street and run for those prized offices?
I am intrique by the 6 member coucil though,would like to hear other comment. Nothing like stimulating conversation and off the wall ideas which to me is a wonderful thing. What would Baseball be now without outside the box thinking? Case being Billy Beene, and what he did for the Oakland atletics.It change the game and made the preceived average player more desirable.
For those of you who do not follow sports, Mr Beene was a GM and he decided to rate a player in statistical form, not on a perception of talent, but what they actually brought to the game. Everyone thought he was nuts, look how they rate a player now.