Another passing day

Some interesting stuff going on if you head down Route 6.  In our former parent community Dartmouth (which begat New Bedford, which begat Fairhaven), the 350th anniversary celebration is kicking off.

There is a Town Meeting Article to be voted on relative to its continuing charter process. Now there seems to be a bone of contention on the procedure, at least in the eyes of some about first submitting the issue as to a non-binding referendum, the effect of which was to gauge the voting public sentiment about an article placed before the Town Meeting, so Town Meeting could vote on it, with the effect of having it placed before the voters again to make it binding.

Leaving aside the chicken or the egg argument, the practical result is the same, i.e. the article proposing a change in structure, again i.e. providing for that town's selectboard to assume authority over department heads, will have to go to the voters.

I note that I have said in the past that just because things are done differently somewhere else is not a reason to do things the same here.  That has never, and should never be the compelling reason do do anything. Simply following what is done elsewhere will sooner or later lead us all running blindly over a cliff. But since everything is seemingly driven, at least in part, by how things are in fact done somewhere else, well why not look at the way it is done for such things like this.

Now admittedly Dartmouth decided to follow a charter procedures a few years back.  Just as admittedly, at least for some, we voted a study committee to make recommendations.  All good, right. 

I have oft been reminded that there are several ways to accomplish such change.  Indeed one need not be a historical scholar or constitutional expert to realize there are many ways to accomplish change, especially in government.

However change in form should never, in my opinion, be left to solely to those who govern. 

I have said it before, as has been said by many others before me, having a right to do something does not make it always the right thing to do.

At one point, not even the BPW article was going to be presented to the voters of this town. Subsequently, based on the argument that since it took the voters of the town to bring that entity into existence, it should take the vote of the town to neuter it, a decision was made to send that to the voters. 

I bring up Dartmouth only as an example.  As one of the alternate methods of how a community goes about changing its government. The community has the right to do it that way. Indeed it decided to to it that way. We are told we have a right to do it the way we are doing it. Still all good, right?

Adams, Amherst, Arlington, Auburn, Dartmouth, Framingham, Lexington, Shrewsbury, Stoughton, Swampscott, Walpole (and I could go on), along with all of communities with an open town meeting which have adopted a TA or TM all gave to the voting public in some form, at the very least when the original "Acts" were adopted, the opportunity to decide how the citizens would be governed.  To me that is an extremely important distinction as to what has been done here and elsewhere.

Why?  Why is it an important distinction?

Because in my bizarro universe, "We the People" mean the people, not their elective representatives, and it is we the people, who are certainly not alone in their apathetic attendance to their civic duties to show up on voting day, who should determine how they are governed.

Communities with an open town meeting format do in fact provide that opportunity.  Many of which at least at inception of the power shift still put it on the ballot. 

Plus or minus one ore two, my count is 251 of the 301 communities have an open town meeting government. Many of them have a population more than double our town. Fifty communities have a representative meeting. Only eight with a population of less than 20,000.

It would be one thing to provide within the original changing document to state that future changes be accomplished by Town Meeting.  If the people are so inclined, that would be a right for the people to decide.  In any event, at this point it is what it is.

Each of the named communities above having representative town meetings put "change" to a ballot vote. I have not completed the research for each representative town meeting community with a TA or TM, but will hazard the educated guess that if one goes back to each one's original charters or special acts a significant number did at some point. A few others with representative meetings had a TA/TM article which was rejected by Town Meeting but provided for the ballot vote in the proposal; and, a number of communities with a RTP went to a TA or TM format prior to the "home rule" amendment and following that "guess" were required to put it to a vote.

A number of communities also adopted the TA in a format that I call the glorified version of an "Executive Secretary", i.e. the statute that let us adopt the position of Executive Secretary allowed you to adopt the position of Town Administrator.  Same exact position just a title.  Same duties, responsibilities which in a nutshell are what the Board of Selectmen wished to designate to its employee. No special act, just adopting a law to allow the selectmen to designate, which we did a few decades ago under the wrong title apparently. No change in government per se, no shift in power, no neutering procedures, just allowing your elected town fathers to delegate. 

And while talking about numbers, and decent number of communities managed to dovetail a TA/TM into a working structure without neutering any elected board, managing somehow to deal with the distinction between "authority to properly run operations" and the "authority to govern".

Be that as it may, and as it is, we seem to be following a home rule petition procedure.  Based on one of the guides put out by the DOR (you know, that entity that issued the report that has provided the fuel to run the engine that is propelling just about all action in town right now):

After completing its work, the committee submits its recommendations to the local legislative body, which must decide whether to approve a "home rule petition." In cities, such approval must also have the concurrence of the mayor. If the petition is passed by the legislative body (and receives the mayor's approval, where necessary), it is then treated as a piece of proposed legislation - i.e., it is filed with the House or Senate clerk, assigned to a legislative committee, passed by the House and Senate, signed by the Governor, and returned to the city or town. In most instances where a significant change is proposed, the legislation will be subject to ratification by the municipality's voters prior to taking effect. Charting a Route for Charter Change (emphasis supplied).

What bothers me most I suppose, and admittedly from a personal perspective, is that there seems to be little concern that the changes to come are deemed significant enough to be ratified by the voters. Certainly not down at this level.

The TA changes that is.  As far as whatever thought that led to actually putting the provision for the same as to the BPW and the stated reasons, I would have bet the farm the legislature would have absolutely required that, given that it (the BPW) was created by the ballot vote.

As to anyone who wants to argue that we haven't adopted any "charter" I say, plain and simply we haven't adopted a consolidated charter, but we most certainly have voted to put into place two pieces to amend our piecemeal special acts charter. Indeed the original ballot question establishing the BPW read:

"Shall the Town of Fairhaven approve the charter amendment proposed by the Town meeting summarized below?"

Call it what you want, reality is that Town Meeting voted for two charter amendments. 

As to the TA, well based on of the some reasoning explained to me it seems to be felt that the public isn't wise enough to deal with such matters as to our form of government. Only those elected from the public to represent them are wise enough.  Well I for one am extremely thankful that such a standard of wisdom does not apply at any higher level of government to determine our "form" of government.

It isn't easy feeling uneasy about something that you truly support in concept. Just as at times it isn't easy to refrain from doing something you have a right to do, even if it may not be the right thing to do.

It may be that collectively as voters we do not possess the wisdom necessary.  As I have said before, it is becoming readily apparent to me that I for one understand less and less as each day passes.