Charter Reform --- Part I

The current Town charter was approved on October 2, 2009.  Section 9.2 of the charter requires that the Selectmen appoint a Charter Review Committee of seven (7) members at least every 5 years to review the current charter and propose any potential revisions to the Selectmen for discussion and submission to Town Meeting for local approval and then on to the State legislature for final approval.        

At the risk of introducing some facts to this discussion, here's some important background information on local government structures and local charter reform (click to open):

• Current Town Charter
• Forms of Local Government in Massachusetts
• MMA Study on Structural Changes in Local Government in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
• Other MMA information on Charter reform / Local Government structures

The biggest issue is the type of local government.  There's far more of a  "romantic history" associated with the current Open Town Meeting format of government than is perceived during discussions of colder, more professional, and potentially more efficient, formats -- such as Town Council/Town Manager or City Council/Mayor.

There aren't many people who think Open Town Meeting actually represents the "will of the people".  In reality, it only represents "the will of the people --- WHO SHOW UP" !  The easy response is that it is a citizens responsibility to show up -- and if you don't vote you can't complain (Where have I heard that before?) --- But, nonetheless, if less than 300 people show up out of 15,000 voters, it is easy to stack a Town Meeting with people for or against a specific item in their own self-interest.  

This issue needs to be discussed at greater length.

Some of the smaller issues that need further discussion:

Section 4.3.3 - School Committee vacancies -- currently require a Special Election.  I would propose modifying this section to adopt the state standard which is the vacant seat is filled by joint appointment of the Board of Selectmen and remaining School Committee members.  This is the procedure followed by Town Boards (other than the BOS) and is the same procedure followed by most other Towns.  This would save the expense of holding a special election to fill the vacancy, and would ensure that taxpayers were well represented by an engaged and involved school committee  member -- not just somebody filling the seat to save the Town the cost of a special election -- without doing any of the real work required.

Section 7.2 - Finance Committee Composition --- currently, 9 members are appointed solely by the Town Moderator.  I would propose 3 members appointed by the Selectmen, 3 by the School Committee and 3 by the Moderator.  This would likely ensure a wider variety of viewpoints and experience amongst FinCom members.  I would also establish a standard for appointment -- either academic degrees in Accounting, finance, or public administration, or relevant paid employment in a related occupation.  (I have no idea of the qualifications, or even many of the names, of the current FinCom members --- this point is intended only to establish standards for future appointments.)

Section 7.5 - Annual Audit --  The current charter calls for an audit of Town accounts each fiscal year, and at such times as it may be deemed necessary by the BOS.  I would propose adding specific language requiring an audit of all Town Enterprise accounts -- including (but not limited to) The Golf Course, The Marina, The Community School, and The Athletic Revolving Fund.  All of these funds take in considerable amounts of cash but are relatively small and could otherwise be considered immaterial when viewed in relation to all Town revenue and expense accounts.

Article VI -- Conflicts of interest -- The current charter references existing Mass Ethics regulations regarding conflicts of interest -- but also takes the restrictions one step further and prohibits Selectmen from serving as voting members of any other Board.  I would like to see this section expanded yet again to explicitly exclude any elected official from ruling on any issue that may affect their own employment, or the employment of any immediate family member, regardless of economic impact.  This would prevent a recurrence of a situation where the wife of a teachers' union leader is evaluating the performance of her husband's Supervisor.  It would also eliminate the possibility of any future school committee members being allowed to collect a paycheck from the Community School at the same time said member was supposed to be objectively looking at that program's continued operations and viability.  Both of these situations seem to be egregious violations of ethical standards -- but are apparently not specifically outlawed by existing State Ethics regulations.

To be continued ...