Adventures in Charter Review

There's no risk that the Sandwich Town Charter will ever be confused with the United States Constitution (and not just because one is stored in a bomb-proof, climate controlled vault deep in the basement of the National Archives while the other is stored in a manilla folder in the bottom drawer of Bud Dunham's desk!), but the principal is the same -- it lays out the framework for the operation of government

Not every Town has a charter -- which can lead to some "interesting" governmental issues.  For example, the Sandwich Charter prohibits Selectmen from holding any other town office or town employment while a member of the Board.  In the Town of Carver, which has no charter, two of the five Selectmen are also Town employees. That must make for interesting budget discussions.

One of the requirements of the Charter is that the Selectmen appoint a Charter Review Committee at least every 5 years to advise them on potential Charter revisions.  It also allows for the Charter to be amended by Town Meeting with the approval of the State Legislature.  It does not, however, specifically require that the BOS actually present the Charter Committee's recommendations to Town Meeting.  This discrepancy resulted in a minor political dust-up during the last round of Charter review discussions.

Last week's BOS agenda includes applicants' qualifications. The current pool of Charter Review Committee applicants looks pretty good -- a wide variety of professional backgrounds, most of whom have the reputation for doing their homework and playing well with others.  This would not be a good venue for random retaliation, excessive venom, or uninformed interrogations (unfortunately, that's what Town Meeting has become!).

Happy Thanksgiving!

(Insert your own joke here !)

9,807 Days without a contract ....

I was contemplating life at a traffic light this morning and started to think about how long I have been working without the benefit of a contract.  After a little quality time with Excel's date function, I have determined that for the past 9,807 days I have been employed solely as a result of my job performance.

I also know that there were a few times over those 9,807 days that my employer either was unwilling or unable to pay what I would like to have earned.  So ... I got myself another employer who was willing to do so.  

In the great free market economy, the law of supply and demand handles this situation very neatly.  Employers are willing to pay for the skills they need to operate their enterprise.  Employees are free to continue to  "trade" employers in an effort to get their desired compensation -- sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

No private enterprise ever functions well (or may not even survive) by being forced to compensate employees without regard to skill level, job performance or work ethic.  Anybody been to Detroit lately?

Is the dramatic increase in student enrollment at non-union Charter Schools a coincidence?

I think not.

Speaking of Marketing ....

There's an interesting perspective on advertising for students on Cape Cod Today this afternoon.  (Click here)

While you're in that neighborhood there's also an interesting column on the Sandwich Teachers Union managing to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory".  (Click here)

and about advertising ...

If the School Committee had money to waste on advertising, I think they should start two countdown clocks of their own -- the first counting the actual number of days the contract has been in negotiation (since Fall of 2009) and a second for the number of days since the Committee filed a request for mediation assistance from the State in order to settle the contract (Spring of 2010 -- two school committees ago!)

I think a more effective (or at least more interesting) approach would be to skip the silly drama and rhetoric and publish an ad that specifies exactly what the disputed items are.  If one side is asking for something ridiculous and/or unaffordable and the other side is unable to provide said ridiculous or unaffordable item -- that is reality, NOT disrespect.  The ultimate disrespect TO TAXPAYERS would be to commit to demands that can not be funded under current revenue projections.  

Is it fair to employees?  Maybe not.  Does it happen in the private sector -- where most people don't have the benefit of tenure, pensions, health benefits, and work 60+ hours per week for 50 weeks a year?  Yup, every day. 

R-E-S-P-E-C-T .......