Commission could choose fast track, produce charter in one year
Mr. Marinelli’s Feb. 19 “Consider This” had two questionable assumptions:
First, it assumes that the petitioners had specific changes they wanted to make, when in fact, petitioners seek an inclusive process, considering all wants and needs, not just selectmen needs.
It assumes further that the charter process will take longer than special act legislation, when in fact, the commission could choose an expedited option that could have us voting to adopt the charter at next year’s Town Election.
In December, when the decision was made to seek signatures to put the town charter question on the ballot, we created a website, harvardmatters.org, to provide related information. An article from the Mass. Municipal Association’s publication “Municipal Advocate” titled “Changing Local Government Structure,” by Marilyn Contreas, senior program and policy analyst at the Department of Housing and Community Development, was particularly helpful in preparing this response. (See http://bit.ly/1phIQyX for the full article.)
The process spelled out in the 1966 constitutional amendment is anything but unstructured and open ended. After a brief preamble establishing the intention “… to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters …”, it then lays out a (maximum) 18-month process once the requisite 15 percent of registered voters have signed the charter petition and voters at Town Election have chosen to proceed and elected a charter commission. (See http://bit.ly/1TNNQ9E for the full text of the constitutional amendment.)
The enabling legislation, MGL 43B, further specifies the process, beginning with a public hearing no more than 45 days after the commission is elected, to hear requirements from any and all voters, public officials, town employees, and elected and appointed boards and committees—in other words, the stakeholders. (See http://1.usa.gov/1TlgEId for MGL 43B.)
By comparison with the report of the informal group that recommended changes we will hear about at Town Meeting, the charter commission is required to consider the wants and needs of everyone. Rather than a proposal solely intended to transfer administrative workload from the selectmen to the town administrator, the charter process can consider needs for coordination and support of all town government functions.
The assumption that the recommended changes to be considered at Town Meeting won’t require a yearlong process may be wrong. The “Municipal Advocate” article states:
“The following is the procedure governing special act adoption:
Passage, by majority vote at town meeting, of a warrant article or resolution proposing the special legislation
Petition to the Legislature to enact the proposed legislation
Hearing by assigned committee of the Legislature
Approval of the petition by House of Representatives and Senate
Signing of special legislation by the governor
This process may be completed in as little as one year. In some instances, the petition may require that the act become effective only upon acceptance by a majority of voters at the next regular municipal election (sometimes referred to as ratification). In other instances, the act may contain a certain date when the provisions take effect, or the act may state that its provisions become effective upon passage.”
In the same article, a “fast-track” charter process is described:
“Some charter commissions follow a ten-month schedule and present a charter proposal to the voters at the annual election one year following the commission’s election. If the commission chooses to follow the eighteen-month schedule provided in the law, the charter proposal would be presented to the voters at the municipal election two years following the election of a commission.”
If Harvard’s charter commission chooses to follow the 10-month schedule, it is possible that the full charter will be available for voters to adopt at the same time as the modest changes that may be voted at this year’s Town Meeting.
Checkpoints along the way are built into the process, beginning with the first public hearing within 45 days, a first-draft report and public hearing within 10 months (sooner, if the fast track is chosen), attorney general comments to ensure conformance with constitutionally authorized powers, and a final report submitted to voters for adoption at Town Election.
There are no hidden objectives. The only thing petitioners have sought is a public, inclusive process, taking into consideration the needs and interests of all town government participants. The most immediate priority is to have a good cross-section of the town seeking election to the charter commission. The League of Women Voters of Harvard is holding a forum Saturday, March 5, at 2 p.m. in Volunteers Hall to hear from participants in other towns’ charter processes and to help potential commission candidates decide to run.
Worth Robbins is a co-owner of the Harvard Press and owns the domain HarvardMatters.org. He is responsible for initiating the citizen petitions calling for either a moderator-appointed charter committee or an elected charter commission.
