Deluged with critical commentary from board members and residents, the Charter Commission voted this week to revise a half-dozen of the most controversial provisions in its proposed charter, but retained its most controversial, the one calling for the appointment, not election, of most boards.
At a two-hour meeting Tuesday night following a meeting with the Board of Selectmen, the commissioners deleted the charter’s recall provision for elected officials, restored the Town Caucus as a means of nominating candidates for elected office, and lowered the number of voters required for a quorum at Town Meeting, but kept in place the provision that hands the selectmen the power to appoint the Planning Board and other key committees.
Last week began with receipt of a Sept. 11 letter from the attorney general’s office advising the panel that one of its provisions conflicted with state law, but that the remaining portions did not. Then, on Sept. 13, a 2.5-hour public hearing on the proposed charter drew more than 50 residents. And on Tuesday evening this week, eight members of the commission appeared before the Board of Selectmen, where many of the criticisms and statements voiced at the previous week’s hearing were repeated. The commission also learned that the Harvard League of Women Voters had commissioned and received a review of the charter by the Edward J. Collins Jr. Institute at the University of Massachusetts Boston. As of the morning of Sept. 20, commission Chairman Paul Cohen said in an email that he had yet to see the report, but Joe Hutchinson of the League of Women Voters said a copy had been emailed to the commission Sept. 17.
In voting to appoint rather than elect most town boards, the commissioners held their ground on the provision that has drawn the most criticism. Three members of the Board of Selectmen—Kara Minar, Stu Sklar, and Chairwoman Lucy Wallace—are against it, and at last week’s public hearing, a dozen speakers, the longest line of the evening, opposed the measure, including this year’s citizen of note, Connie Larrabee. She said she would vote against the charter for that reason alone, as have others.
“Nobody is giving us high-fives” for having proposed this change, commission member Charles Redinger said at the commission’s Tuesday night meeting. Member Ron Ostberg added that while he agreed government would work better if all boards were appointed, the charter could fail because of that measure alone. “That’s our conundrum,” said chairman Cohen.
Elected vs. appointed: No change
Yet when it came time to vote, a majority of the commissioners, including Ostberg and Cohen, voted for appointed boards. It took three motions to get there. First, commission member Sharon McCarthy proposed a compromise, moving that only the Planning Board be appointed and that all others remain elected. Her motion failed by a 6–2 vote.
Next, commission member Peter Warren proposed a reverse compromise, that the Planning Board remain elected and that all others be appointed. That motion failed 6–2 as well. Finally, the commission voted on whether to retain existing provisions, which call for the appointment of most boards, and the motion passed, 7–1, with Redinger voting against.
No recall
Next up was the provision that specified a means to remove elected officials from office. At last week’s public hearing, it was the second-most opposed measure of the night, although a few spoke in its favor, including Selectwoman Minar and former Selectman Ron Ricci. The commissioners, however, were swayed by the argument that the power could be hijacked for political ends and also by public commentary from Worth Robbins (a co-owner of this paper) that a recall could be initiated at any time by home-rule petition, as was done recently in Lancaster. Cohen said that selling the need for appointed boards to voters was a sufficiently challenging task without having to also overcome opposition to the recall measure. The vote to remove recall language from the charter was 6–2, with Warren and Redinger opposed.
Quorum, caucus, and more
Other articles on the commission’s hit list were dealt with more quickly. The commissioners voted:
- To restore Town Caucus as a means of nominating candidates for elected office (7–1, Sharon McCarthy against)
- To retain a town meeting quorum but to lower the number of voters required from 150 to 50 (unanimous)
- To change the language that creates the position of a facilities manager to state that the person “may be the building inspector,” without requiring it (unanimous)
- To make the position of community development and economic director a part of the town administration, removing it as a responsibility of the Town Administrator (unanimous)
- To clarify the need for the Select Board to consult with a board with a vacant seat before filling it; the language is to read that the position will be filled “… after receiving recommendations from the board where the vacancy exists” (unanimous)
The commission has until Oct. 14 to prepare a final draft. It will meet again Sept. 27 at 4 p.m. and again Oct. 5 at 5 p.m. Both are planned as working sessions at which the commission will deal with a number of less widely embraced critiques as well as errors and inconsistencies.
