This column is a response to the March 22 “Consider This” column, “A charter for Harvard: What will change?” by Stephanie Opalka. The charter proposal is Question 1 on the May 8 Town Election ballot. These comments are intended as information about and clarification of the charter proposal, which readers can find on the town website. I urge all residents to read the proposed charter and make their own assessments:
There were several assertions in the op-ed piece that I believe call for comment or explanation:
- Changes made by charter proposal are small.
- Centralizing authority in the Select Board will solve governance problems.
- The proposal will no t alter Harvard’s direct democracy.
- The proposal calls for strategic planning.
- A centralized Select Board would feel more urgency to seek revenue and reduce expenses.
- There will be only one opportunity to vote on a charter for Harvard.
Changes made by charter proposal are small. Opalka states, “The changes made by the Charter proposal are small.” I disagree. The authority to appoint and the responsibility for the budget are core powers of governance. Changing the ability of residents to vote for policy-writing boards is an important change; changing responsibility for the budget and the budget process is an important change. Neither change is small; both changes are important.
Centralizing authority in the Select Board will solve governance problems. Opalka states “The Select Board, like executive authorities in other towns, can better foster collaboration if it has an integrated team.” This is a broad assertion. I agree that there is evidence that other towns have centralized authority, but I would want to see evidence that an integrated team fostered collaboration, and I’d want to be certain that the change in authority had the desired result. Harvard’s town administration is a team of paid professionals who could be fired if their performance faltered; the volunteer side of any town government faces a different class of challenges in the creation and management of teams.
The proposal will not alter Harvard’s direct democracy. The column states “certain boards and commissions previously elected will be appointed by the Select Board and charged with supporting its policies and initiatives,” accurately indicating that the proposal will make the Select Board the single board that will set and initiate policy in almost all dimensions of town government, from encouraging commercial development through purchase of land for affordable housing. This may not necessarily align with the notion of direct democracy, which the column also references.
Opalka asserts that the town will maintain its direct democracy. I agree that all decisions would be voted at Annual Town Meeting, but this charter proposal calls for appointment, not election, of major policy-writing boards. Residents would be able to elect the Select Board, but would lose the right to elect representatives to major boards like the Planning Board, the Board of Health, and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Some residents may want to retain the ability to directly choose representatives who share their values on matters like zoning and conservation bylaws that affect the shape of their neighborhoods.
A centralized Select Board would feel more urgency to seek revenue and reduce expenses. As evidenced by this year’s warrant articles for senior citizens’ property tax exemptions and tax deferrals, the current Select Board already recognizes that many in town may have reached their taxation limit at Harvard tax rates and that Harvard has serious revenue issues because of its reliance on residential property taxes. There is no evidence that giving a Select Board more authority, as hinted in the column, would heighten their awareness or redouble their efforts.
Obvious long-term remedies for increasing revenue lie in recasting commercial zoning bylaws and in resuming jurisdiction of Devens and the tax base it represents. Both remedies are in the province of land-use boards, which this charter proposal shortchanges. A Department of Community and Economic Development has potential to improve and accelerate zoning processes that could lead to increased revenue. The proposed charter cites establishment of a Department of Community and Economic Development in Article 5, via appointment by the town administrator in Article 4, under the condition that the Select Board requests such an appointment. Since there is no initiating language for the Select Board in Article 3, establishment of the department becomes moot.
The proposal calls for strategic planning. The column makes oblique reference to development of a yearly strategic plan specified in charter proposal Article 3-2. The word “strategic,” with reference to town matters, seems to me to be misused in the charter proposal. “Strategic” might make many residents think of a time frame longer than a single year and might be appropriate in describing a Master Plan, which covers 10 years, whereas the charter proposal describes an operational one-year governing cycle. With our current governing model as comparison, we might say that the current Select Board’s goals call for completion this year of an investigation of potential locations for a new fire station, which would be a step along the path to the strategic goal of relocating the fire station to a place with the most benefit and least cost to the town.
Perhaps a strategic view of our long-term debt could have mitigated some of the financial pain we are currently experiencing at the prospect of an additional $1,500 per year per average household, one of the estimates of shared cost for a new elementary school. The budget process currently being tested by the Finance Committee, the Capital Planning and Investment Committee, and the Select Board seems to focus on one-year goals and operations.
There will be only one opportunity to vote on a charter for Harvard. Early in her column, Opalka writes that the May 8 Town Election is “the only chance you will have to approve the charter.” While that is true for this voting cycle, towns can fail to adopt a charter on their first attempt (Groton, for example) and follow an initial failure with a more flexible process for changing their governance model (Easton, for example). The charter development process can be incremental; lessons learned from the current experience could be applied to improve a future charter development effort.
If this version of a charter does not pass, Harvard voters could step back, get help from experts, and prepare a charter process that could take into account such issues as our approach to long-term (more than 10 years) financial planning, strategies for municipal buildings renovation and repurposing, and resuming jurisdiction of Devens. The Edward J. Collins Jr. Center for Public Management at UMass Boston offers services specifically designed to help towns write charters that adapt to these kinds of requirements.
Again, I urge all residents to read the proposed charter and make their own assessments.
Joseph Hutchinson of Westcott Road is the former chairman of the Master Plan Steering Committee and a former member of the Planning Board.
