Viewpoint: Should Harvard adopt the charter proposed by the Harvard Charter Commission?

Yes: The charter meets the challenges of the 21st century
by Stephanie Opalka and Sharon McCarthy

No: The present charter falls short
by Jim Breslauer

You have the opportunity to position town government to meet the challenges of the 21st century by voting yes for the Harvard charter, ballot question 1.

Why is this question on the ballot?

In the spring of 2016, a petition circulated among Harvard voters calling for an article on the town meeting warrant to create a charter commission. Approximately 700 voters signed the petition, and at the Town Election following Annual Town Meeting the ballot question passed 3–1. Nine commissioners with multiple years of experience extending over decades in Harvard’s town government were elected. Three members are former selectmen and one is a former town administrator of Harvard. This is a group of thoughtful and insightful townspeople whose overwhelming desire was to create the best possible governance for Harvard.

The Charter Commission began its work, meeting with all boards and committees and holding several public hearings. We asked what needs to be fixed in town government and what works well in town government.

Frequent responses to the question of what needs to be fixed focused on leadership, the ability to resolve conflicts among boards and committees, and the lack of volunteers to participate in town government. The proposed charter addresses each of these issues.

How did the Charter Commission go about its work?

Initially, we documented the current structure for town governance, which is based almost entirely on tradition rather than written roles and responsibilities. Much of that tradition was established in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Second, we looked carefully at the charters of numerous other towns, some of which were larger and some similar in size to Harvard.

Third, we had long discussions regarding the underlying causes of the issues raised by our question “What needs to be fixed?” The strong consensus from this step was that the town lacked executive leadership. The Board of Selectmen did not have a clear mandate to lead all town boards and committees nor did it have the tools to make leadership cohesive and effective.

How does the proposed charter promote effective leadership?

The charter specifies that the Select Board will do the following:

• Develop a strategic plan that defines a vision for the town referencing the 10-year Master Plan, the five-year financial plan, and the capital plan.
• Identify policy options that support the strategic plan.
• Work with boards and committees to develop planning initiatives to address the goals set by the Select Board.
• Propose a town budget to support the strategic plan and policies.

By making the Select Board responsible for the budget, it follows that the board must also focus on the town’s revenue. The current Board of Selectmen thought this was such a worthy idea that the fiscal 2019 budget being presented at Annual Town Meeting next week was developed by the current Board of Selectmen. The general consensus was that the selectmen and Finance Committee worked successfully together to create a viable budget.

The Select Board is held accountable by requiring a “State of the Town” address to Annual Town Meeting. This report is required to address the progress, or lack thereof, on the strategic plan and to identify potential issues and opportunities that the town may need to address in the future.

The Select Board needs a team that will carry out its policy agenda, like any other executive authority. To that end, the Select Board is empowered to appoint members of certain boards and committees, including Planning Board, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Board of Health. The Select Board, School Committee, library trustees, town moderator, and Warner Free Lecture trustees would continue to be elected.

Why should the Select Board appoint people rather than have them elected?

• For many years, too few people chose to run for an elected position. If you look at this year’s ballot, only the Library Trustees positions are contested.
• The Charter Commission felt strongly that people may be more willing to serve when asked than they are if they have to run a campaign.
• Many other towns appoint such boards.
• Safeguards for the appointing process include a directive that volunteers must represent a cross-section of town and, for many positions, a requirement that four of the five members of the Select Board must approve an appointment.
• The Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission, boards very similar in function to the Planning Board and Board of Health, have long been appointed rather than elected.

Does the charter give new powers to the Select Board?

No. The mandates of our town’s boards and committees will not change. The charter calls on the Select Board to be effective leaders by giving it responsibility to identify pressing problems, both long and short term, and the resources and structure with which to solve them.

Many aspects of town government, as you know it, will not change. There will still be open town meetings, town caucus for nomination, and current staggered terms for boards and committees. Voters will still elect the town moderator, School Committee members, library trustees, and Warner Free Lecture trustees, and the moderator will continue to appoint the Finance Committee.

Can changes be made to the charter in the future?

Yes. There is a straightforward procedure where an article for the formation of a charter review committee is brought to a vote at Annual Town Meeting. If that passes, the moderator shall appoint a review committee, which would bring its recommendations for revisions before Town Meeting the following year. At a minimum, the state requires a charter review committee every 10 years, but the town is free to amend more frequently.

A vote yes on question 1 is a vote for effective government.

Many frequently asked questions and answers can be found at www.harvard.ma.us/charter-commission.

Stephanie Opalka and Sharon McCarthy are members of Harvard’s elected nine-member Charter Commission.

I was enthusiastic when I heard the idea of a town charter being floated and quickly signed the petition asking that a committee to draft one be established. However, I am sadly disappointed at the final version of a charter being presented to the town for a vote on May 8 and will reluctantly vote no on its adoption.

When I first heard about the charter, I thought this was a great opportunity for the town to take a fresh look at how its government is organized and run; to compare its organization with that of other similarly sized towns; to look at best practices used by towns throughout the state; to consult experts; and to come up with an improved version of town government. Unfortunately, what was done was to look at how our town is organized, accept it, and then tinker around the edges. I don’t see the improvement for which I was hoping. My specific reasons for voting no follow.

• Under the proposed charter, we would lose the opportunity to vote for members of the Planning Board, Board of Health, Parks and Rec Commission, Community Preservation Committee, Cemetery Commission, constable, and tree warden. All of these committees would now be appointed by a supermajority (4 out of 5) of the Select Board. Not only do we lose the opportunity to vote, but what happens if there are significant disagreements among members of the Select Board and no agreement by four can be reached? A vacancy remains and the proposed volunteer appointee is significantly embarrassed. (Section 3-2 (b) 2. iii)
• Under the proposed charter, the Select Board would also have to do the following:
  ­
  • Prepare the town’s budget.
  • ­Prepare an annual report.
  • Conduct a fully integrated strategic planning process (more on that later).
  • ­Participate in the development and oversee implementation of the Master Plan.
  • ­Guide and assist town agencies.
  • ­Develop a statement of goals.
  • ­Conduct regular citizen forums.
  • ­Plan for maintenance of town buildings.
• The Select Board would be responsible, within 90 days, for creating a plan to completely reorganize the town’s reporting structure, including budget responsibilities and all appointed committees.
• Will we really have citizens willing and able to take on this much? (Section 3-2 (b) 1, Section 8-5(a)). Even if some duties are delegated to the town administrator, the Select Board has supervisory responsibility for all items.
• Under the proposed charter, after conducting a fully integrated strategic planning process incorporating the Master Plan, the capital investment plan, and the Finance Committee’s five-year plan, the Select Board must develop a statement of goals within 60 days after town meeting. It makes no sense to have town meeting (budget votes) with no current goals from the Select Board. Town meeting should be informed of the Select Board’s goals for the coming year prior to town meeting. (Section 3-2 (b) 1. iv)
• Under the proposed Charter, it is not clear if the integrated strategic planning process is really strategic—as written, it appears to be only for the coming year. A strategic planning process would project out five or 10 years. One need only look at the ‘critical’ need for a new elementary school to see the need for a real strategic planning process. (Section 3-2 (b) I. iv)
• At the Nov. 6, 2017, Town Meeting, we heard conflicting advice on one article from our two “money” boards: the Finance Committee and the Capital Planning and Investment Committee (CPIC). Why do we need two independent agencies? It would simplify understanding if the town had one financial agency giving one report to the town covering both short-term and long-term financial needs. CPIC should be a subcommittee of the Finance Committee. It could retain the same membership as currently configured and would submit its report to the Finance Committee. Those experts could then, in consultation with their subcommittee, write and deliver one unified document on the town’s finances. I believe it would be much easier to understand. The proposed charter retains the current two independent agencies. (Section 3-4 (c); Section 6-5)
• The proposed charter attempts to lay out how articles get on the warrant for town meeting. It fails. The proposed charter states that the Select Board shall “receive petitions” requesting submission to town meeting. What then? It does not state that any such petition must be made an article on the warrant. After receiving the petition, it could be filed away forever. There is no requirement to put it on the warrant. (Section 2-6)
• The proposed charter states that the public works director, appointed by the town administrator, shall, among other duties, supervise and direct the operation and system maintenance of the water and sewer department, cemetery department, pond committee, Conservation Commission, and more. Does the public works director supervise the operation of the water and sewer department and also supervise the other committees? Does he or she, for example, supervise the conservation agent? If so, what experience/knowledge must he or she have? (Section 5-5 (b) 3)
• Under the proposed charter, the budget is the ultimate responsibility of the Select Board, rather than the Finance Committee. The Select Board has to give the Finance Committee its draft budget for comment by Dec. 31 after getting input at an all-boards meeting in September or October. However, CPIC must only get its recommendations to the Select Board by Dec. 31. It is highly likely that the Select Board draft budget will not incorporate anything submitted by CPIC. This makes no sense. (Section 3-2 (b) vi, Section 6-2, Section 6-5 (b))

I will vote no and hope that the town will engage in a better process. If the charter is rejected, the town can learn from this effort by dedicated volunteers. We can hire an expert to advise us and develop a town charter that will bring a more efficient town government, one that encourages residents to participate and provides for sufficient professional staff. If jurisdiction over the historical part of Devens reverts to Harvard, we must have a government ready to assume this additional responsibility. This proposal, I’m afraid, falls short of that.

Jim Breslauer is a former member of the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board.