If voters agree that it’s time for Harvard to create a charter defining the way its government operates, they have two options. Article 33 on the Town Meeting warrant proposes the formation of a nine-member charter committee appointed by the town moderator. Question 3 on the Town Election ballot proposes the election of a nine-member charter commission to do the same work. Both options are proposed by citizen petitions.
—Elaine Lazarus, Harvard resident and Hopkinton assistant town manager
If both measures pass, Question 3 takes precedence and a commission will be elected from among the 15 commission candidates on the ballot. If Article 33 passes and Question 3 doesn’t, a charter committee will be appointed. If neither passes, town government will stay pretty much as it is.
Proponents of Article 33 say its advantage is that the finished charter would come back to a future town meeting for debate and a vote. An appointed committee, they say, might be more representative, better at reflecting the diversity of Harvard’s residents.
Question 3 proponents argue that an elected commission would be more democratic than an appointed committee. And even though the commission’s proposed charter would not come back to a future town meeting, it would have to pass muster at a future town election, where voter turnout is typically higher.
These and other differences are spelled out in the table below. More details can be found in the talk delivered by Michael Ward of the Collins Center for Public Management at a League of Women Voters of Harvard forum in January. The talk and accompanying slides are available on the Harvard Cable TV YouTube channel (http://bit.ly/1Usmb04).
In making their decisions, voters need to answer three questions: First, do they agree Harvard needs a charter? Second, would they prefer an elected commission or an appointed committee? And finally, would they prefer an opportunity to debate and approve the final product at Town Meeting, or would public hearings followed by a final Town Election vote be sufficient?
Does Harvard need a charter?
The question of whether it’s time for Harvard to create a charter is one that is sure to be debated at Town Meeting when Article 33 is moved and seconded. Two previous town studies, the 2002 Master Plan and a 2007 audit by the Department of Revenue, recommended the creation of one.
This week the Master Plan Steering Committee, noting the fragmented nature of the town’s government and services, poor communication among some boards and departments, and the pending disposition of Devens, recommended that the town “evaluate its overall organizational structure, decide how it should be reorganized, and codify the resulting reorganization.” In its draft report the committee stated, “Adopting a Town Charter … would provide a vehicle for formalizing the process.”
At a second League of Women Voters forum March 5, Harvard’s state representative, Jen Benson, and three panelists with charter experience from Hopkinton, Groton, and Newton said they found little downside to having one, though they advised that choosing committee or commission members wisely was key to a good outcome.
Voices of experience
Before her election to the Legislature, Benson was a member of a committee appointed to conduct a review of Lunenburg’s charter. The advantage of a charter, she said, is that “you get to create the government that you think reflects the values of Harvard.” A charter, she said, is a specific look at how you want the town to process issues, develop policies, do its budgeting, select its town boards, fill administrative positions, and determine what powers to grant those positions. “I think that’s why so many towns have chosen to go this route,“ she said.
As for disadvantages, she said, “It can be a political battle in town over what is in or not in, what is changed or not changed. Along with the decision to self-govern is the decision to take responsibility. That’s not a downside, but it is the only potential downside I can think of.”
Elaine Lazarus of Harvard, who was recently appointed assistant town manager of Hopkinton, said what was most difficult was managing the transition from a familiar organization to one with redefined positions and reporting relationships—changes that could result in personnel changes. Still, she said, “There has never been a day on which I have regretted having a charter.”
The remarks of Benson, Lazarus, and the panelists can be seen on the Harvard Cable TV YouTube channel (see http://bit.ly/1MrGV5a).
To date, little or no opposition to the idea of a charter has been voiced publicly. In a Press “Consider This” column, former chairman of the Board of Selectmen Bill Marinelli, a candidate for the commission, challenged proponents to give more explicit reasons for why a charter is needed. But there have been only one or two letters to the editor on the topic and little comment on Nextdoor Harvard.
Committee or commission?
Once voters have decided for or against a town charter, they must next choose whether they prefer an appointed committee or an elected commission.
Worth Robbins of Mass. Ave. (a co-owner of the Press), who led the signature drives to put Article 33 on the warrant and Question 3 on the ballot, says that choice is unintended. “I strongly prefer the elected commission, because the statutory process is stronger, more fully ensuring maximum representation and participation,” he said in an email this week. “I viewed Article 33 as an opportunity for Town Meeting to ensure that a charter will be developed, even if the ballot question fails.”
In her remarks at the LWV March forum, Benson said she thought it more important to make sure there’s a wide variety of backgrounds on the committee or commission. “I think the most important thing is [to have] people who are passionate about Harvard, people who are willing to put the work in, and people who … represent the [town’s] makeup…. If you do that, you can’t lose.” A mix of young and old, parents of school children and retirees, is more important than hand-picking members for their skills, she said.
If Question 3 prevails, voters will elect nine commissioners from among the 15 candidates on the ballot. If Article 33 prevails, the town moderator will choose the committee. Bob Eubank is Harvard’s moderator. He is up for election this year, but is running unopposed.
Finally, there’s the question of whether voters want Annual Town Meeting to have final say on a draft charter, or whether open hearings followed by a vote at a Town Election would be sufficient. Under Article 33, a charter would have to be approved by Town Meeting before being sent to the Legislature for enactment. With Question 3, final approval of a charter would rest solely with voters at a Town Election. Although a commission charter would be reviewed by the attorney general, its approval by Town Meeting or the Legislature would not be required.
How long either process would take is a matter of debate. State law allows a charter commission 18 months to complete its work, though at its discretion it could choose a faster path. Article 33 would give an appointed charter committee one year—a time limit that could be amended at Town Meeting—but as a special act it would have to make its way through the Legislature, and final approval could take longer than the 18 months allowed a commission.
Casting your vote
To have a voice in the outcome, voters will need to take part in both the Town Meeting debate and the Town Election. Here’s a quick guide for the perplexed:
- If you favor a charter but don’t care how it’s created, vote yes for both (that’s to ensure that if the ballot question fails, the article would remain in effect).
- If you favor a special act charter via an appointed commission, vote yes for Article 33 and no on the ballot question.
- If you favor an elected commission, all you have to do is show up at Town Election and vote yes on the ballot question.
- If you oppose a charter, you should vote no for Article 33 at Town Meeting and no for Ballot Question 3 at Town Election.
And in any case, citizens should be sure to vote for nine of the 15 candidates running for seats on the commission. If Question 3 passes, the nine elected will be seated.
Article 33, it should be noted, is one of four articles on this year’s warrant that deal with the organization of Harvard’s town government. Articles 34, 35, and 36 propose changes to the duties of the town administrator and the manner in which the town clerk and constable are chosen. Their passage would not interfere with the work of either a charter committee or commission, which could choose to accept or amend them as part of a more sweeping reorganization of town offices.
CLICK CHART TO ENLARGE
