|
Over the past 6-7 months I've listened to experts from
within and outside of Plymouth; elected and appointed officials; prior charter
commissioners and current charter commissioners. I've also encouraged the public to speak and have listened to
their input. I appreciate the efforts
of everyone who has participated.
Early
on, I outlined to the public and the commission a 4-step process of listening;
diagnosing, writing and promoting a charter that will be put forth to the
voters in the spring of 2008. Today we
are standing on the front doorstep of the diagnosis phase. It is with great bewilderment, therefore,
that I hear from individuals on PACTV, and OCM Speak-Out and Wicked Local
Forums that this Commission is not open to new ideas and that this Charter is
DOA. While everyone is entitled to his
or her opinion - frankly, I think this is a bit premature. I'm thankful, however, that those naysayer's
chose NOT to become Emergency Room physicians as I could envision they would be
up-to-their-eyeballs in cadavers ;-)
For
the record, let me state that, as of today, I think moving toward a city
charter has a lot of merit.
Transitioning our government toward a form sitting in continuous session
and setting its own agenda will help us become more nimble and responsive.
Let
me also state that within the appropriate context I support the concept of an
elected Mayor. And by that, I mean an
individual who could paint a vision, unite and lead a "multi-disciplined" group of
individuals charged with long-range strategic planning much like that described
by Nick Filla last week. An individual
who could use their political savvy to seek compromise while simultaneously
addressing the needs of Plymouth; an individual who would leverage their
political capital to get things done without the need of an excessive
concentration of power.
HOWEVER,
unlike some, I don't believe a Mayor will be the panacea for Plymouth. I don't believe the Mayor will be just a
phone call away. In fact, I do not want
the Mayor to become the "go-to-guy" for "fix-my-pothole" issues. And I do believe many who have come
before us seeking a Mayor are looking to address "fix-my-pothole" issues. That said, those individuals have the need and
the right to have representation at the "local" level that can address
those issues. I'm excited, therefore,
when I hear of Anthony, Dick and others speak of at-large and precinct level
council members who, could fight for their constituents and provide the "local
knowledge" at the legislative and executive levels the residents deserve.
For
those of us who have lived in Plymouth for a while, this point might seem moot,
however, I think it is the basis for a lot of dismay and confusion for some of
our newer residents. For them,
Plymouth's government seems to resemble the game of "shoots and ladders" - who
do they seek out with "fix-my-pothole issues"? their Town Meeting Rep? their
Steering Committee? their Precinct Chair? the Selectman? the Town Manager? We need to craft a charter that provides
transparency and accountability that is clear, effective and efficient to
address this problem.
Much
like the Mayor, though, this too will not be a panacea. There is an issue that we as a town need to
acknowledge. It's the 3,000 lbs pink
elephant standing in the middle of the living room that some conveniently try
to ignore....size does matter!
Plymouth
is the largest municipality in Massachusetts. Traveling 20 miles to the North puts you in Hingham - the same
trip to the South never leaves Plymouth.
The challenges for West Plymouth are not the same as those in Buttermilk
Bay; the challenges of Cedarville are not those of The Pinehills, and therefore
the belief that centralized decisions, "one size fits all" must be
questioned. We need to understand our sense of community - that unifying purpose which, like the Pilgrim's first
winter, bands individuals together - and cannot allow a tax-rate to continue to
be the sole unifying purpose. Our
community is being stretched thin by our sheer size and current socioeconomic
climate. Our Charter cannot ignore
this.
It
would be wrong for us to listen to Rich Kelliher tonight speak of Brookline's
Representative Town Meeting form of government and a population and budget
that's roughly the same as ours and deduce that we do not need to change. It would be just as wrong, therefore, for us
to look at the City of Weymouth with its similar population/budget and accept
their charter whole cloth. And in fact,
Plymouth has rejected this latter idea...twice.
In
our deliberations we must acknowledge that 33 square miles of Plymouth has not
been developed yet and the profit potential to develop that land can
create a lot of "political mischief". I
am therefore encouraged to hear Margie Burgess' reminder for checks and
balances or concern for concentration of power. The profit motivation is too great for us to ignore this
fact. In absence of the checks and
balances, and a concentration of power, campaigns and their financing will draw
from only two constituents:
-
or
those beholden to them.
We
need look no further than our current State and Federal politicians who are
increasingly being directed by Corporate America and special interests. Earlier last year we heard from Linda
Benezra, former Counselor for the City of Melrose of the money spent to elect
their mayor - $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 - sometime spending these amounts even
when running unopposed. It's not a
stretch to imagine where these funds would come from in the context of 33 square
miles of undeveloped land.
I
am excited, therefore, by the expanded council ideas that David Buckman, Nick
Filla and Bill Abbott have suggested ensuring large, consensus issues (such as
major zoning of large land parcels) will not be decided by the few, but rather
the many.
This
makes for a nice segue into another hot issue:
the Commission's selection of a Consultant.
For
those unfamiliar with standard governance models, the vision that I've just
described does not fit nicely into the traditional Open Town Meeting;
Representative Town Meeting; City Counsel; or Mayor models. I think our charter will draw from the
concepts of all of these...a hybrid government.
To craft such a legal document will require someone comfortable with
"thinking outside the box". I felt,
therefore, that we needed to carefully select the consultant who will help us
craft Plymouth's next charter.
Several
weeks ago, I contacted Bob Ritchie, Marilyn Contreas, and Pete Hechenbleikner
of the MMA and MMMA asking for suggested names/firms who might be able to
assist us in such a task. A half a
dozen names were provided to me (along with email addresses) to which three
replied to my subsequent "request of interest":
1.
Michael
Curran
2.
Tom
Groux
3.
Lauren
Goldberg
Needless
to say from our meeting last week, all three respondents had very impressive
backgrounds. I felt that each brought
specific elements to the table and wanted each Commissioner to have the
opportunity to express their thoughts and cast their vote for the consultant that
they were most comfortable with.
I would
like to outline my reasoning for my vote.
While
I readily acknowledge the Mr. Curran's background is impressive and his
experience in writing charters vast (I think he said he's authored over 80 to
date) I also felt his approach was somewhat rigid and overbearing - and indeed
others that had worked with him spoke of this.
As the Chair of this commission and the one most likely to interact with
the consultant, I didn't feel this was a dynamic that would be conducive to the
task I've outlined earlier.
Mr.
Groux's credentials were equally impressive - providing extensive experience in
the area on Town Management. I'm
confident that if we were simply to chose from the traditional four or simply
tweak our existing form; Tom would be an excellent choice. This of course is not what Plymouth is
looking for, and in light that Tom is not an attorney I felt that we would be
place in a compromised position moving forward.
On
the other hand Ms. Goldberg, while displaying significant knowledge and
background in municipal law lacked the "charter-authoring portfolio" that Mr.
Curran brought to the table. As stated
earlier, though, I felt our charge was not to simply adopt an existing
charter, but rather adapt from the several forms that are out there (and
perhaps even beyond).
In
my mind, this task is not for the meek.
It is a journey that will require a lot of perseverance, and an attitude
of exploring the uncharted territory or terra incognita. In such a case, I wanted to ensure our
consultant had as much "skin in the game" as we did; someone whose resume could
not accept failure; someone with a fresh set of eyes for the problem. I felt Ms. Goldberg was that individual.
So
my motivation was not to protect the "old guard" nor indicate that this Charter
is Dead on Arrival. Rather, my intent
and I think I speak for all of us at the table, was to select an individual
who would work with us to ensure not only that we hit our milestones, but more
importantly, we addressed the needs of Plymouth as we move forward.
In
closing, let me reiterate, I'm excited by the possibilities moving
forward. The road is not well charted,
but I'm confident we will - like the Pilgrims before us - will find a better
way. I look forward to working with the
commissioners and the public as we walk through this to ensure that all
of Plymouth's concerns are addresses.
If you are firmly entrenched in the extremes of the municipal government
continuum, I'm guessing you're probably not going to like what we come up with -
however, for those in the "meat" of the bell-curve, I think we will craft (with
your help) a charter that meets your needs as well as the needs of the
generations ahead of us.
|
