Barnstable Free Press

Gregory Milne's Charter Commission Minority Report

“The fact that a charter commission is authorized is…indicative of an underlying popular urge for substantial improvement…to find the highest attainable level of improvement, not just a token advance…”- National Civic League - Guide For Charter Commissions

The final Charter Commission report does not remedy what is wrong with our current charter. The Charter Commission did not achieve its most basic goal of listening to you and following your lead. Local government belongs to us all. Thirty two months ago concerned citizens began collecting signatures to exercise their constitutional right to ask you to convene a charter commission. By a 3-1 margin you voted for a commission and you elected a majority of commission members who publicly favored an elected chief executive. Despite your preference the commission conducted a process which upheld the status quo. The proposed charter is at best an incremental and token advance.

The final report states that the current Council/Manager form of government was still the best….. “It has worked well for us over the years and should be preserved.” This and other arbitrary statements seek to justify the commission’s timid decision to keep our current form of government. Did petitioners sway 7000 voters to sign the charter petition to support the status quo?…No. Did thousands of Barnstable voters support electing a Charter Commission to preserve the foundation of the council/manager form of our current charter?….No. They took these actions because they saw something fundamentally wrong with our current charter, after virtually no change in twenty years. Media and government officials characterized the Charter Commission as just another town committee routinely charged with updating our town charter. On the contrary, Superior Court Justice Robert J. Kane called this process a “constitutional convention” and thus an instrument of the people. Judge Kane ruled that…“A Charter Commission is not internal or subordinate to a town but rather external and independent. Deriving its authority from the Massachusetts constitution and legislative enactment, a Charter Commission autonomously examines a town’s organizational arrangements, considers alternative forms and proposes structural changes. A Charter Commission’s external and independent authority categorically differentiates it from a town’s office….” Unfortunately, Charter Commissioners chose a conservative, subordinate role to town government by deferring to the town’s legal department, employees of the town manager, thus squandering their independent authority. They didn’t fulfill their legally defined role.

Throughout the 32 month process voters expressed their desire to regain ownership of the executive branch. Proposed charter Section 1-3 Division of Powers states: “All legislative powers of the town shall be exercised by a town council. The administration of all town fiscal, business and municipal affairs shall be vested in the executive branch headed by the Town Manager.” How are these branches divided when the town council hires and fires the town manager? Don’t capable voters deserve the right to elect their chief executive? Why does the final report define the elected council presidency as the highest town office while the proposed charter maintains the chief executive role of the town manager?

Many believe commissioners prematurely rejected the idea of electing the chief executive. My motion to elect the chief executive, although timely and appropriate, was summarily dismissed. The chairman and consultant said it was too late to make such a change. Yet I made this motion at the meeting held the day after the second required public hearing. Public input naturally followed publication of the preliminary report to insure its inclusion in the final report. This begs the question whether the commission sincerely intended to honor the publics’ wishes.

Is a part-time town councilor beholden to a town manager’s power in controlling town resources? Section 1-3 places the town manager in the top government office in this proposed charter. Since the full-time town manager is the most powerful why does it make sense to have part-time town councilors serving a supervisory role over the manager? Is it realistic to expect the newly elected part-time $25,000 per- year council president to be an effective supervisor of the full time $135,000 per-year town manager? Councilors are subject to term limits which do not apply to town manager’s contract extensions. Therefore, as councilors often change every 4 years the manager serves longer which adds  to the managers’ superior authority. Since the manager’s evaluation is not conducted in public, as was originally recommended by the consultant, the written evaluation legally becomes part of the private personnel file of the town manager as a town employee. Wouldn’t you prefer an elected chief executive whose administration you could evaluate at every election, thus providing the greatest level of transparency and accountability? Eighty nine percent of residents polled in a professional survey did.

Almost all public testimony criticized the elected council president. Speakers felt this new position further entangles the legislative and executive branches. This entanglement represents the most fundamental flaw in both our current and the proposed charters. Only two Massachusetts cities independently elect their council president. According to their city councilors their communication is restricted to the council president which prevents them from influencing the town manager. There are several proposed changes which would improve our government. Sadly however, the failure to squarely tackle the question of electing the chief executive represents a fatal flaw at the core of this governing document. If you defeat this proposal we may have an opportunity to support a ballot question asserting our desire to elect our chief executive.

Respectfully Submitted,
J. Gregory Milne
May 1, 2009

15 ways to screw your neighborhood

It took me the better part of three weeks to get this map from Town Hall. Take a look at these Precinct boundaries and you'll understand why.

The new Charter combines three precincts for each councilor for a total of five. There will be five councilors elected at large and the council president for a total of eleven councilors. One or more villages will lose direct representation with this schema.

Either Marston Mills goes the way of the dodo bird or Centerville needs to stage a takeover of Barnstable Village. There are only so many ways to chop Barnstable up into 15 pieces.

For a PDF version of this map, see: Barnstable Precincts 15 (1304.9K PDF)

To be fair, I offer the following disclaimer from the Town Clerk:

I found out you have been trying to get a copy of the discussion map of 15 precincts that was created. 

I had spoken with Richard Clark when the charter was in the beginning stages. He was looking to see what a map of the town of Barnstable would look like if it had 15 precincts. I looked to see if we had any of the maps that had been created by Boston for the last census that had a number of different variations of 12, 14 and 15 precincts - we did not. 

Our GIS Dept. was good enough to take what figures we have (based on the 2000 census) and drew a 15 precinct map for the charter commission to get an idea of what it would look like.  This is not an "official" map - it is basically a map that was utilized for discussion purposes.  That is why it was not filed with our official maps.

This is the future Richard Clark is offering you.

Bob Jones' Last Hurrah

Update: Barnstable Charter Commission votes 6-1 to reject a mayoral form of government. See comment section for
live blog of this critical vote.

John Klimm doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to run for Mayor

Barnstable would be a far better place, if John Klimm hadn't retired to Town Hall. Klimm's lack of political ambition and his obsession with dominating every aspect of Barnstable's political life cheapens all of us.

I had a pleasant conversation with Bob Jones last night after the public hearing for the proposed new Charter. Jones was clearly disappointed by the two hearings and was visibly annoyed that we hadn't given the proposed new Charter a "fair" hearing. He suggested we consider a weak mayor similar to the City of Worchester. Those who advocated for an elected Chief Executive won't be satisfied with this option.

   As a fourth generation Coddah and former Town Councilor, Jones was in an unfamiliar role last night. Only a handful of the faithful came forward to support the work of the Charter Commission. We filled the room with malcontents - mild mannered, gray haired malcontents.

   In all seven people spoke in favor of the present Charter. Three of them were legitimate citizens expressing their opinion on municipal affairs. Then, the Klimm-boobs staged a very short parade of the usual suspects. But even they  were incapable of mustering support for Richard Clark's new Charter. They liked things as they are.

The good ol'boys who spoke included a former President of the Centerville Civic Assoc. (known here as John Palmer), a former WB Fire Chief, a former Chairman of Hyannis Water (and dedicated Klimm-boob), and a former Town Councilor from Marstons Mills. They spoke fondly of sharing "a cup of coffee" with their fearful leader.

The rest of us spoke for accountablity in Town government. We had 12 or more folks speak including the President of the Hyannis Civic Association and several HCA members who also spoke on behalf of expanded authority for the CFAC. We outnumbered the Klimm-boobs 2-1 and still they call us malcontents.

Bob Jones said as he turned to walk out with Royden Richardson, "This town sure has changed.."

Yes, it has. 

We'll know tonight if Jones makes his move for a weak Mayor. Calling the top vote getter a Mayor and asking him/her to stand election every two years won't produce the sort of candidates we need to lead our Town. But, it could distract the voters enough for John Klimm to serve his remaining years retired on our dime in Town Hall.

This could be Bob Jones' Last Hurrah - a non-Mayor Mayor from Worchester.

Reader note: John Julius is fighting the good fight alone tonight. He'll be attending the Charter Commission meeting at 7 pm. There is some talk that Fitton may speak in favor of a Mayor tonight.  We'll be live blogging this event. Please add your comments.

The Barnstable Enterprise needs to sharpen it's quill

Are you disappointed by the quality of the editorials
in the Barnstable Enterprise?

Editorials aren't about news. Editorials are about opinion. The Barnstable Enterprise's recent editorial on the proposed new Barnstable Charter was neither.

Here's an excerpt:

Out of the town’s approximately 32,000 voters, about 40 showed up last Thursday night for the first public hearing for the preliminary draft of a new town charter, and gave the document a resounding thumbs down. They expressed anger and frustration, even claiming the commission that drafted the document had not listened to voters and had not done its job. One audience member became so heated that the police were called. Three Barnstable Police officers guarded the session for the remainder of the hearing.

The town charter is actually the town’s constitution, and members of the Charter Commission have been meeting for the past 17 months as a Constitutional Convention to work on the document.

The good news, as one charter committee member said later, is that those who attended the meeting had clearly read the charter document closely. The bad news is that they didn’t like what they read. But with such a small sampling of voters, what should the charter committee take away from the meeting?

Does the document draft need a thorough rewrite to express the will of this small group of voters?

Some of the points were well-made and several charter committee members said after the hearing that they plan to suggest that some parts of the draft be revised. But on the main point, whether the town should have a mayor instead of a town manager, it is hard to know what the majority of voters want.

One man who attended the hearing claims a poll he conducted shows that Barnstable voters want a mayor, but others dispute that claim. Perhaps a bigger question is why don’t voters care what this document says...

Like Richard Clark's Charter, The Enterprise's editorials are neither fish nor fowl. You have no idea what they were trying to accomplish.

Barnstable is a small town and to say that only a small sampling of voters voiced their opinion on the proposed new Charter belies the fact that this was the largest gathering of folks EVER to express their opinion on the handiwork of Richard Clark's Charter Commission.

There were several new and unexpected voices who came out of the woodwork that night and every one of them voiced their dissatisfaction with the proposed draft.

And, there is a poll. In fact there are two polls which have been conducted on the issue of Charter reform. The poll conducted here has another small sampling.

Here's a sample question with results which will be presented on Wednesday:

As you can see, this sample shows the SAME result as we saw the other night at the first public hearing for the proposed Charter. Folks overwhelmingly will not support a Charter which does not include an opportunity to vote for a Mayor.

My question is this. If there are folks who support Richard Clark's proposed new Charter for the Town of Barnstable, where are they?

I can't find them - anywhere. The sample of Clark's supporters is so small that it is invisible.

If you'd like to participate in our survey, click here now!

How many Town Councilors do you want in Barnstable?

I'd like thank all the folks who participated in our survey yesterday.

If you have not had an opportunity to make your voice heard, please let us know what you think of Richard Clark's proposed new Charter for the Town of Barnstable.

Click here to take Survey now!

I'll present the findings of this study at the next Charter hearing.

The Barnstable Patriot ran several articles on the first public hearing. They wrote in part:

All of the commissioners expressed a desire to hear more, from more of the public, at the next hearing.

“More constructive comments,” Fitton wrote (emphasis in original). “If you live in the town of Barnstable, view this as your duty to read the ideas set forth in the charter draft and make comments.”

“After all, when all's said and done, we are still one community and this is our chance to be active participants. Working together (including compromise!) towards a common goal for a healthy and functional place to call home,” Fitton wrote.

Jones is looking for comments that focus on the draft report itself.

“I would like to know the public’s thoughts about a reduced council vs. our present 13-member council,” Jones wrote in an email response. “I would like to know what elements of the charter need to be clarified to the public for a better understanding of the proposed charter changes.”

Clark agreed. “What I would love to see is some people who understand what we’ve changed and what we want to do,” Clark said. “As a commission member, you want comments on the document that you created, which we’re not hearing.”

See: Expect changes in charter draft

For a summary of comments at the first hearing, see: Public finds charter draft lacking

I'd like to offer some of my own thoughts on Clark's proposed charter.

I've never been more than a tepid supporter of a mayoral form of government. I prefer not to concentrate too much power in the hands of any one individual. But, I do believe we can make a mayoral form of government work. The system we have now is so clearly broken that I think almost anything would be better.

If the Town Council was required to vote to approve the mayor's budget and it was empowered to veto mayoral initiatives, I think we could make this arrangement work.

I do think that we have to expand the oversight of the CFAC to include enterprise accounts and I think their role should be codified in the Charter.

I think we need elected water commissioners in Hyannis. The arrangement we have now is illegal.

AND...I think we need to expand the number of Town Councilors from the proposed 9 to 11 or 13 or 15. The more the merrier.

For some time I've thought that reducing the number of councilors would be a desirable goal. Also, I've supported the idea of at-large councilors. But, I've changed my mind on these issues.

I'm not convinced that at-large councilors buys us anything. Yes, it would be desirable to offer residents an opportunity to elect 51% of their representatives. This is the idea behind the 5/4 mix proposed in Clark's Charter. Under the proposed Charter you would have an opportunity to elect one District Councilor and four at-large Councilors.

But..

To date, 40% of respondents to our survey have called for an increase in the number of councilors from 13 to 15. Several speakers at the last public hearing offered comments which support this idea. Presumably, these voters don't support at-large representation.

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this.

Do you wish to retain Precinct Councilors? If so, how many and why?

Last Chance to Vote - Do you want to elect a mayor?

We're asking folks to make their voice heard

What do you think about Barnstable's proposed new Town Charter? Take our survey and let us know what you think.

See: http://www.surveymonkey.com/

The results of a previous survey taken last November showed that Town residents overwhelming preferred a mayor.

Here are the published results from the November 4th survey:

http://barnstablepatriot.com/home2/docs/Poll_Results.pdf

We'll present the results of our online survey at the final public hearing for the Charter Commission.

Thank you for your participation.

Comprehensive Financial Advisory Committee (CFAC) calls for grass roots representation of the citizens

Of the 20 or so folks who spoke at last weeks public charter hearing, Bill Cronin and his wife, Laura, were the most impressive.

I wish I had a copy of Bill's comments to post. They were lengthy and quite detailed.

Laura Cronin spoke in her official capacity as a member of the Comprehensive Financial Advisory Committee (CFAC). A draft of the letter she read was posted to the Town website yesterday.

See: http://town.barnstable.ma.us/Finance/CFACPubs/CFAC_Letter_Charter%20Comm%20031209.pdf

The CFAC is "requesting reconsideration of inclusion into the new Charter, by the Commission.

This request is made to ensure that the citizens of Barnstable are afforded effective and responsible financial oversight. Inclusion in the Charter document secures that oversight for its citizenry, and cannot be disbanded or neglected, unless voted out by their vote."

A concern is that the "CFAC has no participation in reviewing for recommendation, the Enterprise Funds budgets (Airport, Golf Course, Water, etc.). These funds expend approximately $24m/yr without financial oversight from any advisory committee."

At present there is more "free cash" in Enterprise account reserves than in the General Fund.

Source: http://town.barnstable.ma.us/Finance/Barnstable%20CAFR%20FY2008.pdf

These monies are not subject to public scrutiny and are outside the purview of the CFAC. This is public money and it requires public oversight.

Finally, the CFAC stated that  "with the proposed Town Council President in your present document, nothing changes with the budget accountability or oversight. There are no checks and balances to hold the Town Council or Town Manager accountable. We need the grass roots representation of the citizens in this process. Inclusion in the Charter solidifies this, and let’s the voters decide whether they want to exclude this process.

The call for "check and balances" was perhaps the most stated concern of all the speakers who rose to express their distaste for Clark's abomination.

Do you want to try, again?

Is another Charter petition drive in the works?

There is a growing chorus of folks who want to get a new Charter initiative off the ground. There's talk of pulling papers and waiving blank petitions in the faces of the sitting Charter Commission.

I wonder what Al Baker thinks of this idea.

It seems to me that we shouldn't run off half-cocked on this one. If there is a ground swell of support for a new charter drive, why not formalize our intentions with another meeting at Liberty Hall?

I remembered that there was a picture taken of the folks who played a pivotal role in the collection of signatures last time around. I couldn't find it, but I did find this blurb from the Barnstable Star Tabloid:

Charter signature drive complete, enough to place a question      
Written by David Still II  -  June 05, 2007

The final signatures calling for an elected charter commission were provided to the Barnstable Town Clerk's office Friday afternoon, and while they are yet to be certified, there are already enough to place a charter question on November's ballot.

Greg Milne, a Hyannis town councilor and lead organizer of the petition drive, signed off on the final paperwork along with key signature collectors Friday afternoon.

Among those attending and signing were Robert Bastille of Hyannis, Tom Dolby of Marstons Mills, Peter Doiron of Barnstable Village, Allen Goddard of Hyannis, John Julius of Hyannis, Kelly Lydon of Marstons Mills and Tony Pelletier of Hyannis.

Town Clerk Linda Hutchenrider expected signature verification to be completed shortly, followed by a letter of transmittal to the town council indicating that the petition calling for an election had been certified.

Hutchenrider said that regardless of the council's action on the merits of the petition, the charter question will be placed on the ballot, having exceeded the 10 percent signature threshold..."

This story should clarify some of the miscommunication we found in the comments of the last post.

So, what do you say? We know John Julius is on board for another charter drive.  Anyone else?

New Barnstable Charter resoundingly rebuked at public comment

epiph·a·ny (Pronunciation: \i-ˈpi-fə-nē\ ): A usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something  (2): an intuitive grasp of reality through something (as an event) usually simple and striking  (3): an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure b: a revealing scene or moment

I wanted to see with my own eyes who would stand and defend the proposed new Charter for the Town of Barnstable at the first of two public comment meetings. Of the forty or so residents who attended:

No one - not one person - rose to defend this abomination.

Those who did rise spoke articulately and passionately about reform. But, their comments fell on deaf ears. Richard Clark's Charter Commission has done their job. They have produced a Town Charter which no one can support.

A Cape Cod Living reader summed up the evening:

Anonymous said...

Many people would be embarrassed to see hours of their work overwhelmingly rejected by their fellow citizens. It is deeply depressing to think that, for some of these commissioners, this fiasco is nothing more than a dirty day's work, a disagreeable assignment to block reform and maintain the status quo. It's one thing to take one for the team, quite another to betray the public interest and make a fool of yourself for the team. Especially this team.

It was an epiph·a·ny of sorts for me to realize that Clark never had any intention of drafting a Charter which might actually improve our Town. He intentionally sabotaged this effort by presenting himself to the voting public as a reform candidate and producing a document which did so little to change the status quo. It's just more of the same from Clark.

Betraying the public trust is a dirty job. Richard Clark seems up to the challenge.

Fred Chirigotis performs "ceremonial" purposes under new Charter

If I wanted a parrot, I'd buy one.

Under the terms of the proposed Barnstable Town Charter:

The council president shall be recognized as the official head of the town for ceremonial purposes. The council president, or his designee, shall represent the town in its relations with other units of government, the media and the public.

We asked Cape Cod Living readers how they felt about this provision in the proposed Barnstable Charter. A long time reader sent us this interpretation:

Find more videos like this on Cape Cod Living

In the recent interview with the Barnstable Enterprise, Charter Commission member Lucien Poyant said:

...going into this charter process, he had been strongly in favor of the town switching to a mayor form of government. He said he does not feel that concept got a sufficient airing at the commission meetings. But he said he is pleased that the draft document gives voters the ability to vote for the majority of their government. He also said that having the councilors at large and the elected council president is “not exactly what I wanted but is a step in the right direction.”

I didn't realize that a downward spiral was considered a desirable direction.

For more on how the proposed Barnstable Charter will serve your best interests, see:

http://town.barnstable.ma.us/TownClerk/CharterPrelimReport.pdf