Members of the Charter Review Committee (CRC) fielded a continuous stream of questions on Saturday, Feb. 20, about their proposal to adopt a town council plus mayoral form of government, with citizen concerns focused on the committee's process, the proposed powers of a mayor, and the new system's cost to the town.

Committee Chairman Alan Slavin opened the meeting by summarizing how and why the committee arrived at their proposal to use a special acts provision to produce a charter for a mayoral and town council form of government.  He acknowledged that both the process and proposal had caused disagreement, however, he hoped that the discussion would focus on what system of government would best meet Wareham's needs.

"Don't let this debate tear the town apart," Slavin stated, quoting Dick Silva of Barnstable who spoke at the committee's previous public meeting on Saturday, Feb. 6, about his town's experience recommending a mayoral and town council form of government. "Remember that your government is only as good as the people who run for the positions."

Nevertheless, several questions concerned the legitimacy of the proposal.

Mel Lazarus wondered why the committee had appeared to immediately change the system of government.  The minutes from the committee's first meeting on March 12, 2009, record a straw poll where the committee voted in favor of changing the form of town government. Some citizens have suggested that this demonstrates that the committee members were appointed by the Board of Selectmen because they, and the board, already favored a mayoral form of government. The CRC denies that charge, and committee member Mick Jones explained that the straw poll was to see whether the committee felt it worthwhile to investigate going beyond the purview of the charter commission to make the changes they felt necessary.

"At the initial meeting, we all brought issues we wanted to change," Jones said.  "We realized that the changes we felt necessary  - for example how to establish a quorum at town meeting, and possibly changing the power of elected officials - went beyond the scope of which is normally done [by a charter review committee]."

He said he recognized that the recorded vote has caused controversy, but stated that the committee had no agreement on the form of government that it would recommend.  Pressed further on the subject, two committee members specified that they had wanted to return to a system with three full-time selectmen, and Slavin stated he had initially favored a representative town meeting.

"It took months before we got to focus on this special form of government [the mayor and town council]." Jones said.  "Until that point months later, there was no consensus [on the mayor / town council]."

Since the changes went beyond their purview, however, the committee had to either request an elected Charter Commission or try and proceed under special acts legislation to write a new charter and present it to voters at Town Meeting.

Slavin said they recognized their decision to choose the latter path as controversial, but felt that it would be speediest and give voters the most input into the process.

Committee members were also asked why they felt that open town meeting didn't work.

Slavin said that town meeting didn't allow the town to act in a timely manner, and there was conflict between the town administrator and the board of selectmen over day-to-day management of the town.

Jones and Len Gay, who will write the dissenting opinion for the committee because he favors three, full-time selectmen, disagreed with the town administrator position being appointed rather than elected.

Jack Houton and Dave Begley felt that low turnout at town meeting resulted in decisions that were unrepresentative of the electorate.

Several citizens were concerned about the proposed mayor's power.

Former school-committee member Carl St. Pierre was concerned that the proposal designates the mayor as the chairman of the school committee.

"You have to have a division of authority," he said after the meeting.  "The school has to maintain autonomy, the mayor doesn't have to control it."  He was particularly worried if the mayor could make political appointments to the school committee.

Cara Winslow, who is a candidate for Selectman, said she had witnessed the Town of Braintree's progression from representative town meeting to a mayoral system and warned that moving to a mayor could force the town to incur additional costs.  She said that in Braintree's case, the elected mayor relied on contractors to provide the expertise that a town manager or administrator would normally possess.  Finding the money to pay for this resulted in cuts to the town's employees.  If an elected mayor didn't have expertise in personnel and contracts, for example, a town would be open to legal liability.  Winslow said that the expertise was essential but costly, and the proposal's cost was a second topic that many other audience members questioned.

Committee member Mick Jones said that most towns the committee had reviewed had anticipated no additional costs but no savings from adopting the mayoral system.  The $180,000 total salaries for a town administrator and deputy town administrator would equal the total salaries of the mayor and chief of staff.  The costs of an elected town council could be canceled out by savings from the cost of town meeting and administrative help.

Winslow recommended that the committee address these costs.

"We need to know the costs associated with this proposal," Winslow said, offering to help the committee draw up a proposed budget for the new system and recommending that they limit the power of the mayor to make political appointments that could require additional salaries.  "I don't think anybody can make a decision without knowing what it would cost."

Committee members stressed that their proposal is still a work in progress and welcomed Winslow's offer to help with further amendments.

"When I joined, it was on Version 7," Begley, who joined the committee two months ago, said.  "Now it's on Version 21.  We are still open to suggestions."

Committee members also indicated that they would have more public-information sessions as they neared Town Meeting, and that both this and the previous public forum were taped and would be available on WCTV.

Turnout was better than the previous forum - Gay said he had counted 74 people in the audience - but Slavin was disappointed more people did not attend.  He felt that the discussion was positive, informative, and more people need to understand what they are proposing.

"I think the public has done a disservice to themselves in not coming," he said.  "A mayor and town council is more of a 21^st-century government, but it's a major change."