Forum: Charter Review

Every ten years, a Selectmen-appointed committee reviews the Town of Wareham Charter, the official document that grants rights of self-governance to the town. Next town meeting, The Charter Review Committee  will propose that Wareham replace open town meeting with an elected mayor and town council. It's a controversial issue - especially after the contentious town meeting this fall. To explore this proposal, we asked Charter Review Committee chairman Alan Slavin and Wareham resident Peter Baum, who applied but was not appointed to the Committee, the following questions.

Does Wareham need to change its Charter?

Alan Slavin: Yes. There is a disconnect among the administration, the Board of Selectmen, department heads and employees of the town. There's too much gray area - for instance,what is the responsibility of the town administrator vs. the Board of Slectmen? Who runs the day-to-day operation of the town? - A change to a town council will clarify who's in charge. Additionally, with the legislative branch being town meeting, ordinances can only be passed twice a year. A town council able to pass ordinances will allow the town to act more efficiently.

Peter Baum: Yes. The Charter is just the basis for setting up structure to make changes. We've seen the effects of a poor charter and poor organization - it leads to poor management and mistakes. And this results in difficulty recruiting good people to run for town office. If they make a mistake, it can lead to legal fees, which impact the revenue, which snowballs into more problems.

So the Charter needs updating, but does our legislative form of government?

Alan Slavin: Town Meeting doesn't allow the government to function. It's hard to get things done because decisions are made very much by, and I hate to use this word but it does, unfortunately, seem to apply, "interest groups." There's been political divisions in town for a long time, but during the last three years it has reached an extreme - it's like a religious war, there's no recognition of common ground. Last town meeting, there was a very anti-Selectmen sentiment, anything the Selectmen recommended was voted down. That's not what Town Meeeting is designed for. If you have approximately 15,000 voters and only 300 vote, and the same core of 150 people dominate the discussion, that doesn't reflect the town's thoughts.

Peter Baum: I think Town Meeting has been very succesfuly in making good decisions: it's not overcrowded, and I was struck with the intelligence of the debate and, when people argued against a proposal, I thought they had good reason. As for a lack of civility, many people felt that the actions of the moderator (for example, miscounting a vote to disband the meeting, allegedly preventing people from speaking or voting) were an abuse of power. The moderation, not the form of government, was the problem. Town Meeting is a legislative balance to the consolidation of power - it would be bad for the town in practice, but particularly now when people are concerned with officials consolidating power, to abandon this format.

So there's controversy over which form of government - open town meeting with a town administrator or manager and/or selectmen, a town council and a mayor, or representative town meeting - will be most effective, but the real problem seems to be the daily management of the town. Why is this such an issue in Wareham?

Alan Slavin: Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the town administrator role has gone from being very weak to being very strong as you increasingly need a professional to run the town - The Town of Wareham is essentially a $60-$70 million a year business. With the economy going in the wrong direction, budget cuts meant that there weren't enough people in place to do the best job possible. Volunteers are wonderful, but they are not proficient in the latest rules and regulations that can lead to problems.

Peter Baum: The Charter says the selectmen are supposed to make policy decisions not run the town; But they are doing it. They are also the sewer commissioners and the road commissioners and this gets them involved in areas where they are unqualified and has led to a lot of mistakes. Some people think the mistakes are indication of malintent, but they just don't have the knowledge or expertise in the area - it's not their fault.

There has been controversy since the inception of the Charter Review Committee, but one prevalent criticism is that it has focused on changing the town government rather than reviewing the Charter. How do you respond?

Slavin: A charter committee is unable to change the role of the selectmen - that needs to be done by a charter commission that is elected and bypasses town meeting. A committee is appointed by the selectmen and makes recommendations that go before Town Meeting and, if passed, goes to the State Legislature for approval, then back to the town for a ballot vote. From the beginning, it was very clear that almost everybody on the committee felt that we needed a change to the government. The easy choice would be to go back and say 'we need a commission,' but we decided to get as much information as we could so each committee member was assigned Massachusetts towns who had changed their system from an open town meeting to other forms. The town council seems to be the best alternative and worthy of proposing to the town. If they vote no, then we still have until November to try and resolve the existing Charter.

Baum: They're within their right to change the Charter, it's fair to do, and it's legal. It could have been a reasonable choice in theory, but looking at the practical considerations we find ourselves in, I think it was a poor choice - I don't think they'll be successful in changing it to a mayoral and town council form of government, and the changes they propose would make the perception of unbalanced power worse. It would be bad for the town in practice, but it has an added disadvantage of the Committee not spending their time reviewing the Charter and making less radical changes to it that will have to be done [when their proposal doesn't pass] anyways.