In Part 1 of this article, I explained how the Wareham Board of Selectmen has a plan to grab power in April through their handpicked Charter Review Committee.  If successful, this consolidation of power will take from you, the Wareham voter, the power to enact legislation and the power to control your tax dollars.  The proposed charter change will limit information, limit debate, and place all real power in the hands of just a few individuals.  In this installment, I will describe how these tools of power - the ability to control information, limit debate, and place power in the hands of a few individuals - is reflected in the actions of the Charter Review Committee as they went about the task of deciding how to "review" the current charter.

The very first official meeting of the Charter Review Committee was held on March 12, 2009, although only 6 of the 9 appointed members attended.  The minutes of that meeting show that the majority of committee members already had made up their minds about making major changes in our form of local government.  Here is an excerpt:

At this point, Mr. Slavin stated that he would like to take a straw poll of members present to see how many supported a change in town government.  The poll was recorded 5-0-1 in favor.

This comes as no surprise.  The Board of Selectmen deliberately made certain through their selection process that the majority of appointees would have this predisposition.

After this initial meeting, there was some talk by the committee of seeking outside input, although the limits and nature of that inquiry were never spelled out.  For example, there had been plans to meet with town departments and committees and even draw up questions for them (2^nd Meeting, March 26, 2009).  At the April 9, 2009, meeting there was talk about setting up 2 to 4 public meetings, as well as meeting with boards and committees.  But even at this stage, you can see more evidence for concern about public relations that would "sell" the direction favored by the Selectmen than to ask for public opinion.  Here is Board of Selectmen Liaison Brenda Eckstrom at the April 9 meeting:

She stated that we would not need to conduct a dual process regarding the petition process.  She added that any major changes would need consistent PR.  She stated that Lauren stated that we would follow Chapter 43B, Section 10, home rule guidelines.

A little explanation is needed here.  "Lauren" is a reference to Kopelman and Paige lawyer Lauren Goldberg who is telling them to follow a path we will soon see is different from the one they ultimately took.  More will be said about this choice in Part 4 of this article.  At the same meeting, Edward Pacewicz also expressed an interest in public input - of sorts:

Ed stated that in all three cases it is important that we allow the public to become part of the process.  He added that way any changes proposed can't be argued and we can incorporate the public view, and we don't finalize anything until after we receive public comment.

In other words, he suggests that public meetings be held for publicity reasons, rather than to actually learn something.

The next meeting (April 23, 2009) was the 4^th time the committee met.  Unlike the previous meeting attended by 6 out of the 9 appointed members, 7 members were present.  This meeting featured Kopelman and Paige lawyer Lauren Goldberg, who was brought before the committee as an expert on municipal charters:

She stated that because we are a committee, we should depend on Chapter 43B, Section 10A.  She suggested that we include public imput(sic) in the process.  She stated that as we work to make changes, we should make it public with an explanation. She encouraged the committee to involve the public as much as possible, as it would eliminate any surprises on town meeting floor.

Thus two suggestions were made by this charter expert, both of which the committee ultimately ignored.  One was to take the course of action specified in Massachusetts General Law 43B:10A, and the other was to seek public input.

The two major decisions of the Charter Review Committee were made on May 14, 2009.  After 5 meetings averaging less than 1 hour 17 minutes each and with no public input, no administration input, and no departmental input, both the direction and means for the charter change had been fixed.  It was at this meeting that a unanimous decision was made to abandon the current Charter completely and to do so without any real analysis of the problem and without a single public hearing.

There was an additional source of input the committee might have considered as members went about the mandated task of reviewing the current charter, and that was to use input provided in the form of citizen petition articles to amend the current charter.  Those articles were previously on the Warrant of two town meetings.  The next installment of this article will tell that tale.

Why you should fear Political Power Consolidation - Part 1

Why you should fear Political Power Consolidation - Part 3