Town Moderator: Town Meeting, Let's Make it Work for Stoughton

For the Public Comment Meeting, July 19, 2012

By Howard Hansen, Town Moderator

Why are some members of the Board of Selectmen concerned about “efficiency in the Town Meeting process?” I ask this as a “Point of Personal Privilege.” I have received numerous phone calls about the media reports and advertising for this “hearing.” Most of these calls are from Town Meeting Members concerned that the Selectmen are covertly attempting to control or even abolish town meeting in the name of “efficiency.”

Frankly, that is an insult to every elected Town Meeting Member. We do have a unique Charter for a Representative Town Meeting. The guiding principle behind this document is to have an informed participating legislative body whose members pay the price of making town meeting work—having a municipal government that can live within its citizens’ means. This is not Washington. It is Stoughton, “The Birthplace of American Liberty.” We may be too big to have an open town meeting, just as we can’t have every citizen participate directly in Congress. We have placed trust in our neighbors elected to serve Town Meeting to do what they collectively believe is best for the community.

Democracy is always the whipping boy for those who want efficiency. The truest and most efficient government process is an oligarchy. Democracy was never meant to be efficient. A pure democracy however is tantamount to mob rule. Thus, we must realistically take a look at our own local government to see how we can preserve those principles which have stood since 1633, and make the Town Meeting process work, with co-operation, not dictation, between the executive department and the legislative branch.

Why does Town Meeting takes so long? The short answer is we have had big warrants with multi-million dollar obligations, that the Representatives want and deserve the opportunity to understand the long-range effects of a final vote by town meeting. Attached to this commentary is the Town Meeting Time Line Chart. It shows who does what and when in order to comply with the various by-laws, statutes. All of these statutes have been instituted to provide an informed Town Meeting, BEFORE the first session of a Town Meeting begins. This is a very tight time line. It is the obligation of everyone involved in this discussion and participating in town meeting to be familiar with this chart [editor's note: the chart is posted in the media gallery].

I understand that the direction of the Selectmen’s Sub-Committee will be to reduce the number of warrant articles submitted under the Selectmen’s authority. These are generally Capital Outlay articles. Repeating the history of why the Capital Outlay Plans required by the Charter have not been current serves no purpose for this meeting. The task of this yet to be named committee, will not likely to be completed to be effective at the 2013 Annual Town Meeting. Therefore, it will be necessary for the Selectmen to have a basic policy and direction for accepting capital outlay articles for the Annual Warrant as soon as possible, and at the latest by September 1st.

1. Let’s get some terminology correct. This is NOT a Town Meeting Committee authorized by Town Meeting. It has been conceived as a Selectmen’s [Ad hoc] Subcommittee to advise the Town Manager, initially to deal with the matter of the 3 and 5 Year Capital Outlay Plans and how they are relate to the Town Meeting Process. THE PROCESS OF SUBMITTING CAPITAL OUTLAY ARTICLES INTO ANY WARRANT IS BY STATE STATUTE, AS WELL AS BY THE TOWN CHARTER, THE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN. Town Meeting has no choice of whether or not to accept the contents of a warrant. The Charter and General Laws clearly require ALL matters placed in a warrant either by petition or by the Board of Selectmen, to be acted upon by the elected Town Meeting Representatives.

2. Efficiency in Town Meeting itself is Town Meeting’s business! Once the Warrant closes, the Board of Selectmen is no longer responsible for the governing town meeting process. However, it does have an obligation to have representation at the public hearings for all articles they inserted in the warrant, to provide data to the standing committees to support their position on all articles that affect the general welfare of the town. That includes commenting on petitioned articles, even though the statutes require petitioned articles to be INSERTED in the warrant.

3. The Public Hearing Process established by the Town Charter is an integral part of making Town Meeting work. One-third of the elected Town Meeting Representatives are directly involved in the hearing process BEFORE town meeting convenes to take a final vote on the disposition of those articles. Those nearly 55 Town Meeting Representatives spend from 3 to 15 meeting nights in order to make recommendations to Town Meeting. ALL hearings must be in compliance with the Open Meeting Laws. I repeat, the Selectmen need to implement on its own policy and practice on accepting those articles for which they are responsible.

4. The Board is the constituted policy-making body of the town. The Board of Selectmen needs to agree on that policy as GUIDANCE. It should INSIST that all requesting petitioners to concisely express the purpose and need for support of the Board to bring its capital outlay articles before town meeting. Respecting the Board’s authority, it is not proper for the Moderator to write this policy.

5. Have an informational meeting in the fall (late October) similar to what the Community Preservation Committee does to get a preview of those projects being considered for approval of funding at the following annual town meeting. This is the time to schedule an Informational Town Meeting in October for all the Standing Committees. This meeting won’t have Warrant Articles, but will be devoted to hearing proposed Capital Outlay Projects from all departments. There will be no votes taken. Town Meeting Standing Committee and regular members, Selectmen, Town Manager, the Capital Outlay Planning Committee and the public will be allowed to ask questions. This forum will be used by the Capital Outlay Planning Committee and the Board of Selectmen to identify what articles they would support putting in the warrant in January.

6. Require all, except bona-fide emergency capital outlay articles to be submitted for consideration by the Board of Selectmen by the first Tuesday in January or when petitioned articles are received. Take these Capital Outlay requests under advisement. Set criteria for placing these articles in the warrant after looking at all those requests received.

7. Petitioned Capital Outlay Articles. It is required by the General Laws that properly signed petitions for articles have to be inserted in a warrant. That does not preclude the Selectmen from publicly supporting, or modifying with an alternate article, or stating its opposition to any petitioned articles in the warrant. Those positions should be expressed during the public hearings. That means representation of the Board of Selectmen or the Town Manager at those hearings. The position of the Board should be included in the Finance Committee Report.

8. Actual MOTIONS for recommended articles should be prepared by the proper person (Treasurer, Town Manager, Town Counsel, Finance Committee) and printed in the Finance/Standing Committee Report. A report that says “Approved” is not a motion.

9. No Hearing, No Report, No Action by Town Meeting. For more than 25 years, the Collective Bargaining process has counted on being able to present 11th hour “signed memorandums of agreement” at a later session. This has been an abuse of Town Meeting. There is no valid reason why these contracts are delayed until a seventh or ninth session, just because those session nights have been reserved. The Attorney-General’s ruling about town boards meeting during town meeting, shall be cause enough to cease the practice of scheduling a “continuation” of a hearing for a Collective Bargaining Contract or any other article, when, in fact, there was no information presented at the advertised scheduled public hearing is now a clear violation of the Open Meeting Law. If
any “Substitute” motion is to be submitted to Town Meeting, based upon “Refer to Town Meeting” reports issued two weeks before Town Meeting, and/or the report has a positive recommendation, but lacks the proper main motion, all those motions have to be made available to all the Town Meeting Members at the Opening Session of the Annual Town Meeting.

I believe that with these suggestions, we will be able to make town meeting go smoother without compromising the rights of Town Meeting Members and the voters of the Town.

Respectfully submitted,

Howard Hansen,

Town Moderator

***