I often enjoy and sometimes agree with the Masked Preservationist's take on things. I thought this morning was one of those two-fers when he critical of the Mayor seeking a planner or developer to fill a vacancy on the Planning Board.
TMP suggested an item in the paper suggested the city was looking for a real estate agent or developer to fill an open slot. Instead, the item merely mentioned such backgrounds could often be found on the board. But the mayor is looking for residents with backgrounds in environmental engineering or land planning at this point, two valuable skill sets.
So why should you care? You shouldn't. Because here's my larger point, a point so large it's going to take us back to Charter Review.
While I'm generally keeping an open mind on the mayor vs. the city manager debate, one changed I would like to see implemented is the addition of some elected members to some of our city boards, especially the planning board.
I thought my previous town had it right. Two members of the planning board were elected by the people while three were appointed by the Board of Selectmen. (I, btw, won my elected seat in a Gerald Fordesque manner and managed to fend off apathy and undecideds to retain my seat a eyar later.)
Such a system frees at least a few members from having to answer to the mayor or city council. By answering directly to the people, these planning board members--even if they don't have a professional background--can bring a new perspective to the board.
Plus, if a successful board member isn't reappointed by the mayor, he or she would have another avenue to get back onto the board.
In closing, let's get the Planning Board, Zoning Board and some other commissions on the ballot. They too work for--and should answer at least partly to--the people.
10 comments:
Or those running for elected positions on critical boards such as ZBA or Planning could be bankrolled by realtors and developers, thereby stacking the board(s) in favor of development. Campaign signs and literature cost money.
Fair counterpoint.
But if I were to apply that concern to the current approach, the real estate agents and developers merely need to bankroll the mayor to do the stacking.
How often are reasonable appointments rejected--or even questioned--by the council?
Also, it'd be a minority of the board (maybe even one seat) so stacking through those methods would be difficult.
So less democracy for mayor/executive but more for city boards ?
they already bankroll the council and mayor, have you looked around newburyport in the past 15 years? the developers can do what they want
Ari, I'm not 100 percent sure it's that black and white. I've fairly sure I've covered towns that both appoint and elect.
But to your question, if you are asking me if Newburyport should be a town, the answer is no. I enjoy the city form of government.
Bubba, I'm not sure what you mean. How is this less democracy for a mayor?
Electing boards? Letting a highly paid, unelected manager run things? Sure sounds like a town to me.
It may sound like that to you, but that isn't what I said.
I was suggesting electing one or two board members and I'm still on the fence regarding city manager/mayor.
But I appreciate your zeal.
Well certainly a city manager is less democratic.
Yes Ari, I have the case studies right in my briefcase next to my Unicorn horn and Lucky Charms. :)
No, I don't have precise recollections. I thought I couched it sufficiently.
I'm sure any due diligence by the Charter Review would turn them up if they exist.
But I'm still not suggesting a return to town government.
Ah, gotcha Bubba. Yes, a city manager might be less Democratic. However, I suppose some could make the case that they are more effective.
I'm not necessarily one of those people. (I've got a feeling I'm going to be typing that a lot.)
But, in my view, adding elected seats to a city board wouldn't make the board any less effective.
Post a Comment