More on the Charter

Denis Kennedy, friend and former colleague at the Daily News, sent this along today as a reply to my post on the charter. I opted to run it as a separate post.

Incidentally, I did offer to publish something from the pro-charter group. I received a copy of Hugh Kelleher's thoughtful "As I See It" in the Daily News. I'm not really permitted to run an entire newspaper article on my blog (although I doubt the News would care.) But it's just as easy to link to it here.(And along the side.)

A little bit of history, Denis was one of the charter commissioners who stepped in to take over when a few of the elected disappointments resigned from the commission. He did a great job, and I have tremendous respect for the job most of the commission members did in reviewing the charter. I truly believe their intentions are honorable, but I'm still not sure I can agree with the results as I said when the final proposal first came out.

---


I have remained publicly silent on the charter since we voted on it in late April.  As some may recall, I was one of the three who voted against it.  It was a very difficult decision, given that I played a big role in drafting the final language of the document as a whole and have the utmost respect for my fellow commissioners and their dedication to the city.  (I’m especially grateful that they let me ramble at our meetings…)  The insurmountable stumbling block for me was the mayor’s term: I remain convinced a four-year term is not the way to go in a city this size.  The fact that Mayor Holaday will win a second term after taking on tough issues in a two-year term, in my mind, illustrates that.  She got right to work, and  the voters are getting their chance to give her a biennial report card.

But I did not write this to argue for or against the ballot question.

I have avoided reading charter-related posts in any of the local blogs since May, when a local anonymous blogger -- whom we are both familiar with -- slandered a fellow commission member for his absence during the vote on recall, accusing him of some sinister motive that just wasn’t there and ignoring the member’s medical emergency.  I stepped back a bit then; I had hoped for a discussion of the charter on its merits, without any personal attacks or political grudges being aired.

Since then I have not campaigned for or against the charter, assuming that advocates on either side, especially those who had been so active in getting the question on the ballot, would step forward.   To some extent, that has been the case.  Some of my fellow commission members and others have done a commendable job drumming up support for the yes side.  Whether intended or not, however, this has been a low-profile campaign, with proponents apparently planning for a relatively small band of advocates to prevail in an election that will have an extraordinarily low turnout.

I don’t fault them for that; it’s a strategy that has paid off in many elections I have been around, taken part in and covered as a reporter.  But it is discouraging that the decision – whether yes or no -- on what is clearly the most significant change in Newburyport governance in decades will be made by a small minority of voters.

In a way, we as a charter commission could have helped. To help raise the profile of the question, we should have held a public forum in the last few weeks.  That would have been a good opportunity to hear comments from the public, answer questions about the final report that had just been mailed to every household, and quite honestly get a newspaper story.  I should point out that while we did have several hearings during the 18-month process, we held none after we passed the final draft.  In fact, we met only once, to approve minutes, since April, though we are technically still in existence until 30 days after the election.

I say this because I come away with the frustrating feeling that whatever side you’re on, there was no protracted, substantive public discussion of the final charter proposal in these last weeks:  No examination of the key role a finance department plays in municipal efficiency (pretty important).   No check to see how many cities have charters that are identical to Newburyport’s “antiquated” one (several). No review of how many cities have two- and four-year terms (the vast majority have two).  No comparison of how the Newburyport mayor’s salary compares to her counterparts (on the low side of the range, which is all over the map).

Instead, for many this decision will be based more on more personal factors, including: 1) feelings about some past mayors;  2) interpretations of why some mayors lost re-election and whether that was a function of the term length or other factors; 3) some people’s admiration of, or relationships with, some other municipalities and their mayors or city managers; 4) some people’s gut feelings about some high profile issues such as recall, in light of anecdotal evidence such as the situation with Mayor Lantigua in Lawrence.  And so on.

Not that there is anything improper about any of that.  To a voter, every election is viewed through a prism of personal experience and feelings.  Voting is largely a gut call.  I just come away with the sense that whether the charter is approved or not, it has been a frustratingly imperfect electoral process.  We as a city could have done better in having a productive public dialogue involving a greater number of people.

So I ask that whatever side of the question you’re on, in these remaining hours, dig out that white booklet that came in the mail two weeks ago, take the time to think about the question, and then get out and vote.  That’s how democracy works.  It will allow for a decision by the greatest number of voters and lend it legitimacy for the city to move forward -- regardless of which side you were on.

Denis Kennedy
Charter commissioner



---

To Denis's final point, just read the thing. It really isn't hard to follow. It's a well written document.