Arguments For & Against The Proposed Plymouth Charter
William Abbott, Arguing In Favor Of The Charter; Steven Bolotin, Arguing In Opposition
Readers, to finish up my Plymouth election coverage, here are arguments for and against the proposed new Charter for Plymouth. The League of Women Voters has an informational page on the Charter here: https://www.plymouthlwv.org/charter-question-resources/
Debate over the Charter has been heated, and as a citizen of Duxbury, I have — I believe properly — hesitated to enter into the essential, constitutional question that is before the Town of Plymouth.
I did want, however, to give space to two Plymoutheans who have been passionate and eloquent on both sides of the Charter question. I have adapted the following op-eds from arguments made by William Abbott, in favor of the proposed Charter; and from Steven Bolotin, in opposition. Any editing I have engaged in was for the sake of space and clarity. I am listing the authors alphabetically.
Arguments In Favor Of The Charter
By William Abbott
It has always been the intent of our Charter Commission that the new Charter contain provisions which in their entirety would take our Town Meeting government to a higher level than any other Massachusetts Town, with better prepared and informed Town Meeting Representatives, more transparency in the actions and deliberations of the major players in our government, more democratic and accessible representation for more voters on a more personal basis, and an overall improvement in our Town Meeting government.
Town Meeting will be more and better informed, and Town Government will be more transparent under the new Charter. Town Government will likewise be more democratic and representative, and indeed, our Town government will be more efficient as a Representative Town Meeting under the new Charter than under our current Charter.
The new Charter is absolutely legal in all respects, having been approved by Commission counsel and the Attorney General.
In addition, the new Charter won't cost any more in new taxes that weren't already in the Town budget for the next year (minus modest stipends for the two additional Select Board members).
And while a Charter Review Committee appointed by a Moderator-led committee can add to our current Charter some of the items that are in the new Charter (if the new Charter fails), there are strict legal limits to what it can do: it reports to Town Meeting, which votes on its recommendations. It cannot change the composition of the Select Board, Town Manager, or Town Meeting, or their respective terms of office, or method of election or appointment.
In terms of process, nine town-wide elected Charter Commissioners, in consultation with a wide array of stakeholders in and out of government, worked for two years to develop a Charter that will give Plymouth a government that is more informed, more transparent, more representative, and more efficient than our current government.
We should compare the efficiency of a particular Town Meeting form of government with another Town Meeting government. Certainly, Plymouth should strive for efficacious government, and thereby raise the quality of life — one aspect of which is living in a fully democratic, representative, and transparent system of municipal government. The overriding objective is a community where natural resources can be enjoyed, and sprawl and ugly development is reduced to a minimum.
A city form, where the Mayor makes all the decisions, appoints all the committees, decides on all the ordinances and bylaws, on development projects and where they will go and what protections — if any — the residents nearby will have — there's your most efficient form of government.
But for that kind of efficiency, you take a big chunk out of the quality of life, the freedom to enjoy our Town's environment, to have clean air and water, streets free of traffic and sprawl, a dark sky where you can actually see stars at night -- this is where I want to live, and if living in a democratic, free representative Town gives up some efficiency, I am glad to see it go. That is a tradeoff I will make any time. Life is too short not to.
William Abbott is the Chair of the Charter Commission.
Arguments Against The Charter
By Steven Bolotin
1. Less Efficient
This Charter creates a host of new committees, new reporting requirements, and mandatory meetings which will require hamper the ability to govern and a significant increase in Town staff. The Finance Director and Town Manager anticipate that at a minimum, another 8.5 full time employees will be needed, and the additional cost to the taxpayers for this new Charter would be $1.47 million for the first year and $950,000 each year after that – a number which will increase as the cost of salaries, benefits, consultants and attorneys goes up.
2. Less Informed
This proposed Charter actually reduces the amount of independent information Town Meeting would receive. Instead of hearing from an independent Advisory & Finance Committee, Town Meeting would appoint its own Finance Committee (which could now be made up of Town Meeting Members) to advise on financial matters, and its own Committee of Precinct Chairs (COPC) to advise on everything else. Then it would allow Town Meeting to decide not to hear any public comment, even if the Moderator had agreed in advance to hear from a resident. So Town Meeting would only hear from those appointed by Town Meeting, eliminating one of the critical checks and balances in our system.
3. Less Transparent
By State statute, Town Meeting Members are expressly exempted from both the State Ethics Law and the Open Meeting Law. The proposed Charter does not have any mechanism correcting this – instead it makes it worse. It now gives more authority to the COPC, which are not subject to these laws or any Charter restrictions. This would allow them to hold private meetings, discuss and deliberate on issues, and even address matters in which they have a personal interest, all outside the view of the public with no disclosure obligations.
4. Less Representative
More decisions affecting the entire Town would be made by those who are not elected Town wide. This includes taking away the Town residents’ ability to be involved in the appointment of those advising Town Meeting, placing more authority for managing Town-wide issues in the hands of Town Meeting and the COPC, and creating new voting districts which will give certain areas of Town additional representation on the Select Board while diluting the influence of others. The effect will be to place further authority in the hands of the special interests that have historically prevented efforts to make Plymouth more efficient, better planned, and more economically diverse.
Steven Bolotin serves as Vice Chair of the Planning Board.
Arguments For & Against The Proposed Plymouth Charter
This is such a tough issue to get a grip on. How to reconcile Abbott’s claim: “the new Charter won't cost any more in new taxes that weren't already in the Town budget for the next year (minus modest stipends for the two additional Select Board members).“ with Bolotin’s: “another 8.5 full time employees will be needed, and the additional cost to the taxpayers for this new Charter would be $1.47 million for the first year and $950,000 each year after that – a number which will increase as the cost of salaries, benefits, consultants and attorneys goes up.” Abbott says Town Meeting members would be better informed. Bolotin says they'd be less informed. Where lies the truth and how can we figure it out. (Me, thinking out loud.)