Did you get your Issues on the Agenda?
I felt a sense of frustration and failure when I learned yesterday that the Board of Selectmen were meeting last night to close the warrant for the annual town meeting. I don't know the outcome of that meeting, but it just seems ridiculous that anyone wanting to get an issue on the agenda for a meeting in May had to do so by last night.
Why I feel frustration and failure is that I hoped and believed this blog would provide a communication platform to get a discussion of issues out there in time to make a difference. I know there were a number of issues floating around including:
- Whether to modify the composition of the Board of Selectmen and or the Finance Commission to create greater participation and representation by residents in all parts of town,
- Whether to change the date of Town Meeting to a more accessible date and time,
- Whether to consider term limits for Selectmen
I don't know if I support all these ideas, but I do support having a public discussion about them. Supporters of our current system will say there is now ample time for that, because if the warrant articles were approved--or if the supporters managed to gather 10 signatures last night--then this will proceed to Finance Commission hearings and on to Town Meeting. But that misses the point.
Residents who want to make a difference confront a system that is designed to limit change. But issues cannot be properly framed without discussion and open debate--not just about whether the particular idea is good, but what other ideas might be better. The Town Meeting process allows a limited discussion; the Moderator can rule amendments "not germane" and they will not be allowed. It is a tightly controlled process that affords no real opportunity for average citizen involvement. People who want change are repeatedly told: "you didn't come to the right meeting," "the deadline for that has passed; come back next year," and ultimately, "vote 'yes' now or we will have to close the schools and it will be the end of the world."
We are all busy and I guess, when something comes up that is directly relevant to us, then we make time for it. But usually, that's negative. I believe we need two things to make a positive difference here:
- We need a more open and transparent process so that "casual participants" know what is going on in town and can be motivated to become active sooner on issues relevent to them.
- We need elected and appointed officials who are not afraid to engage in a conversation with residents in a public forum.
The town of Westwood will grow dramatically in the next decade as hundreds of new residents move in to Westwood Station. There will continue to be a great deal of turnover as young people move here because of the great schools and start families. For all these people, as well as for the vast majority of town residents, the idea of joining boards and commissions, attending weeknight meetings, and trying to figure out what's going on by scouring the town website...it's just not going to happen. People have better things to do than follow town politics on the off chance that something relevant to them may come up.
I think our town leaders and the many, many volunteers who do participate on boards and commissions as well as service organizations are all well-intentioned. I don't believe there is a vast conspiracy of insiders; I think it's just that once you have invested the time to get heavily involved, the thought of casual, opportunistic, ill-informed people showing up and messing with things is upsetting. But there should be no dues-paying requirement for civic participation. Good ideas and bad will be tested in public debate. But the debate must have a possibility of relevance...otherwise it is just a venting exercise that gives the illusion of democracy.
Comments
Hopefully someday there will
Hopefully someday there will be on-line voting for town matters. This will greatly increase the number of people willing to participate and will give a better indication of the true will of the people.
criticism of process, not people
After I posted this, I spoke with a couple of people involved in this process and I wanted to clarify a couple of items and the tone of my original post this morning.
1) my sense of "frustration and failure" was because I had hoped to encourage a public discussion of issues prior to town meeting in a manner that might generate more public involvement and interest. I was aware of the potential issues I outlined above, and I felt that I had failed to write about them soon enough and had forgotten to check back and find out when the deadline for the warrant article was, so I was frustrated that now the meeting warrant is closed and so the agenda is set already. I did not mean to imply that the town had done anything special to limit involvement in this case. That's just the way this process has been done for many years.
2) I remain critical of the process however. The warrant articles were proposed by people in town who have run for office or been advocating various issues in the past year. They are not naive or uninformed. And yet, despite the fact that they are keenly interested and involved in Westwood politics, I know there was a scramble last night to round up signatures and get people to come down to town hall to sign the petition articles and beat the deadline. Nobody asked me to blog about it or complain; I'm just observing that if the most interested people in town are caught by surprise, you can bet the average citizen is certainly unaware of the process.
The Selectmen have also included a warrant article to form a commission on town government to consider improvements to governance...and perhaps these other warrant articles will stimulate a debate about that. Perhaps all of this will generate more interest in the Town Election, where we have many positions up for election that may end up uncontested.
The deadline to file papers for town election is Tuesday, March 10, 2009. We should use the next couple of months to educate ourselves about the positions up for election.
No Press Coverage... Cable Coverage Pathetic
Some things to think about....
1) Agenda for BOS is posted on the day of the meeting- unless you want to drive to town hall. Is this enough notice for residents who want to know what is going on?
2) Try watching the cable coverage of BOS meetings - there is no schedule posted and it is like deciphering what Charlie Brown's teacher is saying. Why can't this town run constant coverage on channel 8 in a loop and have a video quality that is acceptable?
3) Where is the coverage of the resident warrants in the paper? Hummm... haven't seen it yet.
What's up with Cable?
I believe Federal law says $1 per month, times 12 months, times 10 years of billing, times 4000 Westwood houses with comcast cable, should put about $500,000 into Westwood cable tv. Isn't it time to put the right date on the screen? put some Bd. Of Selectmen meetings on using 2008 digital not the same old roll of tape they appear to tape over and over? isn't there a high school kid who wants to get into broadcast journalism who wonders why there is no tv station in the new high school? It is time to jump into 2009, put the agendas online or on the tv, put the meetings on cable channel 8.
Facilitating participation / School budget info online
The three issues Dave mentioned in his initial post were presented to the FinCom the other night as part of the Warrant Article sponsor meeting, although as reported in the paper one petitioner may seek to have his article removed. The Selectmen are also considering forming a Charter commission (or possibly a Charter study committee which would begin discussions eventually leading to a commission) which would review the Town Charter on a wider basis. A Charter review could potentially cover these issues as well as other aspects of Town government in a more comprehensive fashion. Facilitating participation (whether it be active or passive) is an area that I think deserves discussion. Utilizing online communications more is a good goal, and I read an article in the Globe MetroWest section this week about Franklin providing streaming video of many committee/selectmen meetings, and other communities offering podcasts, etc. Naturally this takes money, which is sorely lacking at the moment, as well as time to set up and administer. Also we need to bear in mind that not all residents use the Internet. Speaking of facilitating communications, the Superintendent presented his proposed FY10 budget to the School Committee last week, and his presentation and executive summary are available on the school department web site. Mary Masi-Phelps
What point to Charter commission?
Mary Masi-Phelps says this in her post: The Selectmen are also considering forming a Charter commission (or possibly a Charter study committee which would begin discussions eventually leading to a commission) which would review the Town Charter on a wider basis. A Charter review could potentially cover these issues as well as other aspects of Town government in a more comprehensive fashion.
I sat in on that Selectman's meeting when the warrant article was turned in. Pat Ahearn said he liked the Idea of starting a Charter study committee and he also liked that it would be controlled by the Board of Selectman and that they would appoint the committee members. Both the warrant articles are articles that the voters can and should vote on this year. We do not need the BOS to make it a complicated issue.
Tell me what the BOS is going to bring to the table that we the residents can't make up our own minds without a Steering committee being started? The only reason they are doing this is because they found out about the proposal for a five-man board. When it comes to term limits, I take my hat of to any Selectman that serves 2 or 3 terms and steps down. Last time I checked being a Selectman wasn't supposed to be a full time job and both articles help a tired board.
Charter Commission vs. Study Committee
David Feyler raises an important point about the role of the BOS in changing the charter. I think major changes to Town government deserve considerable attention, widespread discussion and careful thought. My understanding from what was said at the last FinCom meeting is that a charter study committee is different from and would precede a Charter Commission; my understanding is that a study committee could be appointed by the BOS, but a Charter Commission must be elected at the ballot box. My copy of the Town Charter indicates that certain changes to the charter can only be proposed by a Charter Commission. I repeat, this is my understanding, but I think we all need more information about the process, and I encourage people to attend upcoming BOS/FinCom meetings. These issues will be discussed again at the FinCom public hearings Feb 23 and/or 24 (watch the Town web site and your mail for information).
Mary Masi-Phelps