Skip to Content

Term Limits and Number of Selectmen

by JohnCraine

 (I have moved this discussion to it's own thread and elaborated on several points)

I've never been a big fan of term limits because 1) every election we have the option of limiting someone's term anyway 2) the sword cuts both ways because you may end up limiting the term of someone who is a superior public servant. However, the argument for imposing term limits, that qualified candidates won't run if they feel they can't beat the incumbent, is also a valid one.

I read the FinCom mailing yesterday and believe there is merit in David Feyler's petition article. Specifically, I like the idea of a three-term limit with a one year moratorium. This provides an opening for new candidates while still allowing former public servants to run again after sitting out a year.  The more I think about it, the more I like it.

While we're on the topic, I haven't quite made up my mind about expanding the board from three to five members. On one hand, the three member board is insular but it is also effective for decision making. I fear that a five member board will become overly political but it would also somewhat address the concentration of power. But I don't really perceive there to be a problem in the power structure of the BOS and I like the efficiency of three decision makers versus five.

Another argument for a 5 member board is it would allow respresentation from each of the town precincts. This troubles me because it draws political boundaries where none now exist. The precincts are there to facilitate the polling process, not the political process (please correct me if I'm wrong). I am not a resident of Precinct 4, I am a resident of Westwood. I want my selectmen to work in the best interests of my town, not just my precinct.

So perhaps the best option would be to adopt the term limits article to ensure a flow of fresh ideas and new blood but keep the BOS to three members.

~

John Craine

Submitted by JohnCraine on February 21, 2009 - 8:41am
Tagged in:

Comments

Representation from town precincts

Submitted by Guest_1 on February 21, 2009 - 9:58am.

I think that having a representative from each precinct is actually a very good idea - while I understand that it does draw political boundaries where none currently exist, a number of citizens feel that there is a bias on the current board toward the "109" side of town. Just look at how differently the last few votes where - residents in Islington hold vastly different opinions about a number of important town topics. Certainly someone from Islington could run for one of the 3 BOS seats. However, codifying representation from each precinct ensures that each part of town has a voice in town politics.

Just my two cents.

What about minority views in precincts?

Submitted by Guest44 on February 21, 2009 - 10:12am.

I'm not sure I support the precinct approach. What about people in precinct 4 who quietly supported Westwood station? If the majority elects someone who does not speak for me and believes his job is to advocate for the precint, not the whole town...what then?

How do you know yours is a

Submitted by JohnCraine on February 22, 2009 - 7:57am.

How do you know yours is a minority view? Isn't it entirely possible that the minority view is the opposition but that they are just extremely vocal and high profile? 

~ 

John Craine

50 Blue Hill Drive

As a resident I first want

Submitted by David Feyler on February 21, 2009 - 11:33am.

As a resident I first want to thank John Craine for using his name in his posts. I like it when a resident has something to say and is willing to put their name behind what they say.

Lets just say that instead of 3 ,Westwood has 5 board of Selectman and elected by precinct. How would this of helped or hurt the Westwood Station project? Which could be the largest development of its kind in the northeast.

If precinct 4 had a board member maybe the residents from that precinct would feel at least they had a voice. Does anyone think that if this project was being built in Nancy Hyde's back yard she would feel the same way about Westwood Station? I believe in this case the residents would at least feel they have someone possibly on their side watching their back.

I grew up in Dedham and they do not have an open town meeting they have representatives from each precinct which are elected. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong but wouldn't this be the same instead of representatives it would be BOS members.
The representatives from Dedham are voted by precinct to represent the town and the residents from that precinct.

Dave,  Dedham is a much

Submitted by JohnCraine on February 22, 2009 - 7:50am.

Dave, 

Dedham is a much larger town than Westwood, by almost 10,000 residents (in a smaller land area I might add) and they have a representative form of government.  Residents need to vote for a candidate in order to have their voices heard. Even then, if your candidate doesn't win your voice will not be heard unless you advocate in other ways.

In my opinion, the 5 member proposal seeks to solve a problem that doesn't exist and could result in unwelcome consequences. As much as town meeting is a royal PITA it offers us something Dedham doesn't have...true, unadulterated democracy. Every resident has a vote and their vote will be counted if they attend town meeting. So every Precinct 4 resident did and does have a voice in every warrant article. It is only up to each individual resident to decide if they want to exercise their vote.

~ 

John Craine

50 Blue Hill Drive

Good point about town meeting votes, but...

Submitted by Brian London on February 23, 2009 - 9:44am.

John,

You make an excellent point about democracy at town meeting. The one thing that does seem to tip the scales against the one person, one vote concept though is Indefinite Postponement. If the Finance Commission has voted indefinte postponement then in order for a warrant article to be considered at all indefinite postponement must be voted down by a 2/3rds vote of those present at town meeting. As Mr. Feyler can attest overcoming an indefinite postponement vote by the Fincom is a pretty big hurdle.

Brian, thanks for jumping

Submitted by john.craine on February 23, 2009 - 10:57am.

Brian, thanks for jumping into these shark-infested waters!

I guess I need to study up on my town politics. It is my understanding that FinCom only makes recommendations for voting on warrant articles (though their recommendations do hold a great deal of sway) and that Town Meeting actually votes indefinite postponement. This suggests to me that anyone bringing a warrant article to town meeting needs to have their ducks lined up.

I'm not sure how this relates to the number of selectmen or their representation of individual precincts. Can you offer an example of how this might affect indefinite postponement?

INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT

Submitted by David Feyler on February 23, 2009 - 4:55pm.

Indefinite Postponement has always been the FINCOMs response to a petitioners warrant article. If it does not come from the BOS then they have always voted Indefinite postponement, There are many creative residents in Westwood. Is the FINCOM going to tell me that only the BOS has ideas that should be accepted by them?
If that is the case then stop wasting resident's time and remove the ability to do a petition article from the charter.

Maybe Dave will put a blog vote like he did last year about the liquor articles.
This way we can get some feedback on these articles from residents that do not want to write on the blog but read it.