Task Force Listens to Suggestions for Charter Changes

Wednesday night's meeting to discuss the Town Charter packed 50 Carby Street with a group of familiar faces--the people in town who are most active and most involved in boards, commissions, and town government. We heard a number of comments touching on most of the questions I raised in my article on Tuesday. The issues are fairly familiar to those who have participated in town meeting/FinCom hearings/Board of Selectmen meetings in the past few years.

I will post the official minutes and possibly a video recording when I have it, but for now, here are my observations on the discussion...

There was strong support for continuing open town meeting. I do not agree that Town Meeting is the idyll of participatory democracy, because, in reality, no one can just walk in and get something passed. The moderator won't allow anything off topic and everything must be vetted by FinCom first. Town Meeting is a place to show up and vote--and to voice your opinion--but it is not a place were problems are solved.

But it seems to work. I lived in Needham before Westwood and went to one Representative Town Meeting...it was a boring waste of my time. Without a vote, you don't count. As I've become more involved here, I've learned that Westwood's system is more open and welcoming to new people. You come back to the next meeting and you learn more. You volunteer to be on a committee and you are appointed. You want to organize something...and...with some persistence...you can make it happen.

The suggestions for improving town meeting included having two per year and perhaps reducing the quorum. One person noted that in some towns attendance went up when the quorum was eliminated because people knew "anything could happen." Another suggestion from former FinCom Chair Jim Conners was to allow some flexibility in the handling of petition articles--while Selectman articles can be modified and posted as placeholders to the warrant, petition articles are set in stone. This is frustrating to petitioners because the articles can't be modified/compromised to address the issues raised in the FinCom hearings.

One speaker...I did not get his name...warned against the danger of "invading suburbanites" who would come to town and ultimately demand more services, raise taxes, etc. He concluded with a bizarre reference to his fear that the town could become a "rabbit warren breeding ground" for young people. I guess I will have to plead guilty to participating in that one...but I would say that danger is minimized by the high cost of housing (that's why your property taxes are so high!) which makes it extremely difficult for any young family to buy their first home here.

Now perhaps this is a bit off topic, but I was impressed that our open town meeting does provide a protection--not so much against this apparently horrifying spectre of families wanting to move to Westwood--but against the marginalization and exclusion of unpopular views. We support people standing up and expressing their views. We can choose whether to agree or not, but we don't force them to get themselves elected before they can show up and "cause trouble." I like that.

Several people spoke for and against expanding the Board of Selectmen to a 5-person body. There seemed to be zero interest in precinct representation--the prevailing opinion is that having a ward-style government would be divisive. But expanding the number of Selectman could open up the board to a greater diversity of viewpoint and an opportunity to spread the work more effectively. My opinion is that a 3-person Board is more appropriate for a court of appeals than town government and that diluting the influence of individual selectmen would be a good idea, no matter the size of the town.

One interesting idea I had not heard before was the concept of creating "associate members" in some of our boards and commissions. I'd like to hear more about how that could help and what issues are raised.

Greg Agnew suggested changing the signage bylaw to allow candidates to post signs earlier. Currently candidates for town office cannot post signs until 14 days (is this correct...I could not find it) prior to the election. It does prevent visual clutter...but there is also an argument for how it takes time to raise people's awareness of issues and get them thinking about the election.

I will post a link to the official minutes when they are published by the Task Force, but I was happy to see a large turnout for a topic that could be considered very dry. All-in-all, our Town is fortunate to have many dedicated residents who sincerely want to do what is best for the town. That doesn't mean it's perfect--a huge contingent of people is underrepresented in all these discussions--namely people under the age of 40--but I think that is more a function of economics and stage of life than anything fundamental to the form of government.