The Conversation Begins

At our organizational meeting (which was taped by PortMedia for later airing), the Charter Commission elected it's officers, set a next meeting date, reviewed a draft set of "rules," agreed to try to hold our first public hearing before the "drop dead" date (45 days from the election) of December 18th.

The next meeting of the Charter Commission is 7PM Wednesday, November 18th, site to be determined (possibly the Library, but I'll print it here).

Steve Cole will be Chair of the Commission, Kathleen Bailey Vice Chair, and Sheila Mullins will be the Clerk.

The Clock is Ticking

The newly elected Charter Commission has set Friday, November 13th, at 7:45 AM in City Council chambers as the time and place for it's "organizing meeting."

Here in Newburyport, the term "organizing meeting" is a phrase with some history and heft. Usually immediately after an elected body is sworn in, they meet to determine their infra-structure and framework for accomplishing their work. Translated, that means they choose a Chair, Vice Chair, and any other statutory offices required. It also means that they will literally decide how they are going to decide. Will they operate by consensus? Will they use Robert's Rules of Order, or a modification of the rules. Will they opt for mob rule, or deferring to the loudest, or them most politically adventurous? All decisions to be made in public session.

I suspect there will also be some conversation about how we hope to organize the task ahead.

In their organizational meeting after the inauguration, the City Council meets briefly to elect a President. In their organizational meeting, the School Committee will choose a Vice Chair, who in effect manages the meetings of the School Committee, and is our designee to the administration. The Charter Commission will follow suit this Friday.

All meetings will be open to the public.

Thanks. Let the Conversation Begin

To those who by their votes showed a tremendous appetite for charter review, I say a loud thanks. To those who took the time to add my name to a very distinguished roster of Commissioners, also, thank you. My position throughout the election campaign has been to talk about the principles of good and effective governance. From this point forward, those principles will serve as the foundation for my efforts on behalf of the community.

Over then next several weeks, the Charter Commission will convene and set up a framework for the task ahead. We will identify a chair and co-chair. We will formally report out in 45 days.

I hope to continue this blog as part of an effort to be transparent. Soon, a disclaimer will appear near the heading, similar to the one that can be found on my School Committee blog, Newburyport Schools. It will let you know that anything I write simply represents my own opinion, and should not be construed as representative of the Charter Commission as a whole.

This is pretty exciting; I feel very honored to be working with such a neat and thoughtful group of community members.

My Position on Positions

At a recent Charter candidate meet and greet, or speak and listen, sponsored by the Newburyport Democratic Party, a lot of candidates showed up. They were, for the most part, willing to express particular leanings, or biases on some of the issues that a Charter Review Commission would examine. Some want a Town Manager, some want longer terms for the Mayor and City Councilors, some want higher paid Mayors. The menu was chock full of "prescriptions for the patient."

That troubles me a great deal. To continue with the metaphor, the patient, our form of governance, may be sick, but I'm not sure we can develop an informed diagnosis, let alone a cure, without study and consideration.

With all due respect to my peers on the ballot, I have refrained from offering specifics. Anyone who knows me, knows I have opinions about nearly everything, and have never been shy about expressing them. My hesitation about offering up specifics is rooted, as most of my public comments have been, in a belief about how this Charter Review should be undertaken.

If we are to consider our governance model, and utilize the Charter Review process to suggest changes, I truly believe that those changes need to be rooted in research, in thoughtful public conversation. I believe that when people make up their minds, or even indicate a "leaning," it is human nature to look beyond ideas, opinions, and even facts that contradict those positions.
It just seems to work out that way; I've seen it in my experience on the School Committee, as part of the Skate Park Siting Committee. I've seen it in my own life.

Because of that, my approach to the Charter Review is different.

In my 14 years or so of public service, I have been committed to, and practiced, a set of principles about how a government serves the community best. It against those principles, those ideas, that I will measure our current governance model, and it is in the hope that we can improve our commitment to those principles that I will measure any recommended changes.

Principles of Good Governance

I believe that good governance is efficient. It doesn't waste resources, it looks to leverage additional resources for the good of the community. It plans ahead, and realistically anticipates needs like maintaining and improving infra-structure.

I believe that good governance is accountable and transparent, that it happens in the light of day, that decisions are weighed carefully and publicly, and that votes taken in the course of making those decisions are explained clearly.

I believe good governance is inclusive, that it actively seeks opportunities for the community to provide input.

I believe that good governance is creative. It looks for new and innovative ways to deliver better, more efficient services, to bring more people into the process of governance, and to anticipate future needs.

Positions

The question for a Charter Commission, in my eyes, is first to determine whether our present form of governance promotes these principles. Are we efficient in spending our tax dollars, in delivering the best quality services for the many constituencies present here in Newburyport? Is our government set up in ways that allow us to create and implement long term strategies for maintaining and improving services?

Do we have the flexibility to make decisions efficiently, thoroughly and implement them in a timely fashion?

Do we provide opportunities for direct dialogue between the decision-makers and the community? Dialogue, in it's full meaning of the word, not just off-line conversations or brief moments in which opinions are expressed but not directly responded to.

Are we accountable for our successes and failures, our struggles and achievements? Is our government structured in ways that allow for consistent implementation of ideas, of thoughtful and creative approaches to current and anticipated challenges?

If our conversation, as a convened Charter Commission and a community indicates we are not doing any or all of these things, the next step is to look at alternatives.

I have some thoughts about whether we are currently doing these things; and I probably have some ideas about how we might improve what we are doing.

I intend, as a Charter Commissioner, to actively engage in a very public discussion. I intend to do the research of alternatives, should we determine the need to offer some. I intend to clearly state to the community why I believe change is needed, and what kind of change might best achieve those principles I have stated above.

Whether I am a Town Manager aficionado, or committed to a weak Mayor form of government doesn't really matter, because I really believe that this election isn't about positions; and in particular, not about my positions.

It is about transparency, it is about the crafting of a rigorous, thoughtful and efficient approach to governing our community. It is about learning from the past, and building for the future.

I ask for your vote on Tuesday.

"Becoming the change we want to see"

Yeah, it's pretty ambitious to open a post with a quote from Gandhi. It does get to the heart of the challenge facing us today, though. We are being asked to open a door that was closed 90 years ago, and review the way we do our business as a city.

Revisiting our charter is about more than the simple nuts and bolts of governance. It will offer a glimpse at how we put our beliefs about community into practice, how we do our business. More than that, it invites us to institutionalize change. Do we need to do this?

We Need To Do The Review

I believe we need to do the review. As someone involved with city governance for nine years, I am skeptical that our current systems for getting things done are the most effective, and most efficient approaches. And while I await the results of research to formulate a better system, if one exists, I am utterly convinced we need to open up the process to allow for the possibility of change. It is the first step in a process that prepares Newburyport to flexibly and creatively address the challenges of the 21st century.

I have no single issue about governance that is a "deal-breaker." Town manager or mayor? Both? Neither? Length of terms? Size of governing bodies? There are a lot of possibilities; researching them in a systematic and transparent manner, and contrasting them with what we are currently doing is a good idea.

The Challenge Ahead

This January marks my ninth year on the School Committee. When the new Mayor is inaugurated, she or he will be the fifth Mayor I have worked with during my not-quite-nine year tenure. Let me repeat that, and put in bold.

Nine years, five mayors, and one of them served four years. Mary Carrier. Al Lavender. Mary Ann Clancy. John Moak, twice. And the new mayor.

I am not sure that allowing leadership to become a game of musical chairs promotes the best interests of the community. I am not sure that it promotes continuity of services, of vision. Maybe that kind of turnover allows for a constant flow of creative and new ideas. I might make the point, though, that it doesn't really allow those ideas to take hold, and demonstrate to us that they are good ideas. And that on a basic human and economic level, it doesn't promote efficiency.

I intend to bring common sense, and not positions to the table. I will bring my experience in government to the dialogue. I bring my willingness to listen, to gather facts, and I intend to bring my demonstrated ability to synthesize ideas into workable solutions into the mix. These are the principles that have underscored my public work on the School Committee.

Principles, Not Positions

In this short and unusual election, I believe it is important to talk about principles that will guide the conversation about how we govern ourselves. I truly hope that particular positions on specific issues will not win this election. A set of clear, transparent values that will ensure the review process is open, thoughtful, thorough, and free from any pre-conceived ideology will best
serve this city.

Other than a clear sense that we can do better than we have been, I bring no pre-formed solutions to the table. I'm not a town manager guy, or a mayor guy; I have had the experience of working closely with one of the best town managers in the Commonwealth, and of trying to work with one of the worst. I've seen it work, and not work. I am agnostic on the issue of what will work best for Newburyport.

I believe we need a Charter Commission that starts from a position of inquiry, and arrives at a set of solutions that meet the following criteria: they are forward looking, they institutionalize a high degree of participation in governance, they promote the most efficient and creative use of resources, and they are grounded in research.

I am asking for your vote for Charter Commission.

Information you can use

The loosely knit group of people who have been spearheading the effort to get Charter Review on the ballot, have a website with some basic information regarding the process and expectations of the Charter Review. If you head over to Newburyport Charter Review , you can do some information gathering.

Let the conversation begin

Since I was young enough to stuff a campaign flier into a front door, I have been interested in the process of governing. It says a lot about who we are, and often tells a lot about where we have been as a community. I have always believed that living in a community carries clear rights; the flip side of which is a critical set of responsibilities. There is no free lunch. As Bob Dylan once said, "you gotta serve someone."

I have always thought of my experience on the Newburyport School Committee as part of a larger "community conversation." How we value our schools, the expectations we have of our education system, and the level of accountability we expect represent not just a budget item; it is essentially a down payment on the future.

Why Run

The task of the Charter Commission is to take that conversation to a different level. Our Charter has remained essentially unchanged since Woodrow Wilson was president. It was crafted to serve the community that was Newburyport 90 years ago. I think a legitimate subject for consideration is whether the structures it defines for governing our city still serve us efficiently, still promote efficient use of resources needed to make the community work. Is it functional, is it transparent, and does it have the flexibility to allow this community to grow and address new needs, and those that we might not be able to imagine in the future?

That is a conversation worth having. I am asking for a seat at that table.

After nine years as an elected official serving Newburyport, I have had up-close and personal experiences in the practice and theory of governance. Those experiences, a lifetime of interest in how communities work, and a core set of consistent values will contribute to a thorough and vigorous public discussion about the role of government in the life of a community.

Those Values?

My public career, and my life as a parent, educator, non-profit director, freelance journalist, advocate, and tax payer have consistently reflected my values.

Transparency- I think it is critical for the credibility of a governance model that it be transparent. What the people see is what the people should expect.

Participatory democracy is a messy business. We need to participate, though. It is part of paying the freight for living in a community. Inclusion is not a luxury, it is the foundation of democracy.

Informing the constituency is absolutely crucial to the process of governance. I have always resisted the idea that governance is too complicated for the community to understand, and that ideas must be presented as either/or, black/white, yes or no. It has always been my experience that if you provide people with all the information they need to make a decision, the odds are pretty good that they will make a good decision for the community. On the other side, an informed constituency is critical to the life of a community. I believe people have a responsibility to get the information they need to make decisions that affect their community.

Accountability is critical to governance.

Efficiency in the functions of governance is also critical. I believe that the norm should be governance that use resources it has efficiently, smartly, and flexibly. If the community believes that tax dollars are not being wasted, it allows the conversation about funding additional needs like infra-structure or services to occur with honesty, and promotes trust.

Even given the range of possible topics for a Charter Review, I can honestly say that all I bring to the conversation are the above values. I have no "horse in the race" regarding Mayor vs. City Manager, or any other issue. In the coming weeks, I will share some of the experiences I have had that will help shape my participation in the discussion, if elected; but I have no dominating belief about what the outcome could or should be.

Let the conversation begin.