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.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, November 2, 2009
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
