"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.