Conference 7.286::maynard

      	Selectmen
    	School Committee
    	Moderator
    	Library Trustees
    	Planning Board
    	Assessors
    	Town Clerk
    	Town Treasurer/Collector
    	Board of Health
    	Public Works Commission
    	Housing Authority
    	Constables
    	Regional School Committee Representative

    I consider myself fairly well-informed about how things work in this
    town and towns in general, but I can never remember what a constable
    does. I'm not too familiar with what the housing authority does, I
    only realized recently that we have a regional school committee
    representative and I'd be hard pressed to describe to anyone what the
    planning board really does (beside "plan"). Maybe I need to go to more
    meetings.

    Given that, perhaps appointment would be better than election, because
    I'm sure other people have the same problems. What are the typical
    tallies for these offices? Do most people vote for the major offices
    like the selectboard (do we have to call them "men", by the way) and
    leave the others blank? In that case, perhaps we wouldn't lose anything
    by appointing these offices. I never cast a vote in an uncontested
    race, and if there's no contest, people learn less about the office and
    the office holder.

    Is there any policy to be made by the treasurer/collector? Or the
    clerk? If not, they should certainly be appointed offices.

    Another consideration is whether there are offices which have become
    stagnant because the same person or people have held them for a long
    time. That could be because no one else cares to run or because people
    are afraid to upset the status quo by challenging the incumbents and
    their committee. 

    I know something about the workings of the Board of Health, because I
    worked on the Solid Waste Comittee for awhile. I like the idea of
    keeping that an elected board, but it's because I'm familiar with it.
    Perhaps that's the real problem -- we have to make more people more
    familiar with what goes on, and make them participate. Good luck!

    					-- hal

First off, someone has to want the position.  If the current position holders
are unopposed at election, I can't see how appointing them can change anything.

The only value that I can see to appointing officials is that you may get a 
higher quality official than if the electorate selected him/her, but that
isn't really an issue here because noone (except the current holder) wants
the job.
 
Furthermore, appointing officials is more likely to be abused than the current
system.

Phil

>First off, someone has to want the position.  If the current position holders
>are unopposed at election, I can't see how appointing them can change anything.

    do any people ever hold back from running for office because they don't
    want to publicly challenge the incumbent? would it be more easier to
    challenge an entrenched officeholder by working with the selectboard to
    be appointed?

>Furthermore, appointing officials is more likely to be abused than the current
>system.

    I agree with that.

    					-- hs 

>>Furthermore, appointing officials is more likely to be abused than the current
>>system.

   > I agree with that.
    
    Another agreement here.  I would guess this is the biggest detriment in
    appointing officials.  The current situation allows registered voters of 
    the town an outlet to unseat incumbents for whatever reason.  Removing 
    this outlet may create a feeling of helplessness to the voters.
    
    I would be interested in seeing the turnout of voters in town if all/most 
    elected offices are changed to "appointed".  Of course this is hardly a 
    matter of concern, but does raise my curiosity. 
    
    					Steve

    Just a follow-up to let you know that I am reading these responses and
    they are just what I had hoped for. 
    
    I'll save my comments until there is more input.
    
    Keep 'em coming folks!
    
    Frank

I've been watching your political discussions and figured I could throw my two
cents worth in as an outsider.  I'm from Burlington and we elect all the 
positions on your list except for the Public Works Commission which we don't
have.  What do they do?

In Burlington the requirements for elected offices aren't too difficult.  I'm a
Town Meeting member it takes 10 signatures of registered voters.  After I got
involved my wife got interested and is now a Library Trustee.  She had to
collect 55 signatures.  I think if you aren't motivated enough to spend a
couple hours knocking on doors or standing in front of the bank/supermarket/dump
to get the signatures you probably really don't want to "waste" the time
required to prepare & attend meetings.

The appointment method would tend to perpetuate a small circle of friendly
people (probably like minded).  Diversity is what keeps the system honest.
That's what makes town meeting so much fun, there are so many different points
of view & personalities. 

Larry

PS. I enjoyed your discussions on snow removal.  We budget a flat $125K and then
handle over runs via Reserve Fund Transfers or the like.  

I think I'm inclined to favor elected positions over appointed positions,
generally for the same reasons that have been discussed so far.

It's certainly not a cut-and-dried situation.  Part of me wants to see
an efficient local government - which has a greater chance of happening
if the right appointments are made.  On the other hand, in a small town,
the circles are pretty tight and the potential for lame appointments is
great.

Sigh!

- dave

I've got it.  We make all the positions appointed instead of elected, but
to keep everything honest, we also create a Maynard senate to review the 
appointments.

8^)

Just kidding.

Seriously though, given the realities of small town government, I favor
elected positions rather than appointed for the reasons stated in previous
replies: less potential for abuse.

regards,

Pete

    RE: .6  "Library Trustee"
    
    >standing in front of the bank/supermarket/dump to get the signatures 
    
    Gee, I always stood in front of the Library when I was running for
    Library Trustee in Acton.  That way I could reach the constituency that
    cared about what happened to the Library and solicit their input as
    well as their signatures.
    

    RE: .9  "Library Trustee"
    
    >standing in front of the bank/supermarket/dump to get the signatures 
    
>>    Gee, I always stood in front of the Library when I was running for
>>    Library Trustee in Acton.

      But then you wouldn't get to meet the people that don't use the
      Library & find out why they don't.  ;-)  My wife got some good feedback
      about handicap accessability problems while going door to door.

      Larry

      PS.  We met your your Library Director at a friend's house a couple weeks
      ago.  My wife had a quick 5 minute conversation with her.  My wife was
      quite favorably impressed.

	I'd like to comment on elected v. appointed town boards.  First,
	however, I want to address .1's implied question on what the 
	Planning Board does.

	I've been a member of the (voluntary) Acton Planning Board 
	for almost 1.5 years.  In reality, the Planning Board has 
	little time to "plan".  We are chartered to review all 
	proposed residential subdivisions and work with the Town's 
	paid staff, the developer, and abutters and neighbors to 
	assure that the subdivision meets all (Zoning) Bylaws and 
	(Subdivision) Rules and Regulations.  Most subdivision plans, 
	as they are originally proposed, do not satisfy all the legal 
	requirements; they may propose a cul-de-sac that is longer 
	than the Rules allow, the developer may not be able to 
	construct the required sidewalks along the entire street 
	frontage (due to wetlands proximity), etc.  

	Our role in these cases is to act as the spokespeople for the 
	Town's residents to negotiate benefits for the abutters and 
	Town in return for allowing the developer to "waive" some of 
	these requirements.  Obviously, the goal is to minimize the 
	number and impact of the waivers.  Some of the benefits we 
	have negotiated include improvements in streets outside the
	immediate subdivision area and public access to undisturbed 
	open land within the subdivision.

	I spend an average of 15 - 20 hours per month preparing for 
	and going to the three scheduled meetings per month as well 
	as physically "walking" proposed subdivision sites.

	I believe an appointed (volunteer) board can be better (and 
	can lead to less abuse) than an elected board, depending on
	the review and approval bodies.  In Acton, the Planning (and
	many other) board members volunteer.  They are interviewed by
	the "Volunteer Coordinating Committee" (which is also
	voluntary) and approved by the Board of Selectmen.  Anyone can
	volunteer (i.e. "political appointments" are not the typical
	process to fill boards).  This self-initiated, followed by a 
	bi-level review, process assures that only folks who are 
	interested and motivated volunteer for the boards AND only those
	whose philosophy is approved by the two bodies of review, make
	it to board membership.

	Acton had a problem a number of years ago with a planning board
	that overwhelmingly favored development.  Before the membership 
	of that board could be changed, most of the apartments on Route 
	2A were started.  That problem is not likely to be repeated in 
	the future.

	In the election process, however, a large part of the "battle"
	is name recognition, usually gained through advertising.  
	Developers (and their supporting casts of engineers, lawyers,
	etc.) tend to be more financially motivated and have deeper
	pockets than the typical citizen and would contribute to 
	those folks running for election that support development.
	In fact, developers may have the most incentive to run for office.
	I believe this could skew the election process to favor developers
	over neighborhoods.

	I'm not saying it did, would, or could happen in a town like 
	Maynard, but if you look around at some of the other towns and
	cities in eastern MA, you have to wonder about what happened for
	them to be developed the way they are.

	David

Re: .11, David Hill.

Thanks for the input, neighbor.  I'm interested in hearing more about Acton's
approach.

>	Developers (and their supporting casts of engineers, lawyers,
>	etc.) tend to be more financially motivated and have deeper
>	pockets than the typical citizen and would contribute to 
>	those folks running for election that support development.
>	In fact, developers may have the most incentive to run for office.
>	I believe this could skew the election process to favor developers
>	over neighborhoods.

I replied in .8 that I favored elected over appointed positions because I felt
there was less potential for abuse, but the above excerpt from .11 clearly 
points out a serious flaw in that line of thinking.

I jokingly suggested a Maynard "senate" that would review appointments.
Acton seems to have almost precisely this setup.  

>	Acton had a problem a number of years ago with a planning board
>	that overwhelmingly favored development.  Before the membership 
>	of that board could be changed, most of the apartments on Route 
>	2A were started.  That problem is not likely to be repeated in 
>	the future.

I can see a situation where even with the "right" method of seating board
members, the "wrong" thing could happen without anyone being able to stop it.

How long does a board appointment/volunteership in Acton last?  

Is there a mechanism for removing a board member?  

Can this mechanism be abused or used by those with the power for invoking the
mechanism to influence board members?

regards,

Pete

>>How long does a board appointment/volunteership in Acton last?  

	It's up to five years; it ends at the end of a FY.  I was 
	sworn in in the middle of the FY, mine will last 4.5 years.  
	It is possible, however, for folks to "re-up", subject to 
	the Board of Selectmen's approval.

>>Is there a mechanism for removing a board member?  

	Since we technically serve at the "pleasure" of the Board
	of Selectmen, I think they can oust us.  I asked a number
	of people, including the Planning Board secretary (who is
	a member of her town's Planning Board) as well as the Town
	Clerk, and no-one knew for sure.  If it is a vote by the
	Selectmen, it would probably be majority (3+ out of 5).
	Most of us, by the way, were approved unanimously.
	
>>Can this mechanism be abused or used by those with the power for invoking 
>>the mechanism to influence board members?

	The Board of Selectmen are voted in on a rolling basis
	they have three year terms and one or two get voted each year).  
	Therefore, either one or more of us would have to do something 
	to really provoke them, OR there would need to be significant 
	turn-over for the Selectmen to oust us.

	David

    Since the activity on this topic seems to have come to a halt, let
    me play devil's advocate in response to some of the comments.  I 
    will try to reference specific replies as best as I can.  Remember
    that the comments that I make are only to offer other views and
    are not necessarily my views and certainly not the views of the
    Charter Commission.  I'm just trying to bring out counter points.
    
    RE: .1- Hal, Constables deliver and post Town meeting warrants and
    serve writs and processes in civil suits.  
    
    A Housing Authority provides programs to make available housing 
    for families of low income and for elderly persons of low income.  
    It is a "body politic and corporate" which means that it can act 
    as a private corporation in building and managing low income housing 
    projects.  An interesting note is that public housing projects are
    exempt from taxation BUT they may pay the town in lieu of taxes 
    the equivalent sum of money if directed to so by the town.
    
    The Regional School Board is the Assabet Valley Regional Vocational
    School in Marlboro.  Maynard is a member of that district.
    
    A Planning Board does "plan", and must maintain a master plan for
    the town.  In addition, the planning board regulates the laying out
    and construction of ways (roads) in subdivisions.
    
    I have the chapter and verse of the Mass. General Laws that relate 
    to any of the above if anyone needs further information. 
    
    The Town Treasurer/Collector and the Town Clerk also have strict
    State Laws that they must follow.  I have met with both the present
    Treasurer/Collector and Clerk and both agree that it takes a great
    deal of training to learn these jobs.  Should these positions be
    put up for grabs at town election every three years or should 
    they be appointed based on experience and education?
    
    RE: .2-  Phil, keep in mind that that the change from elected to 
    appointed will not take place within the CURRENT SYSTEM.  If the
    Charter Commision only changed some positions from elected to 
    appointed and DID NOT change the rest of town government, I would
    agree with your statement.  The proposed Charter is a complete
    revision of the town government structure, and the elected/appointed
    issue is but one part of the total revision.
    
    As far as "someone has to want the position", remember that 73% of 
    all elected offices in Maynard in the last ten years have been 
    unopposed contests.  It may well be that concerned citizens like 
    yourself, who choose not to run for an elected office, might be 
    willing to serve on a board where your expertise is the sole 
    criterion by which you are selected. 
    
    RE:  .3- Hal,  Whether elected or appointed, if the incumbent is
    doing a good job, why would you want to challenge them?
    
    RE:  .4- Steve, the current situation tends to only allow to voice
    your opinion by NOT VOTING since the offices are mainly unopposed.
    Blanks don't win.  How do you unseat an incompetent incubent who is
    unoppossed
    
    I don't know if the turnout would be affected by reducing the number
    of elected offices.  I've never heard of a large turnout to elect 
    an unoppossed incumbent.  The "major" offices- Selectmen and School
    Committee- seem to always generate the most interest, and these two
    must remain elected by law.
    
    RE:  .6- Larry, thanks for the input.  Most towns have combined the
    functions of Public Works with an increased Board of Selectmen (5)
    to handle the policy and regulatory issues relating to Public Works
    functions.
    
    RE:  .7- Dave, as I mentioned above, if the proposed Charter only
    changed elected to appointed, and did nothing else to change the
    "system", the system could be abused, and history shows that it
    may have been in the past.  But, if you have access to the 1989
    Maynard Town Report, page 147, you will find the present Maynard
    Town Org. Chart.  Thirteen town agencies and officials report only
    to the voters, and have no implied or required interaction with
    any other agencies or offices.  Interdepartmental cooperation and
    coordination is by accident at present.  The Town "Fathers" Forum
    system was created some years ago to try to get all these agencies
    and offices to march to the same beat.  The proposed Charter provides
    a formal interaction of all these functions by spitting the town
    goevernment into three branches- Legislative (Town Meeting), 
    Executive (Selectmen) and Administrative (Day to day management).
    The reporting structure and resposibilities of each town agency and
    office are defined, based on what each one does.
    
    As for the appointment process, the appointing authority is directly
    responsible for the actions of the agencies and officers that it
    appoints.  "Lame Duck" appointees can't survive in this system.
    
    A key point is the increase in Selectmen from three to five.  In
    a five member board, the chances of sneaking in a pal is greatly
    reduced.
    
    RE:  .8-  Pete, we are writing a Charter for the Town because 
    Maynard is a $13-14 million dollar corporation, with stockholders
    (taxpayers) who demand a return on their investment.  We cannot run
    this corporation as a "small town government" any longer.  If that
    means that we must let go of some traditional "trees" in order to
    operate the corporation more effectively and efficiently. 
    
    RE:  .11-  Thanks very much, David, for your comments regarding the
    Acton experience and your current system.
    
    Folks, please re-read David's comments.  If a town government is 
    structured with clear roles and responsibilities for each function,
    with no overlaps, abuse of the system is reduced, regardless of 
    elected/appointed status.
    
    
    One last point that needs to be addressed is the removal of officials.
    The proposed Charter for Maynard has two methods.  We have drafted a
    Recall provision for elected officials.  (We have no such method
    today).  Appointed officials, as noted by David in .13, are at the
    "pleasure of the appointing authority".  In the proposed Charter,
    additional removal procedures are documented.
    
    I know that you all would be better informed if you could read the
    proposed Charter from front to back, and we are working hard to get
    the draft done and available to you.  We have reached the 75% stage
    and the purpose of this conference was to expose you to one of our
    major issues.  If nothing else, I hope all of you have come to
    appreciate the complexity involved in writing this thing.
    
    Keep the comments coming.
    
    Thanks,
    Frank