On Tuesday, the voters in Newburyport will have the opportunity to bring our community into the 21st century. We will be voting on whether to change our community’s charter.
The charter is our local constitution. It was last modified in 1919. Most of it dates from 1851.
Newburyport has changed enormously since 1919, when the voters last had an opportunity to alter our charter. The current charter contains at least 19 instances that are conflict with state law. It is time for a change.
What would the new charter alter? The size of the city council and school committee remain the same, but we will have a four-year term for mayor. It no longer makes sense to hire an executive every two years. We recently have had six mayors in a 13-year period. This is not the way to run a $54 million/year business. Mayors barely have time to understand the job before another campaign is upon them.
The Charter Commission spent a great deal of time researching what’s best for Newburyport. We interviewed leaders from many other communities, including Amesbury, North Andover, Salisbury, Cambridge and Haverhill. One mayor told us that there were a number of goals he would like to accomplish, but that he was unwilling to risk politically. “There are things that I can’t accomplish, because I might upset a few people. They would torpedo my chances of getting re-elected. So, yes, the two year term limits what I can accomplish,” he said.
Citizens of Newburyport agree with that assessment. The Charter Commission conducted a survey last winter. The greatest number of respondents wanted a four-year term for mayor.
Some object that the new charter does not include a recall provision. We considered this option seriously. In the end, a strong majority came to the conclusion that recall elections are expensive. They lead to painful divisions within a community.
Consider what occurred in Chelmsford. A wealthy businessman was upset when the town denied a zoning change for his land. He spent $90,000 to run a recall campaign. Taxpayers had to finance a full election. The recall failed, but the damage was done. One rich person had turned the town on its head. The impact was that fewer citizens will be willing to stand up and offer themselves for public service, because they risk the embarrassment and cost of recall.
In fact the new charter expands opportunities for dissenting views. There are new provisions for referendum questions. As few as 100 voters can challenge any decision made by the city council or school committee.
Our new charter would also do the following:
Create departments of finance and human resources. A major flaw is that there is no staff in city hall responsible for overseeing the city budget, or managing policies for collective bargaining, and for hiring and firing employees. The new charter does not create any new jobs; it simply says that current personnel (such as the city assessor or treasurer) must assume responsibility for fiscal management.
Requires long-term fiscal planning. Concerned about issues such as the waterfront or the landfill? Vote for a change improving governmental management.
It requires that the charter be reviewed at least every ten years. If citizens want to change something, they won’t wait another 92 years to get to vote on it.
More information is at www.CharterYes.com. Let’s move Newburyport into the 21st century.
• • •
Hugh Kelleher, chairman of the Newburyport Tree Committee, has served on the city’s Charter Commission. He is executive director of the Plumbing- Contractors Association of Greater Boston.