On October 16, 1815 a committee that considered the question of reforming Boston town government reported to the town meeting and advanced sustained arguments against the open town meeting in large towns.
"It is impossible that all the individuals of which they are composed should be well acquainted with the principles on which depend the prosperous conduct of the moneyed concerns of a corporation and with those other subjects of internal regulation by which the prosperity of the city is increased and by which it is best enabled to encourage and protect the industry of its own. If all the inhabitants of such towns assembled it is obvious that business cannot be well transacted by so numerous a body, viable as it always must be to be swayed by local views, party feelings, or the interest of designing men: if the meetings be, as it most frequently will be, but thinly attended, those present must act as a representatives of the whole; and it is very seldom that men of the best intelligence and most capable of conducting public business will leave their important private concerns to attend to affairs in which they have only a general interest; and therefore unavoidably happens that the affairs of a large town are conducted by a very small number of persons, who represent an act for the whole, but who are not chosen by them, who do not possess their confidence and act under no, or very slight, responsibility.".
Not unlike the problems experienced in Massachusetts towns of more than 6,000 population and challenging issues in governance.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Saturday, December 20, 2008
- To Sharon Charter Commissioners: December 18, 2008
From: George Bailey
Gordon Gladstone, a long time volunteer in Sharon Town Government sent to the Charter Commission : Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:02 AM
'The following is an excerpt from an obviously very wise Mass judge rendered during a court case involving zoning:
"It is common knowledge that nowhere is there a freer expression of individual views than at a town meeting on matters in which the town has an interest. Much may be said that may not be germaine[sic] to the question before the meeting, but experience has taught that the good judgement[sic] and common sense of the voters can be safely relied upon to reach a correct decision." (Caires v. Hingham. 323 Mass. 589,596).'
Gordon's quote comes from an authoritative source – a decision of our Supreme Judicial Court. But context is everything. It's a 60 year old (1946) case involving the then 5 year old Hingham zoning by-law and a challenge by an early generation of NIMBYs to a change in the zoning at an area of Hingham known as Nantasket Junction, a freight siding on the then quite active Greenbush line.
The question revolved about a newly created business zone that benefitted two landowners, and was opposed by the Planning Board and some abutters. The SJC decided that “A vote at a town meeting amending the town's zoning by-law was not invalidated by the mere fact that one who would benefit personally by the amendment was active in initiating it and in advocating it by newspaper advertisements and pamphlets and by addressing the town meeting.”
The SJC also wanted to lay to rest any question that “A report made by a town's planning board as to a proposed amendment of its zoning by-law ......, is advisory only and is not binding upon the voters at the town meeting ...”
The SJC went on “It cannot be said that the judgment of those having an intimate knowledge of all the essential factors involved, that the amendment was in the public interest, is entirely lacking in any rational basis. Due regard must be accorded to the collective judgment of those familiar with the locality and the circumstances prevailing in the town.” Hardly an endorsement of the wisdom of the meeting!
The population of Hingham at the time of the by law was about 8000, with perhaps 4800 voters. The SJC does not address the representative character of the vote but we could guess that a turnout similar to that of the Sharon meetings of that time could have meant that several thousand had assembled, rather than the 2% or 3% experienced here recently.
Someday the SJC may address the validity of town meetings where :
- complex amendments are introduced at the meeting,
- where moneys are voted without voter access to the full town budget, revenues and expenses,
- where claims are made that cannot be refuted because the sources were outside the meeting,
- or where voters, worn down by lengthy arguments, vote to expedite the meeting at the expense of adequate debate, and where most voters find the obstacles presented by the system onerous and cannot attend.
Until that time comes, Charter Commissions must consider these questions and propose improvements.
George Bailey
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Open Town Meeting is still being used by towns in Massachusetts despite the provision in the Constitution allowing communities with populations greater than 6000 to adopt a representative form. Why is this so? One reason is the obstacles raised by the Home Rule Amendment - a 15% petition of registered voters followed by an election of 9 commissioners , followed by a referendum at an annual town meeting. Another is the seeming unwillingness of responsible citizens to recognize that OTM is an obstacle to good government rather than an exciting way of letting "voices be heard".
To address the mechanism of democracy as opposed to a republic we should refer to one of the most thoughtful discussions of this question, that of James Madison in Federalist Papers No 10. To remind us of its applicability to modern government, changes to Madison's text are shown in blue and deletions in red.
Madison wrote "The two great points of difference between a democracy i.e. Open Town Meeting and a republic, i.e. representative form are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;
secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men and women of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the town republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small town republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small town republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men and women who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. . . . . . . . .
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
To address the mechanism of democracy as opposed to a republic we should refer to one of the most thoughtful discussions of this question, that of James Madison in Federalist Papers No 10. To remind us of its applicability to modern government, changes to Madison's text are shown in blue and deletions in red.
Madison wrote "The two great points of difference between a democracy i.e. Open Town Meeting and a republic, i.e. representative form are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;
secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men and women of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the town republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small town republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small town republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men and women who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. . . . . . . . .
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Town meeting is the purest form of Democracy?
How many times have your heard someone say "Town meeting is the purest form of Democracy"?
That belief may well stem from the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville when he visited New England in the 1830’s. At that time he found our young Republic was functioning on structures built out of necessity in the early 17th Century. Typically, in each small town there were nearly 20 officials - each elected annually at a public meeting of citizens. Following the election, the meeting carried out the business of the town. "Every inhabitant is required, on pain of being fined, to undertake these different functions, which, however, are almost all paid, in order that the poorer citizens may give time to them without loss. In general, each official act has its price, and the officers are remunerated in proportion to what they have done." He explained: "In New England Towns - each town began as in independent nation. The English kings seized only central power thus "left the towns as they found them". No powers were granted them but they functioned regardless".
The typical Town Government in the Massachusetts of today bears a superficial similarity to the early 19th Century version. But today, only a tiny minority attend town meeting which is, nevertheless, the final authority on laws, budget, and salaries of town officials.
How does government manage to function? First and foremost, today it is largely governed by state law. many things have changed. The citizens of earlier times all lived and worked within walking distance of their homes. There were no utilities - gas or electric - and the railroad was yet to be built. Only one adult of most two adult households could vote and there was no state financial aid -only levies and mandates such as the requirement that all children must given an education. A few regional services were assessed to the towns - the judicial system was established at the county level, appointed by the governor.
Today our experiment in self government has become a charade of a once useful institution -nicely illustrated by Town government in Sharon.
As a case in point, we should take the May 3, 2004 Sharon Annual Town meeting- faultlessly democratic in its operation - but largely a meaningless exercise.
In three nights and just short of twelve hours, the Town Meeting dealt with a 36 article warrant, including a $60 million operating budget and Capital expenditures of $4 millions, a new cell tower by-law, a new Historical District, and authorization to place the adoption of the Community Preservation Act on the November ballot. We also "elected" several citizens to the Finance Committee without debate or opposition.
Yet out of an eligible electorate of about 12,000, just 267 citizens on the first night, 186 on the second, and 177 on the third showed up for some seemingly serious business. Since some of those present were the 60 or more elected and appointed town officials who needed to be present, the actual public at large were represented by slightly over 1.5% the first night, and about 1% on the following two nights. Of that little band, my guess is that a sizable number had only cell towers on the mind although Article 24 didn’t come to the floor until the third night.
Why did 98.5% of the citizenry stay away from the annual meeting? Explanations often range from the weather, two working-parent families, conflicts with working hours, to intramural sports.
The voting public may have far better reasons for not showing up. Perhaps the fact that 15 of the 36 articles on the agenda were listed in the warrant as "report to be given at Town Meeting" diminished voter interest. Perhaps the lack of any long range capital plan made discussion of the pot pourri of 12 Capital borrowing articles unlikely. Or was it the absence of any cost estimates on the taxes lost for Senior exemptions or employee retirement costs or an approximation of the amount expected from the Highway fund for off-the books expenditures on the town’s roads?. Or the "election" on the town meeting floor for new members of the Finance Committee - the names to be announced by the nominating committee from the floor of the meeting!.
A voter entering the meeting with the warrant in hand and the town report in the other would still have no clue as to the assessments for various state programs such as MBTA, MAPC, Norfolk County. Or was it the lack of any estimate of the tax impacts of the actions in the warrant or a general program budget showing the impact of earmarked state funds - or even any indication at all of the impact of state aid such Chapter 70 educational aid - on the town budget?
Be careful about what you hope for. Let no one misunderstand the point of this discussion. If we succeeded in presenting all this information and attracting any significant number of voters (the quorum of most bodies is 50% of those eligible) we would all petition for reform. Sitting in one room with 6000 voters, debating, amending, tabling, postponing, passing 36 articles could well take a month. Let also be said that this muddle of information is no recent phenomena: little is different from the process of my first town meeting in 1949!
For several years, the Town Government Study Committee has been thinking about - and in several instances - changing the way Town meeting is conducted. But these changes are very small in comparison with the challenge.
To many observers the failure of local government is the confusion of responsibility. The detailed consideration of the actions of town meeting are reviewed in detail by the essentially unelected Finance Committee and are not publicly debated by the Selectmen until a few days before the town meeting.
That belief may well stem from the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville when he visited New England in the 1830’s. At that time he found our young Republic was functioning on structures built out of necessity in the early 17th Century. Typically, in each small town there were nearly 20 officials - each elected annually at a public meeting of citizens. Following the election, the meeting carried out the business of the town. "Every inhabitant is required, on pain of being fined, to undertake these different functions, which, however, are almost all paid, in order that the poorer citizens may give time to them without loss. In general, each official act has its price, and the officers are remunerated in proportion to what they have done." He explained: "In New England Towns - each town began as in independent nation. The English kings seized only central power thus "left the towns as they found them". No powers were granted them but they functioned regardless".
The typical Town Government in the Massachusetts of today bears a superficial similarity to the early 19th Century version. But today, only a tiny minority attend town meeting which is, nevertheless, the final authority on laws, budget, and salaries of town officials.
How does government manage to function? First and foremost, today it is largely governed by state law. many things have changed. The citizens of earlier times all lived and worked within walking distance of their homes. There were no utilities - gas or electric - and the railroad was yet to be built. Only one adult of most two adult households could vote and there was no state financial aid -only levies and mandates such as the requirement that all children must given an education. A few regional services were assessed to the towns - the judicial system was established at the county level, appointed by the governor.
Today our experiment in self government has become a charade of a once useful institution -nicely illustrated by Town government in Sharon.
As a case in point, we should take the May 3, 2004 Sharon Annual Town meeting- faultlessly democratic in its operation - but largely a meaningless exercise.
In three nights and just short of twelve hours, the Town Meeting dealt with a 36 article warrant, including a $60 million operating budget and Capital expenditures of $4 millions, a new cell tower by-law, a new Historical District, and authorization to place the adoption of the Community Preservation Act on the November ballot. We also "elected" several citizens to the Finance Committee without debate or opposition.
Yet out of an eligible electorate of about 12,000, just 267 citizens on the first night, 186 on the second, and 177 on the third showed up for some seemingly serious business. Since some of those present were the 60 or more elected and appointed town officials who needed to be present, the actual public at large were represented by slightly over 1.5% the first night, and about 1% on the following two nights. Of that little band, my guess is that a sizable number had only cell towers on the mind although Article 24 didn’t come to the floor until the third night.
Why did 98.5% of the citizenry stay away from the annual meeting? Explanations often range from the weather, two working-parent families, conflicts with working hours, to intramural sports.
The voting public may have far better reasons for not showing up. Perhaps the fact that 15 of the 36 articles on the agenda were listed in the warrant as "report to be given at Town Meeting" diminished voter interest. Perhaps the lack of any long range capital plan made discussion of the pot pourri of 12 Capital borrowing articles unlikely. Or was it the absence of any cost estimates on the taxes lost for Senior exemptions or employee retirement costs or an approximation of the amount expected from the Highway fund for off-the books expenditures on the town’s roads?. Or the "election" on the town meeting floor for new members of the Finance Committee - the names to be announced by the nominating committee from the floor of the meeting!.
A voter entering the meeting with the warrant in hand and the town report in the other would still have no clue as to the assessments for various state programs such as MBTA, MAPC, Norfolk County. Or was it the lack of any estimate of the tax impacts of the actions in the warrant or a general program budget showing the impact of earmarked state funds - or even any indication at all of the impact of state aid such Chapter 70 educational aid - on the town budget?
Be careful about what you hope for. Let no one misunderstand the point of this discussion. If we succeeded in presenting all this information and attracting any significant number of voters (the quorum of most bodies is 50% of those eligible) we would all petition for reform. Sitting in one room with 6000 voters, debating, amending, tabling, postponing, passing 36 articles could well take a month. Let also be said that this muddle of information is no recent phenomena: little is different from the process of my first town meeting in 1949!
For several years, the Town Government Study Committee has been thinking about - and in several instances - changing the way Town meeting is conducted. But these changes are very small in comparison with the challenge.
To many observers the failure of local government is the confusion of responsibility. The detailed consideration of the actions of town meeting are reviewed in detail by the essentially unelected Finance Committee and are not publicly debated by the Selectmen until a few days before the town meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
