We can accomplish any charter benefits by adopting
ordinances and other changes
By Gordon L. Weil, Times Record Contributor
Harpswell will vote at town meeting March 12 on a charter
commission. I oppose a Harpswell charter, so I see no point in having
a commission and will vote against it.
1. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
The town meeting and referendums get high turnouts, open debate and
democratically determined results. Harpswell handled the LNG issue and
resolved it using our current system. Compared to other towns, the
municipal budget is low. In short, Harpswell government works well.
2. Shouldn't we look at restructuring town government even if we
end up doing nothing?
A charter commission independent of the rest of town government would
impose unnecessary cost, distraction and conflict on Harpswell. We
have used a governance committee in the past and it worked well. If
needed, we could organize another such committee.
3. Most towns larger than Harpswell have charters. Why not
Harpswell?
Maine law requires that any municipality that wants to have a town
council (representative democracy) instead of town meeting (direct
democracy) must have a charter. About 75 of the 492 municipalities in
Maine have charters, and all but about a dozen have councils, not town
meetings. The dozen or so with town meetings have limited the role of
the town meeting to the budget alone and/or have persons with
manager-type responsibilities.
4. Harpswell does not want to drop the town meeting and has
rejected a town manager form of government. Why would it want to be
the only municipality in Maine to keep the town meeting, have no
manager-type administrator but have a charter?
The main new ideas of the charter supporters seem to be that we should
look at the "distribution of powers" and improved citizen access.
I believe that these issues arise because of the LNG debate. Some LNG
opponents said that the selectmen had too much power, especially in
deciding to put the LNG matter to a town meeting vote. The way to
change what selectmen do is to change the selectmen at election time,
not hog-tie the town with a charter.
Citizen access mostly is concerned with the issue of what townspeople
may discuss at selectmen's meetings. During the LNG debate,
selectmen's meeting became mini-town meetings, threatening to paralyze
the normal conduct of business. Harpswell has many opportunities for
public comment.
5. So, is this really a rerun of the LNG controversy?
No. Some charter commission supporters did not oppose LNG. But I see
it as an outgrowth of the controversy, because of discontent, mainly
among some LNG opponents, with the way that matter was handled.
Like LNG, the charter issue will undoubtedly divide the town on a
matter which it already defeated in an advisory referendum in June
2003. We should allow for more healing and for municipal government to
settle down to normal, before subjecting it to this new stress. A year
of work by a charter commission can only add to the stress.
6. Isn't it time for Harpswell to have home rule? Having a
charter is only one way of having home rule, and we can have as much
as we want now. If we want to keep the town meeting - direct democracy
- we can accomplish any of the benefits of a charter through the
adoption of ordinances or by making other changes under state law.
7. Doesn't home rule through a charter mean the Legislature can't
touch Harpswell?
No. The Maine Constitution says that a charter can cover "all matters,
not prohibited by Constitution or general law, which are local and
municipal in character." For example, taxes are exclusively a state
matter under the Maine Constitution, and no charter can change that.
8. How does a charter compare with other ways of changing town
government?
If Harpswell decides to have a charter commission, its members would
be independent of town government and would come up with a charter
dealing with all aspects of Harpswell government. The voters will have
to take it or leave it as a single package.
The alternative is to continue to consider changes as the need arises
or popular sentiment requires. Then, each issue can be voted upon
independently so the town meeting is not forced into taking a package
deal. What's more, changing a charter is usually more difficult than
changing ordinances, so the town would unnecessarily give up
flexibility in dealing with government issues.
9. Couldn't a charter be a useful guide to town government for
newcomers to Harpswell?
We don't need a charter simply to provide information on town
government to a relatively small number of new people. But an
information publication on how Harpswell is governed would be a good
idea, and I will propose we prepare one.
10. Besides, Harpswell already has a charter. It's just not
written.
The Town of Harpswell was created when Maine was part of the British
Kingdom. Great Britain has never had a written constitution. It
functions according to a series of decisions made over the years and
customs having broad consent. So does Harpswell. We would sacrifice a
precious part of our history unnecessarily in an effort to develop a
charter to deal with some people's current concerns.
If we reject the charter commission, we can continue to strengthen the
traditions and values that have served well during the 247 years that
Harpswell has existed and that make our town special.
Gordon Weil is a selectman in the town of Harpswell. |