On April 4, Framingham voters will choose between remaining a town or adopting a city charter (available by clicking the image at right). Each system has advantages and disadvantages, and you, the voters, will decide which form of government can best address the challenges we face. Whatever you decide, I will do my best to make it work for our community, while also working to amend and improve it.

Town

With our current form of local government, there is broad opportunity for citizen input, and decisions are reviewed by multiple conscientious committees. Our highly rated schools prepare young people for success, we have an array of attractive recreation opportunities, the trash is collected, and streets are plowed. Our system does many things well.

Flaws: While processes within Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen are democratic, the enormous amount of time required to participate means membership trends older, wealthier, and whiter than the general population. The south side never has its full complement of members, which undoubtedly contributes to the unaddressed issues there. Candidates often run unopposed, leading to a mostly self-selected mixture of members who care passionately about the details of policy, zoning, and budgeting; members representing primarily their own interests; and members with an ax to grind. Attendance is low, the pace of decision-making is ponderous, and responsibility is diffuse. This system has served Framingham for over 300 years, and deserves both respect and re-examination.

City

The proposed Home Rule Charter is an extreme change. Power is centralized, accountability is clear, and decision processes are streamlined. A Mayor can give the city more clout at the state level. Representatives on both the School Committee and the City Council are elected from nine geographical districts, with two additional Councilors elected at large, a major change from the current system of all at-large races. Voters will know who represents them, and each member will represent a district of equal population, leading to more equitable representation for all areas of the community.

Flaws: There are valid concerns that the strong Mayor created by the charter has excessive control over appointments and the budget, and can act unilaterally or with the approval of only four of the eleven Councilors. Public input is reduced. Campaigns will become more expensive, potentially making money more influential.

Either System Will Need Changes

These two forms of government are at opposite ends of the spectrum, when something between could serve us better. Town Meeting has made a start at reform by reducing the number of representatives from each precinct from 12 to 9, and passing a conflict of interest bylaw. The Government Study Committee has visited other more efficient Representative Town Meetings and if we continue as a town, they intend to propose further reforms that could make Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen more democratic, productive and accountable.

In my opinion, these adjustments are too little, too late. Our downtown renewal is at least a decade behind similar communities, our taxes are higher, and our representation is undemocratic. Hiring a Town Manager and raising the overall level of professionalism has brought improvements, but lack of accountability remains a problem. If elected to the Board of Selectman, and we remain a town, I will work to improve these issues and advance progressive values during my three-year term.

The charter, on the other hand, can be improved by increasing checks and balances and opportunities for citizen input. If it passes, I advocate reallocating some appointments from the Mayor to the City Council, giving the council more policy and budgetary input, and perhaps reducing the number of Council votes needed to override a mayoral veto or signatures to present a petition. Some positions could change from appointed to elected, if desired. Provisions exist in MA general law for changing a city charter and we can begin amending it at any time. The charter is a beginning, not an end.

Citizen participation is vital, and with either system, I would like to see municipal support for more planning activities and community events at the level of neighborhood, precinct or district.

I Will Vote City

With a strong mayor, the outcome depends heavily on the character and values of the individual who fills this seat, and the quality of their appointments. Burlington, Vermont, a city that can serve as a model for us in many ways, has been extremely successful with a strong mayor. I believe our best option is to elect a Mayor and Council who support amending the charter in the ways I have described, and who are committed to putting the common good before the interests of narrow segments of the population. Of course a side effect of passing the charter would be dissolving the Board of Selectmen at the end of this year, resulting in a very short term for me, if elected. In that case, I will seek other ways to participate, as I am committed to promoting progressive values in our community.

With either form of municipal government, we will address our opportunities and challenges with the tools we have at hand, while continuing our efforts to improve the system itself.