Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-ACCA90-rpt.pdf r • e. 4 041 REPORT orr ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONCERNING ARTICLE 90 , 1974 A T M (FILLING OF SELECTMAN AND SCHOOL COMMITTEE VACANCIES) We have been asked to advise the Selectmen as to possible amendo- ments to the third paragraph of Section 1 of the Town Manager Act , dealing with mid-term vacancies on the School Committee and Board of Selertmen The existing scheme calls for filling such vacancies by special town elections, unless the vacancies occur less than 100 days prior to the next annual election There are two alternatives that we believe superior to this scheme We describe these two preferred alternatives immediately below, under the headings "Town Meeting Scheme" and "Restricted Appointment Scheme " We then go on to examine some of their respective advantages and disadvantages, as compared with the existing scheme, with other possible schemes , and with each other The Town Meeting Scheme A vacancy in either board, occurring 100 days or more prior to the next annual election, would be filled at a special town meeting, to be called for this purpose by the Board of Selectmen upon notifica- tion of the vacancy The person so chosen would serve only until the next annual election , but would be eligible then to run for the un- expired (or new) term. (If the person did run at the next annual election , he or she, would not be identified on the ballot as a candidate for re-election ) * *G L c 54 , § 41 , provides "To the name of each candidate for a town office upon an official ballot who is an elected incumbent thereof shall be added the words 'Candidate for Re-election ' " (emphasis supplied) We believe that the word "elected, " as used in this provision, applies only to persons elected by the voters and would not, or need not , apply to someone chosen by a representative town meeting The town meeting would normally be set for the evening of the third Monday following the Selectmen ' s action (This would normally mean an elapsed time of 3 - @weeks between the occurrence and the filling of the vacancy ) The charter amendment would stipulate that the Warrant for a special town meeting called for this purpose would be restricted to just the one Article Citizens ' articles would not be admitted to this Warrant -la- When setting the date for the meeting, the Selectmen would also establish a deadline for taking out nomination papers This would normally be the second Thursday following the Selectmen ' s action , allowing for publicity in one issue of the Lexington Minute-man and a week ' s time thereafter for deciding upon candidacies The usual requirement of 50 signatures to nominate would be in force (This seems necessary to weed out frivolous candidacies ) Signed papers would be due four or five days after the deadline ,for taking them out -- normally the following Monday This would leave a one-week period for communication and discussion, including one opportunity for candidates to have their qualifications and views published in the kit ute-man The town meeting session itself would be simple and expeditious Statements by the candidates might be allowed, but there would be no need for floor debate Voting would be by elimination Each member would cast one vote on the first ballot, with a candidate declared elected if he/she received a majority of the votes; and, if no candidate received a majority on the first ballot , a .second ballot would follow with that candidate eliminated who ran last on the first ballot; and so forth Since members would be voting as elected re- presentatives , not private citizens, we think the balloting should probably be by roll-call The Restricted Appointment Scheme If a vacancy occurred 100 days or more prior to the next annual election, the remaining members of the board having the vacancy -- normally four in number -- would be joined by the Moderator, and this group, by majority vote, would appoint the successor The appointment -2- would be made not more than two weeks after notification of the vacancy. The successor would have to be selected from among past elected occupants of the office to be filled, unless at least four of those Vrticipat.ing in the appointment process first determined, by vote , that there were no such persons still resident in the Town who were c,i.11ing and able to serve The person appointed would serve only u til the next annual election, but could run for election at that time * It is an essential feature of this scheme that the Moderator would be expected to take a full and active role throughout the process , on an equal footing with the four remaining board members There should be no thought of the Moderator' s role being restricted to that of breaking deadlocks that might arise among the other four, because assuming such a restricted role could prove detrimental to the performance of the Moderator' s other responsibilities , which depend heavily on his maintaining a posture of impartiality and neutrality as among political groups and factions in the Town The Schemes We Have Rejected The relative merits of our two preferred schemes can best be discussed by comparison with other possible schemes we regard as unsatisfactory Town Election Scheme This is the existing scheme Its dis- ad antages are clearly known from our recent experience with it expense , delay, apathy We understand that the recent School Committee election cost the Town about $5 ,000 -- perhaps about $1 , 000 to print and mail the Warrant and over $3 , 000 for election *Since the appointed successor would clearly not be an "elected recumbent , " he or she would not be entitled, under G L c 54 , § 41 , to be designated on the official ballot as a "Candidate for Re- election " -3- day expenses In addition, the private expenses of campaigning effectively for a townwide election are substantial Such an election, moreover, seems bound to take at least two months from the time the acancy occurs if there is to be a reasonable opportunity for candidates to communicate with voters The expense and delay might be justified if they were the price of a truly democratic and re- i.resentative election process ; but voter apathy and light turn-outs for such special elections seem predictable , undermining the repre- sentative character and participatory benefits of this expensi •e and time-consuming process Phe Restricted Appointment Scheme is , of course, far cheaper and euicker than the present scheme; but it seems no better than that kk scheme in terms of representativeness and citizen participation The Town Meeting Scheme occupies a midpoint as to expense and dela; the cost to the Town would be about $1 , 000 for printing and mailing v. arrants , plus the costs of a single town meeting session , while "rivate campaign expense and necessary campaign time could both be greatly reduced by the ability to focus communications on presumably knowledgeable town meeting members The Town Meeting Scheme seems plainly superior to any appointment scheme in terms of representative- ness and participation; and we believe it probably superior in these same characteristics to a special town-wide election , because there 'culd be a very high (proportionate) level of participation by elected Town Meeting members as contrasted with a very low voter turn-out 11/4 We reach this judgment although we are aware that , especially given, the restrictive time-frame we are proposing, Town Meeting members would tend to vote on the basis of their own individual appraisals rather than on the basis of constituent views -4- i r, rwirn Promotion Scheme A conceivable method of filling vacancies is to promote the runner-up in the previous town election for the office in question We reject this idea because the risk is too high that it will be undemocratic in its effects A "runner-up" may well be indistinguishable from an "also-ran " It frequently happens that in an annual election the number of candidates exceeds the number of vacancies by precisely one , and in any such case, the "runner-up" is simply a person whom the electorate has rejected Where the rumber of "excess" candidates was larger, the adverse inference is less obvious , but still quite plausible Appointment Schemes All appointment schemes have the advantage of cheapness and quickness All have the disadvantage of being, or at least seeming, undemocratic and nonparticipatory The person a ,poi.nted is almost certain to be someone personally known to many or all of the board members doing the appointing -- what many citizens would think of as an "insider " On the other hand, the appointee would serve only until the next election In that election the appointee would not have the advantage of a special ballot position or designation, though he/she could, of course, appeal to the electorate on the basis of experience gained during the interim period of service (We reject the possibility of requiring the appointee to refrain from running for election, for two reasons first, an individual ' s right to run for office should not be thus restricted; second, it seems wasteful to disqualify a person who may have invested heavily in acquiring valuable knowledge and insight during his/her period of service ) The idea of restricting appointments to former occupants of the -5- office is intended to alleviate the anti-democratic character of an appointment scheme by ensuring that the person selected is someone whom the voters themselves have once seen fit to select Yet we should note the risk (though it seems unlikely) that the only willing former office-holders are persons whose ability to serve the Town effectively has become impaired, for example , by illness We have recommended that any appointment should be made by the remaining members of the concerned board plus the Moderator -- thus rejecting the scheme proposed in the general laws for filling School Committee vacancies, whereby the Selectmen would sit with the remaining members of the School Committee in filling School Committee vacancies * Our thinking here is that the voters may well ha-e selected Selectmen and School Committee members with different objectives in mind, and that the two boards oCten (and appropriately) ha"e different, and partially conflicting, institutional goals (Certainly no one would suggest that the School Committee participate in the filling of Selectmen ' s vacancies ! ) Wait-It-Out Scheme One way of dealing with vacancies is simply to let them remain unfilled until the next annual election The virtue of this approach is that it completely avoids all the problems of expense and/or offense to democratic principles that each of the alternatives to some degree entails The disadvantages are the risk of deadlock in a remaining four-member board, and the increased work- *G L c 41, § 11, deals with School Committee vacancies Under G L ch 41, § 10 , vacancies on the Board of Selectmen are filled, if at all , at a special election which may be called by the remaining Selectmen or by 200 voters There is no requirement that our special-lass charter 1 (i e , the Town Manager Act) follow the methods provided in the General Laws 1 -6- I load on remaining board members The "100-day" provision is a device for trading off these conflicting considerations (The length of this period could, of course, be adjusted in either direction without violence to the central purposes of either the Town Meeting or the Restricted Appointment Scheme ) Town-Meeting Versus Restricted-Appointment Choice between these, our two preferred alternatives, depends on appraisal of their relative virtues and defects vis-a-vis one another The Restricted Appointment Scheme is clearly superior in terms of expeditiousness , inexpensiveness, and administrative ease In addition, it might be argued that those participating in the appointment process would have a degree of special insight , not readily available to Town Meeting members as a group, regarding the personal aual.iti.c and talents which would be of particular and timely service to the board in question By contrast, the Town Meeting Scheme ' s great strength is the breadth of participation it would make possible, and the assurance it would tend to give that the person filling a major (normally an elective) office was someone acceptable to a broadly representative body of citizens We believe the choice is a closely balanced one We have not attempted in this Report to suggest which way it should go , believing that the appropriate step at this point is to submit the matter to broadened discussion Should anyone wish to know our individual pre- ferences as they stand at present, we shall be glad to state them -7- Procedure It might be advisable to have two motions drafted for presenta- tion to the 1974 ATM -- one for a Town Meeting Scheme, one for a Restricted Appointment Scheme We could also have in readiness certain motions to amend, especially in regard to the "Appointment" motion -- for example, to remove the restriction to former office holders In any case , we think the motion should provide for petitioning the General Court for special legislation which would set forth an amendment to the Town-Manager Act and would stipulate that the amendment would take effect only after approval by the voters at the next annual election The Act was initially adopted with voter approval , and no amendment affecting the method of filling major town offices -- especially if the method would reduce the powers of the general electorate -- should be adopted without also having obtained voter approval Using this approach, a rough time-table would be 1974 A T M -- Town Meeting votes to instruct Selectmen to petition General Court for special legislation to amend Town-Manager Act May, 1974 -- Selectmen forward petition to General Court Summer, 1974 -- General Court passes, and Governor signs , special act calling for submission of proposed amendment to voters March, 1975 -- Amendment question on ballot at annual town election If approved, amendment takes effect If disapproved, it doesn ' t Drafting of motions should, of course , rest ultimately with the Town Counsel acting under instructions from the Selectmen We shall be happy to provide any requested assistance Respectfully submitted, Frank I Michelman George P Wadsworth Natalie H Riff n , Chairman els