Big night at Portsmouth council tomorrow

Even if you're not going to the Portsmouth Town Council for the wastewater management plan discussion, there are at least two other items regular readers may care about on the agenda: the Island Park skate area and some PCC proposals to revise the Town Charter.

Tailgunner Gleason has submitted an agenda item "Revisit Island Park Crime Watch/Playground Committee Issue." That's all it says, so what this one's about is anybody's guess, although anyone interested in the skate area will certainly want to be there (and it's before the wastewater discussion, so it will happen at a reasonable hour...)

And then, under new business, Portsmouth Concerned Citizens prez Larry Fitzmorris has a request for the Council to approve four changes to the Town Charter: Charter Review, Elimination of the Straight Party Lever, Recall of Local Elected Officials, and Two Year Terms for the School Committee. While I don't think charter review is necessarily a bad thing (depending on who gets to be on the committee), and I can at least understand the arguments for eliminating the straight party lever (though I don't personally find them compelling), the other two seem to me unlikely to increase the effectiveness of local government.

Let me put it as politely as possible: The PCC's history with Tent Meetings makes me very suspicious of their intentions around a recall ordinance. 'Nuff said.

And as someone who has been a regular attendee at school committee meetings for the past three-and-a-half years, I can tell you that the learning curve is much steeper than it is for the Council. And I'm also unsure how this would square with RI General Law 16-2-5: "In cities or towns having biennial elections the committee shall be divided as equally as may be into two (2) classes whose several terms of office shall expire at the end of four (4) years from the dates of their respective elections."

I'm sure that one could argue the proposed change falls under section 401 of the Town Charter, which says that state election law controls "excepting those provisions which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter affecting the form of government." But as I've said before, IANAL. However, I think there should be a requirement for significant evidence to support such a change to the Charter, and I'll be most interested in what the PCC brings to the podium tomorrow night.

Full disclosure: I live in Island Park, and I care about wastewater and the skate area. And as a supporter of our schools, I value accountability in their governance, but not at the potential cost of decreased effectiveness.

Comments

While, I believe that short terms for elected officials brings some method of periodic accountability, the notion of wholesale "cleansing" of the School Committee and Town Council in two year election cycles has two drawbacks. (1) It provides for no continuity across election cycles and (2) Does not allow any elected official to develop some long-term initiative on which they can be held accountable. Solutions to the Town's problems require a long term strategy and stability at the elected official rather than the hired Town employee level. Our Town 'strategy' (if we have one) is developed and executed by the Town Adminstator and Town Planner - in spite of the Town Council - since they have some sort of 'tenure'. The alternating election terms of the School Committee provide for some continuity and stability. (I think an argument can be made that the School Commitee works better at long-term strategy than the Town Council.) It would serve the Town better to adopt a similar election cycle for the Town Council rather than revert the School Commitee to the 2 year "all" term.

If we keep "throwing the bums out" every other year, we'll never get anything done. I guess we have proven that in Portsmouth time and time again.

Hi, ElCapitan...
You make a good point about stability and continuity, and I would really like to see some genuine "Government 2.0" engagement with the citizens of town on a regular basis, rather than this reactive "fire them midstream if we don't like what they're doing" that a recall initiative implies.

Best,
-j

The option for a straight party selection at the ballot box only serves as a 'lazy way out" for voters. I have never voted straight party. I feel in doing so, regardless of my political persuasion, a straight party vote is making me vote for a wide spectrum of political views (from radical to moderate) that may not be consistent with my personal views. I admit, I am a moderate and voting straight Democrat would give my vote to some radical factions. I believe that is one of the root problems in our Nation (and world) today – radicalism. I listen to what each candidate has to offer and pick the best fit for my political philosophy and position on specific issues. It is not always a perfect fit and not a ‘litmus test’. Voting is one of the most important ‘rights’ we have and anyone who does not look at each candidate on their own merit, should not be part of the voting process.
Do away with the “lever” to compel people to choose people by name and individual merit and not by party affiliation.

Hi, ElCapitan...
I think that the majority of people in this town actually do pretty much what you say -- If you look at the makeup of the Council over the past few elections, there don't seem to be a lot of folks voting the ticket all the time. So I'm not convinced this is a big deal locally; if I had time, I'd check with the Canvasser to see if it's possible to figure out how many ballots are actually cast this way.

My reservation has to do with taking away something that people are accustomed to. My mom always voted straight Democrat, and I know she appreciated having the master lever. She trusted the brand, if you will. I can completely understand your concern about the range of political philosophy a big tent like the Democratic party can contain. As a progressive, I certainly share your concern about some members of the party (albeit from the other direction).

And for me, the core issue is this: Does having the option prevent people from doing their research and voting attentively? I don't believe so. And removing the master lever doesn't seem to me the least invasive way to accomplish the objective of forcing people to vote actively. In fact, it seems to tiptoe up to the kind of nanny-statism that conservatives normally pound progressives for: "People can't be trusted to make their decisions based on party affiliation, so we'll remove that choice."

Best,
-j