Email on 01/08/2010, sent to my elected Councilors;
In the past few years there has been much confusion and many Special Meetings called in June in order to approve a budget per the Charter, Municipal Code and Massachusetts State Law.

I feel that part of the problem is the existing Municipal Code which states;

Section 2-1. Regular Meetings of the City Council

The City Council shall meet regularly on the first and third Mondays of each month, provided, however, that if the said first or third Monday shall fall on a legal holiday, then the City Council shall meet on the Tuesday night which follows such legal holiday. Provided further that in the instance where a City Council Meeting would otherwise, by this ordinance, be on the eve of a municipal primary, prliminary or regular election, then said meeting shall be set for the Thursday following said election. Meetings of the City Council shall be called to order promptly at 7:00 o’clock P.M. in the City office building, provided, however, that if conditions require it, the Chairman of the City Council may declare the meetings will be held at another place, with as much notice as conditions allow. During the months of June, July and August of each year, the regular meeting of the City Council shall be held on the first Monday of each month.

(1973 Ord., as amended by Ord. #2, June 1973;
as further amended by Ord. #496, Eff. December 1st, 1993;
as further amended by Ord. #499, Eff. January 4th, 1994; and
as further amended by Ord. #711, Eff. January 3rd, 2001, and
as further amended by Ord. #802)

I would like to recommend that since we are no longer an agrarian economy or agrarian culture in Methuen, we change the Code to have two (2) meetings in June, which is the last fiscal month of the year.

I am Proposing two (2) meetings on the first and last Monday of June. Then I have moved the July and August meetings to the third (3rd) Monday of the month. This effectively moves the Council meetings away from the July 4th conflict that we have seen.

Below please see my draft Ordinance;

WHEREAS: The Methuen Town Council in 1973, adopted Ordinance # 2, last amended by Order # 802 and;

WHEREAS: The Fiscal Year Budgetary process concludes in the Month of June each calander year and;

WHEREAS: It is in the best interest of the City of Methuen and of its citizens to further amend the same;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Methuen that Section 2-1, Subsection 1 of Chapter 2, of the Methuen Municipal Ordinance is hereby AMENDED as follows:

By deleting the last sentence there of being:

During the months of June, July and August of each year, the regular meeting of the City Council shall be held on the first Monday of each month.

and inserting in place thereof the following:

During the month of June the City Council shall meet regularly on the first and last Mondays of that month. During the months of July and August of each year, the regular meeting of the City Council shall be held on the third Monday of each month.

The remaining provisions of said Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.

Thank you for your consideration. Any feedback is appreciated.

Then I learned more.

Here is what I have learned since my first post.
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Article II. Section 1. Right of Local Self-Government. – It is the intention of this article to reaffirm the customary and traditional liberties of the people with respect to the conduct of their local government, and to grant and confirm to the people of every city and town the right of self-government in local matters, subject to the provisions of this article and to such standards and requirements as the general court may establish by law in accordance with the provisions of this article.
Section 8. Powers of the General Court. – The general court shall have the power to act in relation to cities and towns, but only by general laws which apply alike to all cities or to all towns, or to all cities and towns, or to a class of not fewer than two, and by special laws enacted (1) on petition filed or approved by the voters of a city or town, or the mayor and city council, or other legislative body, of a city, or the town meeting of a town, with respect to a law relating to that city or town; (2) by a two-thirds vote of each branch of the general court following a recommendation by the governor; (3) to erect and constitute metropolitan or regional entities, embracing any two or more cities or towns or cities and towns, or established with other than existing city or town boundaries, for any general or special public purpose or purposes, and to grant to these entities such powers, privileges and immunities as the general court shall deem necessary or expedient for the regulation and government thereof; or (4) solely for the incorporation or dissolution of cities or towns as corporate entities, alteration of city or town boundaries, and merger or consolidation of cities and towns, or any of these matters.
Subject to the foregoing requirements, the general court may provide optional plans of city or town organization and government under which an optional plan may be adopted or abandoned by majority vote of the voters of the city or town voting thereon at a city or town election; provided, that no town of fewer than twelve thousand inhabitants may be authorized to adopt a city form of government, and no town of fewer than six thousand inhabitants may be authorized to adopt a form of town government providing for town meeting limited to such inhabitants of the town as may be elected to meet, deliberate, act and vote in the exercise of the corporate powers of the town.
This section shall apply to every city and town whether or not it has adopted a charter pursuant to section three.

Reading the Costitution above suggested that lawmaking was within the realm of a citizens rights. I read section 8, especially the item about special laws #1). That seems to list that laws can be written by citizens, mayors and elected legislators.

So I searched on.

 Participating in the Legislative Process.
Massachusetts citizens are permitted and encouraged to take an active role in the lawmaking process of the state legislature. It is a good idea for a person who feels strongly about an issue to present his or her ideas to a representative or senator. That person may discover that those concerns have already been formulated into a bill which is awaiting legislative action. If not, the citizen is allowed to file legislation addressing the subject. Massachusetts is one of the few states to allow its citizens to do so. This access is called the “right of free petition.”
Although it is not mandatory that a representative or senator sponsor a citizen’s bill, the rules of the House and Senate provide that a petition must be endorsed for presentation by a member before it can be considered by the General Court. Obtaining the support of individual legislators, then, is most advisable.

Right of free petition?   Rules … provide that a petition must be endorsed for presentation by a member before it can be considered. That sounded very familiar to me. I went to the Municipal Code.

THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF METHUEN, MASSACHUSETTS 2000

Section 2-17. Ordinances, Resolutions, Motions and Contracts
A. Preparation of Ordinances

All ordinances shall be reviewed by the City Solicitor. No ordinance shall be prepared for presentation to the Council unless requested in writing by a Councillor or by the Mayor.

B. Prior Review by Administrative Staff

All ordinances and contract documents shall, before presentation to the Council, have been approved as to form and legality by the City Solicitor, and, where there are substantive matters of administration involved, the Mayor shall have the opportunity for examination and comment thereon before final adoption.

C. Introducing for Passage or Approval

1) All action items coming before the Council shall be in the form of an ordinance, resolution, contract or proclamation, or any other matters and subjects requiring action, and shall be introduced and sponsored by a member of the Council; except that the Mayor may present ordinances, resolutions and contracts to the Council.

So at a State level, I just need to convince my Senator or Representative and they can sponsor a bill. At the local level it doesn’t as clearly state that but at both levels a bill or resolve/resolution must be sponsored by my elected representative.

I, actually, have learned that I can submit a bill and my Legislator only needs to officially submit it. They do not have to agree to it’s content. At the Municipal level in Methuen, I do not have that luxury. Only Council and the Mayor may submit legislation.
Seems odd that their only requirement for office is to be a resident (and registered voter). I am both but cannot submit legislation for debate to improve my community.
I don’t see any elected officials submitting any changes to these rules either.
Isn’t it MY government? 

I thought I should define some terms. I took these direct from the Massachusetts General Court website.

Glossary of Massachusetts Legislative Terms

Free petition

Jack Burke, 49 Canobieola Road, spoke about the free petition and initiative petition in our current Charter.

He began by quoting from a sitting Councilor who once said “who is he to write laws?” because he had actually written an ordinance and submitted it to the Council.
“Who am I?”
He‟s a citizen and under the laws of this state and this Charter,
he has the right to free petition.

He would like to see that right extended in a much broader fashion.
Currently a free petition requires 150 signatures.
However, it only requires 50 signatures to run for office from any district and write laws. He would like to see the free petition requirement at 50 signatures.
“Why should it be more difficult for a citizen whose interested in his government and his city to propose a law than it is to actually run and sit on the Council?”
He stated that he would like to see that reduced from 150 down to 50 and would like to see the City of Methuen be no more stringent than the State of Massachusetts.

The City of Methuen requires 10% of the registered voters who participated in the last election to sign any initiative petition.
However, the State of Massachusetts says you only need 1 ½ to 2 % of all the voters.
He doesn‟t know why Methuen should be any more stringent for an initiative petition than the State of Massachusetts recognizes by Statute, in law, currently.

He would like to see that changed.

My remarks continued on another topic at this point.

Under the title Methuen Primary Results, scroll down to the comments and read;

Tina Conway on September 15, 2010 3:19 am
Mayor, do you agree that it’s time for us to look at the money we spend on elections? It just seems like we continue to do it “the way we always have” and yet fewer and fewer people vote. Perhaps if we looked at ways to innovate, online voting, for example, we’d not only spend less money, we might actually get more people to vote.
In your opinion, whose job is it to “get people to the polls?” The people who are running or those of us whose job it is to administer the elections?

Bill Manzi on September 15, 2010 3:58 am
Tina,
I think it really is past time to look at different methods for conducting elections. The technology is there to make it easier for people to vote. But as you know change comes hard, and sometimes people would rather stick with a failing model to avoid that change. As far as whose job it is to bring folks out my opinion is that job belongs to the candidates. Lack of voter enthusiasm is a big part of our problem. It is our job to make sure that voting is as easy as it can be for the people who choose to vote, under current law. What do the clerks think of online voting? Is there any professional consensus on ways to stimulate voter interest?

Tina Conway on September 15, 2010 6:38 am
I agree totally that the most effective “get out the vote” catalyst is for the candidates to generate the interest in their campaigns. Note the turnout in the January 2010 special election; Scott Brown was a compelling candidate who ran an exceptional campaign, and the electorate responded. Remember, this was during the coldest month of the year the day after a holiday and a snowstorm, and turnout was over 50%.
As for the clerks, I can’t say I have heard a lot of discussion about online voting, but if I had to guess I would think that community would be more than willing to think about and consider anything. They are a wealth of knowledge and the bridge from “the way it has always been” to “how to make it better.”
However, their, and my, biggest frustration, is that the legislative initiatives out there that relate to voting, for example election day registration, are always undertaken without input from the clerks, the community that best knows the process. They have finally brought us into the fold on that particular issue, but it is a major concern that they could even have thought it was a good idea to not discuss it with us first.
I think we would all be concerned if even more revolutionary measures, such as online voting, were contemplated without extensive consultation with the community of clerks.
But it is fascinating to contemplate, and I think we can do it a lot better and a lot cheaper, if the will is there to change it.

The mayor and the City Clerk were discussing changing the process of voting.
Seems a shame that this discussion was not sent to the Charter commission.

Instead of internet voting, which I have no technical issues with but which is difficult to accomplish because not all registered voters are computer literate. Let’s face it, a large number of our elected officials cannot even open or send emails.
Why don’t we start by looking at telephone voting?
You will find two links on the right sidebar that discuss e-voting.
Voting by phone would reduce costs and due to the wide acceptance and low learning curve, should increase voter turnout.
If we can file and pay income tax to the State via the phone, why not vote the same, secure way over a widely used medium, telephone?
Would be nice if we included incentives to bring voter turnout near to 100%.

What is wrong with discussion about Proportional Representation and Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Both are acceptable alternatives to the costly preliminary and potential runoff elections that we now hold.

Shouldn’t we be having a discussion about alternatives to old fashioned voting booths?

Why hasn’t the City Council (holder of the purse strings) asked the City Clerk to investigate and report back on possible alternatives that are effective, cost conscious and implementable?

This is the 21st Century. Isn’t it?

Look under maintained Sites on this blog.

You can always review this document here.

There is a link at that site to allow you to open and or download the Charter in PDF format from the City website.

The topic was public input on the current proposed changes to Methuen’s charter.

Here is the story in the Eagle Tribune. [ Methuen Residents call for stronger term limits]

Let me note that Mr. Robert Leblanc gave a wonderful presentation of his feelings.

Here are the notes I used for my presentation.

I wish to speak on two subjects tonight.

I begin quoting from the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, PART THE FIRST,
A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Article VII (7). Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require it.

Article VIII (8). In order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors, the people have a right, at such periods and in such manner as they shall establish by their frame of government, to cause their public officers to return to private life; and to fill up vacant places by certain and regular elections and appointments.

I support term limits as the founding fathers envisioned them. Serve and then return to civilian life. Six years seems to be the original norm and has been the norm in Methuen for a very long time.
Before politico’s began to tamper with the process, the electorate stated emphatically that they support lifetime term lmits.
I ask that you stop looking at your own vested interests and begin to think of implemeting lifetime term limits after six years of service. One only needs to look to the original Articles of Confederation and the letters of Thomas Jefferson to comprehend that term limits were an expected part of citizenship.
Term limits are not a negative statement about the character or characteristics of existent politicians. It is a means of engaging a larger populace in the decision making process that creates the climate we all live in.

If the playing field were level then I may buy the argument, so often presented, that elections are the democratic means of arriving at term limits. Perhaps, in a day when the moral climate was different, or existent, and incumbancy, war chests and career politicians were not the norm a facile argument could be proferred. Today it is a demeaning argument that assumes the electorate is oblivious and tends to be presented by entrenched politicos who use it as a polite way of speaking down to the electorate, instead of engaging them, and recognizing the truth in the statement that governments are formed “of, by and for the people”

An aside Regarding Appointments. Any opening shall be filled within 60 days. All positions spelled out in the charter or by statute or ordinance should be either filled or removed within this time frame.
*******************************************************************************
Secondly, I once signed the Open Government Pledge. which states;
“I believe the government of Methuen belongs to the citizens it serves.
I believe that government functions best when its discussions and decision making occur in the light of day.
I believe that citizens of Methuen have the right to access government records, discussions and decisions, outside of narrow exemptions specified by law.
I then pledged to abide by the spirit and letter of Massachusetts’s Public Records Law and Open Meetings Law; and support legislation or initiatives that promote openness and transparency within government.
Specifically, I pledged to support legislation requiring the posting of all government contract and financial transactions in an online, easily searchable database that includes the amount of individual payments, to whom each is made, an explanation of the payment, and an explanation of the budget category under which the payment falls.”

Make Note;
The US Congress passed the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law. 109-282) to increase transparency and accountability in government spending by providing the public with access to information about federal awards through a free, single, searchable website.
Under the act, “federal awards” include grants, subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, loans, cooperative agreements, purchase orders, task orders, delivery orders, and other forms of financial assistance. They do not include individual transactions valued at less than $ 25,000.

In the intervening years five states (Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Texas) , in response to the federal law, enacted legislation establishing public-access websites to track government spending.

In addition, the governor of Missouri issued an executive order for the same reason. Indiana’s executive order establishing a website to log state contracts on the Internet preceded the federal law’s passage.

Several other states, including Illinois,Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, and Tennessee, have discussed similar proposals.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act establishes a public-access website to track government spending. The website must be up and running by January 1, 2008 and provide the following data for each federal award:
1. the recipient’s name;
2. the dollar amount;
3. the transaction type, funding agency, North American Industry Classification System code used to identify market sector or Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number, and funding purpose;
4. the recipient’s location as well as the primary location of performance under the award, including city, state, congressional district, and country;
5. a unique identifier for the recipient and the recipient’s parent entity, when applicable; and
6. other information that the Office of Management and Budget deems relevant.

The act exempts from disclosure personal information on federal employees and federal assistance recipients. In addition, the website does not have to provide information on (1) credit card transactions until October 1, 2008 or (2) subgrants or subcontracts until January 1, 2009.

Generally, the major aspects of existing state transparency laws are similar to each other and the federal law. They all establish a free, publicly-available, and searchable website of state expenditures.

I strongly recommend that real transparency, as embodied in the Federal legislation, be incorporated into the next Charter of Methuen. Establish in the charter a free, publicly-available, and searchable website of all municipal expenditures.

Thank you.

Growth of Belief in Small Government

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.

Patrick Henry

excerpt from Henry David Thoreau’s essay’s “Resistance to Civil Government.”

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, …, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right….

Have you made a statement of the type of government that you could believe in?
The Charter Commission is waiting to hear from you.
Do NOT let a handfull of elected persons decide the course of your government. Be vocal. Be heard.
Submit what you believe to be in the best interests of Methuen to the Commission.
In Person, By Mail, By email. stop the members on the street and state your conviction.

We await your comment.

All but one person are active members of Citizens for a Better Government.

Isn’t this a new millenium?
Don’t elect the same people who brought us here.
Let’s take a fresh look at our charter.
Time for new faces and fresh eyes to review where we are.
Support active progressive thoughtfull citizen neighbors.
Fresh faces, fresh ideas, a fresh breeze for the New Millenium in Methuen

Elect for Charter Commission:
Sheila Alartosky
Steve Devan
Paula Drelick
Joan Mannke
Eric McAdam
Gerald McCall
Sharon Ployer
Larry Retelle
Lyle Wilson

Vote on November 3rd.

They are Action Discretionary and Action Required.

Methuen has had 4 charters in it’s history. I reviewed them all. The first one in 1917 didn’t have this distinction.

This is the current from the City website. It is identical in 1971,1977 and current version.

HOME RULE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF METHUEN 2000
Section 8-1 Free Petition.
a) Individual Petitions, Action Discretionary – The City Council and the School Committee shall receive all petitions which are addressed to them and signed by a voter and may, in their discretion, take such action in regard to such petitions as they deem necessary and appropriate.

I would only add a provision that allows petitions from residents who are not voters. I would also add that said petition be published with the minutes of the meeting at which it was presented. It should become part of the public record.

The second part of this gets a bit more interesting. I have printed both versions. It appears that the version in the 1977 charter ballot question and todays are the same and reproduced below;

HOME RULE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF METHUEN 2000
Section 8-1 Free Petition.
b) Group Petitions; Action Required – The City Council (or the School Committee), as the case may be, shall hold a public hearing and act by taking a vote on the merits of every petition which is addressed to it and which is signed by at least one hundred fifty voters. The hearing shall be held by the City Council or the School Committee, or, in either case, by a committee or sub-committee thereof and the action by the City Council or School Committee shall be taken not later than three months after the petition is filed with the City Clerk. Hearings on two or more petitions filed under this section may be held at the same time and place. The City Clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the ten petitioners whose names first appear on each petition at least seven days before the hearing. Notice by publication at least seven days prior to all such hearings shall also be made, and shall be at public expense. No hearing shall be heard upon any one subject matter more than once in any given twelve month period.

 The bold last sentence was added, apparently, to keep persons from continuously submitting the same petition over and over until it passes.

Below is the 1971 Charter version.

I recommend that we return to the 50 voter limit. I understand about not bogging the system down but we also need to allow citizens the ability to affect new laws. If one thinks about it, the ability to be a councillor is to be a resident of the city and gather 50 signatures. Why should it be any more difficult for a free petition than it is to be placed on the ballot as a candidate?

HOME RULE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF METHUEN
Section 8-1 Free Petition.
b) Group Petitions; Action Required – The City Council (or the School Committee), as the case may be, shall hold a public hearing and act by taking a vote on the merits of every petition which is addressed to it and which is signed by at least fifty voters. The hearing shall be held by the City Council or the School Committee, or, in either case, by a committee or sub-committee thereof and the action by the City Council or School Committee shall be taken not later than three months after the petition is filed with the City Clerk. Hearings on two or more petitions filed under this section may be held at the same time and place. The City Clerk shall mail notice of the hearing to the ten petitioners whose names first appear on each petition at least seven days before the hearing. Notice by publication at least seven days prior to all such hearings shall also be made, and shall be at public expense.

These are some of the issues that need to be discussed, debated and resolved by a Charter Review Commission.

Vote YES on Question 1.

Citizens for a Better Government is a group dedicated to the creation of an ELECTED Charter Study Commission on a regular basis.
That is it. No hidden agenda, no secret handshake.
As with any group, it is made up of individuals who believe that government is OWNED by the citizens that it serves.
They are INDIVIDUALS. They have differing opinions and viewpoints. Not always agreeing on every issue.
When the group began, we asked all who joined to help us generate a list of “items” that a charter covers that could or should be discussed if the Commission were successfully created.
Because the group also believes in open and transparent government, we have published that list on our website. (see List).
This is not a group agenda. Not all bullets on the list are even items for discussion at a commission.

Some persons are circulating lsts from the website and claiming they are the “Hidden agenda” of the group.

Do not be fooled.

Individual members of the group as citizens and thinking members of this City have diverse opinions on various issues.

The Groups Goal and Agenda is simply to put a ballot question before the voters every decade to REVIEW the charter of our City.

Members have collected signatures from 6000+ of our fellow citizens. We have gotten the question before the voters.

We are only asking that you Vote YES on question #1.

Create the Charter Review Commission.

Vote for 9 members to represent you on that Commission. Choose members, not based on agendas, but based on YOUR assessment that those individuals will seriously, honestly and openly review our Charter. They will make recommendations that will be in the best interest of you, neighbors, friends and citizens of this wonderfull city.

Go to the Commissions public hearings and give your input on what will make Methuen’s government run more effectively and efficiently toward making this  a better place over the next decade.

In about two years the output of your elected Commission will be sent to you and placed on the ballot. You, the residents of Methuen, will vote on the recommendations. Yes or No.

That is the simple Goal and agenda of Citizens for a Better Government. We will probably not hibernate, but in 10 years will again roar into full life again. Moving the same simple agenda. Gather signatures. Create a ballot question. Create a Charter Review Commission. Let the Citizens of this City decide on their government.

Don’t be fooled and don’t waste your mind on the innuendo and gossip that sometimes passes as fact in this city.