The Long Slog to Dissent

For the remaining eight members of the Plymouth Charter Commission, the relief of completion must be heavy with ambivalence as they release the proposed town charter for consideration of the voters while recognizing that it lacks a consensus of its own members. Three of the Commissioners having submitted a dissenting minority report.

Sixteen months is a long time to spend in meetings and hearings, studying the vagaries of municipal government while trying to discern the structure that best meets the needs of Plymouth. In addition to the normal day-to-day issues faced by most other Massachusetts municipalities, Plymouth must also act with full regard of the Town it could become in the future when its vast tracts of open land are subject to development. These open tracts collectively equal, in round numbers, the average total size of an existing Massachusetts municipality.

One would have to believe that each of the commissioners stood for election to that post in May of 2006 with an earnest commitment to make our town government better, more efficient, and responsive to the citizens’ needs. As a starting point, the Commission analyzed the current Town Government to determine what parts needed tweaking and what parts should be preserved. Input was gathered from far and wide, from experts and concerned citizens alike. Unfortunately, the volume of input from the latter seemed lacking.

Some of the comments heard repeatedly during the Commissions’ deliberations were calls for simplicity, transparency and accountability, desirable aims all. Many Plymouth citizens bristle with straightforward demands such as lower taxes, more responsive services and, above all, simplicity. Commissioner David Buckman, perhaps showing the strain of the past sixteen months, offered the following: “You want simple government. I’ll give you simple government. I’ll give you the Third Reich. It was simple, it was efficient and it was evil.” He might have sought out a less-despicable example but his point is well taken. Even a benevolent dictatorship might be easy to understand, but it typically doesn’t do much in recognizing dissent by the governed.

Unfortunately, designing a Town charter in these times is not an easy task nor does it lend itself to simplicity. The challenges with which a Town must deal are varied and complex and must accommodate substantial state and federal regulation. While it is now too late to change the proposed charter, voters would be well advised to spend some time studying the issues. A good place to start would be the Charter Review web site. In the final analysis, the voters might decide that reforming the board of selectmen into an executive committee that includes a mayor with limited powers does not provide improved accountability while it adds complexity; ditto for the creation of a second Planning Board, even though many might agree on the importance of this function. Should this be the case, we may just find ourselves back at square one with our existing government. The old saw, people get the government they deserve, may be true as far as it goes, but they also tend to get governments they understand.