(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

By Howard E. Horton, Esq.
December 7, 2022

The recently convened Charter Review Committee conducted a thoughtful process but, which, regrettably, resulted in recommendations which will only set the City further adrift from its core values and which would hamstring the workings of municipal government.  I make this assessment, in part, from the perspective of having chaired the immediate past Somerville Charter Review Committee which undertook, and completed, its review work in 2008.

In 2008, we examined, and we rejected, two of the main recommendations, now, coming forth from the current Charter group – that we elongate the mayoral term to 4 years; and, that the City create a position of a Chief Administrative Officer, to serve alongside the Mayor.   The 2008 Charter Review Committee believed that retaining a two-year term for the Mayor was required to keep local government “effective, efficient and accountable” – and to have the voters,  be able to change Mayors quickly, if it is not.  We have had more than enough examples of where local government has gone astray and a two-year Mayoral term keeps leadership close to the people and is the best method to ensure accountability.   Furthermore, having a Chief Administrative Officer is duplicative of the Mayoral role and would just set up a top-heavy, confusing and unnecessary bureaucracy.

The next set of recommendations from the current Charter Committee has to do with expanding powers and roles of the City Council.  These recommendations would serve to inject the City Council into municipal administration when, they are in essence (in keeping with separations of powers), a legislative body.   The recommendations seek more executive powers for the Council with the ability to hire its own staff, to have its own law department, and to get more deeply involved in personnel appointments.   Without examining the executive capacities of individual Council members, which is not the basis upon which most are ever elected, why would the City want to set up this type of “shadow” government that will only frustrate the executive function of the Mayor’s office?   

The City Councilors play an important role in keeping neighborhood issues at the forefront and in making sure City departments are responsive to residents.  But, they should not be, separately, opining on complex municipal legal matters which are, best,  handled by the Solicitor’s Office; they do not need to have their own staff persons which are separate from City departments – we are too small a city for that boondoggle;  and, the Councilors should stay in their lane on the confirmation of appointments and not be involved in active recruitment of department heads  – something that a Mayor, absolutely, needs to control in the assemblage of a qualified and responsive executive team.

Similarly, the Charter Committee’s recommendations to make it easier to run for office; to publicly finance campaigns; and to further complicate the budget process are solutions in search of a problem.  Running for office, today, requires simply getting a small number of signatures, which is appropriate; there are already public hearings and Council hearings on the budget which afford appropriate input; and, Somerville, at 4.2 square miles, is a ripe political market for a door-to-door campaigning without the need for a massive campaign war chest.  For example, in 2017, a first-time candidate for a councilor-at-large seat knocked on 10,000 doors and got elected first-time out, without exorbitant campaign expense.   Past practice has shown that we don’t need to commit taxpayer money to municipal elections in order to get active candidate participation.

The only thing worse than the elective office recommendations from this Committee, is their recommendations pertaining to voters.   Giving the vote to 16 year-olds sounds like a nice idea, but why stop there?   Why not 14 year olds?    At some point the right to vote needs to synch up with the right to make decisions about one’s own welfare and said right does not legally mature until age 18.   Where is the harm that is being redressed here?    Then the Charter group wants to diminish the importance of citizenship by not requiring that as a predicate to voting.  Rather, than giving the vote to non-citizens, resources should be allocated into helping them to achieve citizenship.  Somerville has always valued its immigrant populations, but those populations, historically, strove for citizenship, along with its concomitant attainment of an understanding of civics and government before participation through the vote.

Perhaps the most unsettling change recommended by the Charter Committee would be to move Somerville to ranked-choice voting  – a methodology that research has shown can actually dampen participation, disable ballots that don’t make it through the first rounds of counting and, again, is not necessary – as one person/one vote seems to be working quite well in diversifying representation across the City into elective offices.   There are times when candidates win with a majority, and then there are times when candidates win with a plurality (as was the case with Congressman Capuano in a Democratic primary.)   Both methods, over the years, have played important roles in securing excellent representation for Somerville.

I appreciate the hard work, good intentions, and care in the public process of the Charter Review Committee.   We need this kind of volunteerism and activism in our body politic.  But, the result of this committee’s work is a dismal set of recommendations when it comes to changing the structure, practice and creation of municipal government.   The Charter situation is probably best summed up by the old adage, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” 

We do have plenty of things that need fixing in the City, but they are not derivative from our current municipal charter. Affordable housing; traffic and parking; tenant and business displacement; open space creation; rat infestation; bettering our schools; services for our elderly and, most importantly, rebuilding this City as a family community are among the issues which need our full attention.   We have been drifting toward a Somerville culture based on cosmetic “progressive” policy initiatives, such as these proffered by the Charter group.   But, these are simply overlayed on a constant drumbeat of gentrification and development without the bedrock of common sense and true progressive values that have sustained and characterized the City for decades.   I urge the City Council, Mayor, our state delegation, and the Legislature to not move forward with the Charter Review Committee’s ill-conceived recommendations – and to, rather, focus our precious energies on the compendium of issues which need to be addressed to the improve quality of life for all our residents.

Howard E. Horton, Esq. served as Co-Chair of the Somervision 2040 Committee; Chaired the Ballot Committee for a new High School;  served as Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals; and, was Co-Chair of the Mayor Joseph Curtatone Transition Committee.  He also served as a department head, and aide, in the administration of Mayor Eugene C. Brune.

The Somerville City Council Special Committee on Charter Review will hold a virtual (online) public hearing on the City of Somerville Charter Review process on Wednesday, December 7, starting at 6 p.m.
Charter Review Committee Public Hearing | City of Somerville (somervillema.gov)