By William C. Shelton

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

The advantages that the status quo gives to those whom it favors include the power to resist change. So in practice, it is difficult to follow Thomas Jefferson’s advice that we renew our government every 20 years.

In Somerville‚Äôs case, this is not from lack of trying. Just 12 years after adoption of the current charter, the Board of Aldermen created a committee to completely rewrite it.  The charter that they created specified a ‚Äúcommission‚Äù form a government, a forerunner of today‚Äôs council/manager form. The board approved it, the mayor signed it, but it died in the Legislature in 1914.

In those days, Massachusetts municipalities were creatures of the Legislature, their powers granted through municipal laws, or in the case of cities, by “Special Municipal Legislation.” Our current city charter is just such a special law, having been passed by the Legislature as Ch. 240 of the Acts and Resolves of 1899. As such, it can only be amended by the Legislature. This has been an unnecessarily cumbersome way to govern strictly local matters.

From the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s, aldermen pursued comprehensive charter change five times. These efforts included attempts to institute a council/manager form of government, create a unified public safety department, appoint School Committee members, reduce patronage and corruption opportunities and provide aldermen with their own legal council. All efforts failed.

In 1982, the Board of Aldermen actually passed, and the mayor signed, a comprehensive charter revision.  In the Legislature, it passed the House of Representatives, but Somerville‚Äôs Dennis McKenna killed it in the Senate. One provision of the new charter eliminated elected tax assessors. Shameless cynics say that Sen. McKenna opposed the bill because his son‚Äôs father-in-law was Assessor Bobby Campo. 

Campo later went to prison on corruption charges. McKenna would probably have done the same, but he was dying at the time. Following the Assembly Square corruption scandal, the voters abolished elected assessors through a procedure called “Permissive Legislation.”

No alderman has attempted to change the charter for more than a decade, while our municipal structure and political culture have moved further out of step with the populace. Other shameless cynics say that comprehensive charter change is not in the interests of the mayor, aldermen or those whom they favor since it might open the door to reforms that would deprive them of power or convenience. On the one hand, they argue the mayor virtually does the aldermen’s job for them. On the other hand, aldermen can always blame the mayor for anything that their constituents object to.

In 1966, Massachusetts voters enacted the Home Rule Amendment as Article 89 of the Constitution. The Legislature subsequently enacted Ch. 43B of the General Laws, which specifies procedures whereby the people themselves can initiate charter change.

If 15 percent of voters who were registered at the time of the last commonwealth election sign a Home Rule Charter petition, the question will appear on the next municipal ballot. In Somerville, this would be about 6,000 signatures. A majority vote would authorize creation of a Charter Commission. During the same election, any city resident who has collected over 100 signatures can be a candidate for the commission. The nine who receive the most votes will be elected to it.

The city must credit the commission’s account with $7,500, which can be used for legal, clerical, and research assistance, reimbursing expenses and paying printing costs. In addition, the commission may accept donations from any public or private source so long as it reports them to the city clerk.

The commission must be permitted to consult with city officers. It also must seek public input and conduct public hearings. Between 10 and 18 months after its formation, the commission must put the proposed charter changes on the next municipal ballot.  Adoption requires a majority vote.

Since passage of the Home Rule Amendment, residents of more than 130 Massachusetts cities and towns have used this method to change their charters. I believe that Somerville is past due for such a change.

Some will reasonably ask what would prevent the election of commissioners from becoming the same bitter struggle for dominance that often characterizes the current political culture. It seems to me that the election of nine commissioners at one time would insure that various segments of the community could elect one or more who they felt would effectively represent their interests. 

Another approach might be to put forward a slate that represents virtually every political faction, but who are individually perceived to be people of unquestioned integrity and goodwill. And, yes, all you cynics, I believe that there are many Somerville residents who fit that description across the political spectrum. In any case, we’ve got two years to collect signatures and think this through.