Editor,
In a recent letter, Patrick Fairbairn suggests an ordinance be created wherein the Town Council would interview, vet, and directly appoint the citizens who will make up the Community Preservation Act Committee while omitting some very important details and facts. To set the record straight, here are the facts and here are the issues.
The draft ordinance Mr. Fairbairn referenced was created with the input and recommendations from Invest in Watertown. This group consists of the staunchest supporters and most active advocates for the CPA’S passage. This begs the question: Does prevailing on passage of the CPA Tax automatically make one an expert on the who, what, when, where, why and how our CPA money should be spent? Most reasonable people would think not. While a majority of citizens may have voted for the CPA tax, they and the almost 7,000 No votes didn’t vote to allow Invest in Watertown and it’s CPA member proponents to have direct influence and a shadow monopoly on project selection and execution. We owe it to our citizens to keep the CPA committee selection process transparent and free of the politics which will otherwise cast a shadow on this committee.
Knowing that, why then, would Mr. Fairbairn and others on the Council support any significant ordinance (1.) not created by people who take the oath of office and (2.) not drafted in an open meeting committee setting? No other committee in our town is created this way as it is not our form of government. The only person that the Council appoints directly is the Town Manager. The fact is every other committee or board is proposed by the Manager (with input) and sent to the Council for approval. The Council is not in the business of, nor should it be getting into the business of, setting up a resume collection process and sifting through candidates. Why should there be a one-off, a separate process for the CPA Commission?
This ordinance would apply solely to the CPA commission, creating a selection process that blatantly attempts to circumvent the Manager’s role and give appointment authority directly to Council. If this is allowed we can expect to see a narrow, hand-picked committee of familiar faces from Invest in Watertown or Metro West Collaborative, chosen by Council members, five of whom supported the CPA. Is this not the very definition of cronyism? Again it’s the Manager who should vet, interview, and send the candidates’ names to Council for voting. If Councilors don’t think a person is qualified, let them state their case and send our Manager back to the drawing board to bring forth another candidate.
There are numerous smart people in our town with expertise regarding historic preservation, affordable housing, and open space as well as finance, real estate, project management, community outreach and education. We should leave it to our Manager, like we do with every other committee/board/commission, to find people from various backgrounds to offer their talents, skill sets and advice on which proposals are the most financially viable choices. Furthermore, these choices should be in line with the CPA rules, The Towns Comprehensive Plan, and further the quality of life for all Watertown residents. The CPA will generate almost $2 million in added tax revenue every year. Our tax money should be spent judiciously, wisely, and prudently. I trust our Town Manager to send viable candidates to the Council who will accordingly allocate CPA tax revenues while accomplishing the CPA’s goals.
John Labadini
Main Street, Watertown
Personally, I’m sick and tired of this town being “managed” by unelected officials. I’d prefer to have all the boards appointed by elected officials in an open and public process. Personally I’d like to see an end to our “all volunteer” government, while all the real decisions are being made by just two people who are accountable only to an overworked and overwhelmed bunch of volunteers who get most of their advice and counsel from the two unelected officials who are the only ones in the town paid well enough to supply advice and counsel. Maybe if we had a more accountable form of government, we might actually have a say when the next 10-story luxury 400 unit apartment building gets proposed. Because we certainly don’t now.
I couldn’t agree more, no one in this town is held accountable for anything. If we are truly a city we need a mayor not a town manager. Just an fyi I highly doubt any town counselor would run for mayor, they all have day jobs.
They have to have day jobs because the Council pay is so low.
The charter calls for the Town Manager to put the
names forward and the council to vote on them.
We had some of these boards elected before the
charter. It was,in fact,one of the many reasons
we changed the government.
These boards have more professional expertise than
they ever did when they were elected.
When they were elected they needed no expertise and
many in fact had none.
The Town Manager and the Town Council has done a fine job
making these appointments.
When the Charter Commission passed the charter, they
didn’t come looking to make any decisions.
Invest in Watertown should not either.
Thank you,
John S. Airasian
Charter Commissioner
Mr. Labadini, many of your comments are direct insults to the members of our Town Council of whom many in this city have a great deal of respect for. Town Council Members were elected to their positions by residents of the community who believe these officials have the capability of making important decisions. It seems that you have no faith in the abilities of our Town Council members, nor do you trust them to make unbiased decisions. I’d much rather appointments be made by a group of 9 people than just one person. I believe it far more likely that unbiased appointments would be made by a group of 9 people, rather than appointments made by that of just one person.
I beg to differ, Sir. Seriously; could you read the letter again? Funny thing is, the 3/4 councilors I spoke with are closer to thankful then insulted. I want to make it perfectly clear-In no way am I suggesting the town manager directly appoint the citizens to the CPA commission and that his office is smarter then them or vie versa. The mangers office indeed sends THEM the names to approve or reject. They already choose now. The process goes through the town manager’s office, that’s all.
I am saying we should do this like we do with every other board appointment. The Town Manager DOES NOT appoint the committees. The town Council DOES. In this case they want to directly choose the citizens which isn’t an insult to anyone but is indeed bad policy and not the way our town charter is written. The only person that the Town Council DIRECTLY appoints is the town manager. Now they don’t trust the judgment of the guy they hired to send them a list of qualified citizens??The fact is EVERY other committee or board person is PROPOSED by the town managers office (with input) and sent to the council for approval. We have a Planning Board, Zoning Board, Conservation Commission, Historical Commission, Licensing Board, Cable Access Corporation, Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee, to name a few. This is ALL done through the town managers office, and sent down the hall to the full council to approve or reject. Using your logic the council is insulted every time we appoint someone to any board then?
Knowing this, you’re completely ok with Mr. Farbairn and friends from Invest in Watertown witting our ordinances for us? All other committees mentioned are brought together one way but in the case of the CPA all of a sudden let’s eliminate this pesky step of involving our town manager. That concerns me and it concerns many, including some of our current Councilors.
What I said was “Our Town Council is not in the business of, nor should it be getting into the business of, setting up a resume collection process and sifting through candidates, most of whom will be friends of theirs. Why should there be a one-off, separate process for the CPA committee?”
Why is it they have no interest in interviewing people for other boards, but are practically demanding they do so with the CPA appointed citizens? Politics perhaps?
Congratulations to Invest in Watretown and Metro West collaborative, on running a great campaign and knocking on lots of doors. You won! To the Victor go the spoils. In this case about 2 million dollars a year of our hard tax dollars. Nowhere is it a given that because an outside group ran a great campaign they get to decide where the money gets spent. If someone from these groups can be a contributor to the committee, (And I have no doubt some of them would do a great job) I’m sure they will be given every consideration just like everyone else. Consideration, not anointed by proclamation because you helped get out the vote. This sounds harsh and I apologize, as I know many great people from Invest in Watertown, but what wasn’t won at the ballot box was automatic input into what our money is spent on. And make no mistake that is exactly what this kerfuffle is all about; the most active CPA proponents on our council wanting as much control as possible on what gets funded. Direct appointments lower the chance of a dissenting opinion on specific projects.
Lastly, if it is such an insult how come all 9 Councilors are not on board with this and there is indeed plenty of disagreement.
Mr. Labadini, for one thing you made the blatant accusation that “If this is allowed we can expect to see a narrow, hand-picked committee of familiar faces from Invest in Watertown or Metro West Collaborative, chosen by Council members, five of whom supported the CPA. Is this not the very definition of cronyism?” and also now state that Councilors will be “sifting through candidates, most of whom will be friends of theirs”. You are clearly saying that the Councilors, most specifically the 5 who supported the CPA, are not capable of making unbiased appointments and that they will be guilty of “cronyism”. This sounds like an insult to me. And here now, you say “Why is it they … are practically demanding they do so with the CPA appointed citizens? Politics perhaps?” and “this…is all about…the most active CPA proponents on our council wanting as much control as possible on what gets funded”. Yet again even more insults. I certainly wouldn’t want these types of accusations thrown at me. Also, you say that this is “not the way our town charter is written”. Can you point to language in our Town Charter that supports this; how is “our town charter…written” Mr. Labadini? Lastly, you state “Nowhere is it a given that because an outside group ran a great campaign they get to decide where the money gets spent…what wasn’t won at the ballot box was automatic input into what our money is spent on”. Except for your accusations that members of the Town Council will appoint the people from the so called “outside group” to the Committee, there is nothing that suggests the “outside group” would be deciding “where the money gets spent”; I certainly didn’t see any language that suggests this would be the case at all.
I agree with John Airasian and John Labadini. It follows the Town Carter rules. The Town Manager and the Town Council should appoint the committee.
Honestly, I believe if those who worked hard to pass CPA applied for the position they would have as good or better a chance of being appointed.
In this government the Town Manager is the appointing authority, we cannot change that just because some think we should.
5 votes on the council can choose to appoint or not appoint any candidate.
The elected officials have the final say here.
Also, expertise in historic preservation ,affordable housing open space etc should be a criteria.
John S. Airasian
WATERTOWN HOME RULE CHARTER, ARTICLE 3: TOWN MANAGER, SECTION 3-2 POWERS AND DUTIES, 3) Appoint, and may remove, subject to the civil service law and any collective bargaining agreements as may be applicable, all department heads, all officers, subordinates and employees for whom no other method of selection is provided by the charter, by ordinance, by administrative code, or otherwise. Appointments made by the town manager shall be subject to confirmation of the town council, as provided by ordinance.