Long before our Town Council knew whether or not those gathering signatures for a new Charter Commission would be successful, they decided to form a Council Review Committee. Then Council President Henry Farnham requested that interested Barnstable citizens come forward to volunteer for the Committee. Farnham ultimately decided to appoint every resident who volunteered for service.
It was a diverse committee with everyone from Sue Rohrbach and Allen Goddard to Lou Gonzaga and Marcy Dugas. All and all, the Committee worked hard in studying our legislative branch. They spent a great deal of time studying the issue of whether we are best served by precinct based or at-large representation on our Town Council. And they filed their report on time with our Town Council.
And even before our Town Council had an opportunity to discuss the Committee's work, the hate blogs started the attacks. The are calling the committee the Crocker Commission and are questioning the motives of every member including the Committee Chair, Councilor Jim Crocker.
Boston Bugsy stated that, "It didn't take long for folks to figure out that James Crocker’s Charter Commission is a crock. It is a desperate gambit to secure disproportionate influence for a village with a small resident population, too much money, and much too much influence over life in Barnstable." In one short sentence, Boston Bugsy takes out an entire village.
Talking about a bunch of crock. Attacking the hard work of this citizens committee by questioning their motives is simply outrageous. We owe our thanks to resident volunteers who spent months studying, comparing and evaluating the various legislative options that we have. We owe them our thanks for a job well done. So, are we better served by precinct or at-large representation? What do you think?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A realistic look at life and politics in the Town of Barnstable.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(82)
-
▼
April
(18)
- Why not try a winning strategy
- The Council Review Report
- Electing Your Representative: District or At-Large
- Council Review Committee Provides Valuable Service
- To Coddah: Patience is a Virtue
- You're making Barnstable look Bad
- Hyannis Harbor Deserves a Landmark
- The Brothers Bulger: A Good Read
- I'm Devastated
- The Problem with Bullies
- Searching For Answers At Virginia Tech
- Join in the fun
- URGENT MESSAGE
- Barnstable Patriot: Our own Newspaper
- Are Some Bloggers frustrated Bullies?
- Fire Departments Serve Us Well
- Springtime on Cape Cod
- Barnstable Life in 2007
-
▼
April
(18)
5 comments:
I think a mix, similar to Boston, is probably the best of both worlds.
9 at large. We need to get away from the village mentality.
BB,
A couple of ideas....
First, I would initially prefer an all at-large council to get away from the parochial nature of business...one of the things that bogs down meetings is that if one councilor brings up business concerning his/her village, the rest feel obliged to mention theirs.
However, I also have a concern that an all at-large election would prove to be costly for the candidates, as they would be required to campaign throughout the town. This could lead to only those wealthy enough or backed by well-heeled supporters seeking council seats...not the best democratic system.
To counteract this, you could go to a mixture of at-large and regionally (ward-based) councilors. As I doubt anyone wants to see our current thirteen member council add more at-large positions, the only choice is to reduce the number to something appropriate (maybe 11...6 regional and 5 at-large, so every voter gets to vote for a majority of the council).
Of course, even if you have a combination, the regionally selected candidates will still have to campaign over a significant area, driving up costs.
So no matter how you slice it, the elections will probably get more costly under an at-large system, either in whole or mixed.
The question then becomes "is it worth it?" I suggest that it is, as the slant of the council would change from 'what is best for my village', to 'what is best for the town'. Even the regionally based councilors would have to expand their area of concern, and much of the parochialism that has been a consistant problem with the current council system would (hopefully) disappear.
At least this is something to think about.......Coddah
Hi Coddah, As usual, your post is thoughtful. Please let others know about this site. BB
I agree 11 might be an ideal number of councilors. To achieve 6 district-based seats, however, you would have to create 18 precincts then bundled into 6 districts of 3 precincts each. First, this would entail the cost of 5 new precincts (staffing, election machines, etc.) Second, which 2 other current precincts do you wish to join? Osterville, Cotuit, west Mills? Cotuit, west Mills, West Barnstable? West Barnstable, Barnstable, north Hyannis? The creation of a 3 precinct district would be brutally political. I suggest an 8\3 mixed council, requiring 16 precincts bundled in 2's. It makes the above factors more manageable. Unfortunately the complex math of redistricting is unavoidable. It remains to be seen if the strong villages(O'ville, Cotuit, W.B.,B.) will vote for any dilution of their current voice. A charter voted down is worth exactly nothing.
Post a Comment