Wakefield Town Meeting Thursday

$730,240 Reasons to Vote NO at Town Meeting

My prior letter asked “why would you choose to vote to deny current and future voting rights for you and your children? Who is advocating for less voting rights?” Articles 28 and 29 eliminate voter’s rights around the election requirement for assessors and they reduce voter’s access to the citizen’s referendum petition.

Article 28 proposes that the Board of Assessors no longer be elected by the voters, but rather be appointed by Town Hall. Why does Town Hall want to reduce the number of town officials you may vote for? Is Wakefield Town Hall increasingly becoming a place that folks just don’t want seek election for? Many agree that when one is elected by the voters, there are times the candidate will reflect on what’s best for those who selected him or her. The same goes for if you are appointed; there are times you want to do what’s best for who appointed you. An example of someone who was motivated to serve the voters was the late Paul Faler. Paul was on the Wakefield Board of Assessors between 1985 and 2011 and was also a renowned professor of American History at University of Massachusetts from 1970 until he retired in 2002.

The following is from Mark Sardella’s article “Remembering Paul Faler “December 22, 2011

“If I had to pick one word to describe Professor Faler, it would be “clarity.” In the 1980s, Paul became interested in local property taxation and in 1984 got himself elected to the Board of Assessors. Paul’s strengths were reason and logic – qualities that don’t always lead to success in politics. Many people witnessed those qualities when Paul spoke at town meeting. After listening to our various town meeting orators drone endlessly, Paul would often rise and use simple language to distill a complex issue down to its essence in about two minutes. After Paul finished, everyone understood what the crux of the matter was. As a member of the Board of Assessors for many of the last 27 years, Paul advocated for what he believed was best for the town and especially its small property owners. He often ran into resistance from those interested in preserving the established way of doing things. But often, time would vindicate Paul’s point of view. The recent case where the state Appellate Tax Board upheld the town’s right to tax concrete pumpers, resulting in thousands of additional dollars in previously untapped tax revenue for the town, is only the latest example. Paul was instrumental in instituting tax classification in Wakefield, which shifts some of the property tax burden from the residential taxpayers to the commercial property owners. He also successfully pushed for the local hotel tax, which has brought hundreds of thousands of dollars into the town coffers. I’ll miss Paul as a friend and a teacher. The residential taxpayers of Wakefield will miss him as an advocate on their behalf.”

This year Paul’s work brought us $730,240 ($643,745 for hotel rooms and $86,495 for concrete pumpers). Paul was motivated to serve those voters who elected him for the position and we all continue benefit greatly from his efforts. This is a shining example of when voters choose great candidates who fight hard to represent them. Too often and too familiar to us is when we see some take a more private path, a path of the insider network, a path to being one of the ‘appointed ones’ who sadly may represent interests other than the voters.

Article 29 diminishes the voter’s opportunity to re-consider, at a town wide ballot, an article that was approved at town meeting. Currently a citizens ‘Referendum Petition’ must be completed within ten business days of a town meeting vote. Article 29 ‘increases’ that to twelve calendar days. Expect town officials to pitch that “this is gaining two days”. After reviewing a calendar, I was surprised to discover that the loss of available time for citizens to write the petition and gather certified signatures was reduced by up to 32.8 percent. Even more punitive would be increasing the current requirement of 200 certified signatures to 5 percent of registered voters (i.e. 933voters). This 367 percent increase will make it nearly impossible for volunteer citizens to introduce a referendum for a town wide vote.

The Chairman of the Charter Commission compared six other towns that do not have an open town meeting like Wakefield, they all had representative town meeting. Why did he neglect to include a town that also has open town meeting – Marblehead? Could it be that Marblehead’s requirement of five town business days and 300 signatures does not provide relief from the chairman’s public upset with a prior referendum result? Did the Chairman let you know what the requirements are for a state wide referendum? Statewide you need to collect 33,297 signatures. There is no requirement on how many be from any specific location, but if it were done proportionally, only 161 would be required in Wakefield.

It seems that Town Hall did not let the community know of the State’s requirements, or the requirements of any town that has open town meeting. Need I remind the reader that the Charter Commission is appointed by Town Hall – not elected by the voters?

You have choices to make at town meeting. So, if the Board of Assessors becomes ‘appointed’ by Town Hall rather than elected by a majority of voters, maybe soon Town Hall will be asking you to give up something less abstract and more tangible than your voting rights, like your money. Maybe ‘insiders’ in the hotel or concrete business will soon become the ‘appointed’ ones, shepherding our small flock of sheep to say goodbye to their $730,240. All you’re being asked to do at open town meeting is to hand your voting rights over to Town Hall - and maybe more of your money too. Articles 28 and 29 weaken our community. Let’s see how many in our flock choose to say ‘Baaaaaaaa’. I hope you choose to preserve your rights, do attend Thursday’s town meeting, and vote ‘Naaaaaaaaaa’.