Some of the questions from the 82 residents who attended the East Longmeadow Charter Commission’s Jan. 7 open meeting did not seem to have been well thought out.

Several attendees seemed to criticize the fact that the committee researched other towns in our region of similar size to get ideas, and claimed that the committee had not asked our own town citizens how we felt.  But the Charter Commission creation was approved by town residents 5-1 in a town election, the commission visited all our town managers and boards, and the commission held several open meetings at which they received citizen input.

Several attendees said the town is functioning “just fine as it is.” If that were so, why did we have musical chairs in the Selectmen’s Office for the last five years, three town administrators in two years, frustrated employees and boards, and a 5-1 citizen vote to look at potential changes? In the meeting, the commission described a number of specific issues that are hurting the town every day. Were these attendees not paying attention, or do they deny the importance of the commission’s findings?

Several attendees said the Town Meeting should be retained. But the Town Meeting is a vestige of pre-revolutionary times, when citizens actually participated in the running of their towns. Today, we must wait a half hour on average to cobble together a 100-person quorum and half the room are town officials and board members.  

Special interest groups routinely show up to vote on large expenditures that the town has not budgeted for, and walk out en masse as soon as the article is acted on. The meetings are only twice a year and the same gadflies rise and speak.

With a 100-member quorum out of over 16,000 residents, the town meeting cannot in any way be considered “representative government.” The charter, by contrast, offers residents 12 chances a year to attend council meetings and be heard, and two petitionary vehicles to use if they do not feel they have been heard.

Some attendees obviously do not understand the capital planning and budget process, and thought that the council would have carte blanche spending authority to raise our taxes.  But the charter calls for the same intensive comprehensive budget process as today, and the town council is probably less likely to vote to spend over the budget than the Town meeting attendees, who routinely vote expenditures which have been disapproved by the town Appropriations Committee.

Finally, there was concern over whether the new town government would work out any better than what we have.  But the charter calls for a regular re-examination, first in 2020 and each 10 years thereafter to address any issues.  Contrast that to today, where – because we do not have a charter – there is no provision for recalling any town official or board member, no matter what, and no way to change any governmental structure or board in the town.

I would urge all registered voters to review the proposed charter with an open mind.  Nothing is perfect, but neither is the current situation in my opinion.  The charter would allow a fresh start, and could be modified or reversed after four years.  That option-to-change will not be available for at least another 10 to 15 years if the charter is not adopted by the voters in April.


R. Patrick Henry Jr.
East Longmeadow