What's in a name?
Amesbury News. Friday, July 22, 2005
 
As people talk about our local government, they keep repeating one theme – “Amesbury is a city, not a town” – as if that makes all the difference in the world.
 
This begs the question:  What is the difference between a town and a city? 
 
And the answer is: Not much.
 
In Massachusetts, the legislative branch of a “town” is the “Town Meeting” – either “open Town Meeting”, where all residents can participate, or “representative Town Meeting” where Town Meeting representatives are elected by district.  The legislative branch of a “city” is always made up of elected representatives; it is usually called a “council”, but sometimes called a “board of aldermen”.
 
In Massachusetts, any municipality that has a population under 12,000 cannot be a “city” (and any “town” with less than 6,000 population must have an Open Town Meeting form of government).
 
And in Massachusetts, a “city” has a clearly structured annual budget process, set out in statute, and the legislative body is prohibited from increasing any appropriation above the amount recommended by the mayor or other chief executive.
 
And that, these days, is pretty much the extent of the differences between “town” and “city”.
 
In the past, there were more significant differences between “towns” and “cities”; but many statutes were repealed, or new legislation was passed to give the same power to the other form of government. 
 
In the past, cities (other than Boston) were organized according to one or another of the various “plan” forms of government, set out in state laws. But in 1966, the Home Rule Amendment was added to the Massachusetts Constitution, and that allowed every municipality to fashion its own form of government.  The days of clear-cut distinctions were over.
 
Since 1966, the structures of municipal governments have varied greatly.  Five cities – Barnstable, Chelsea, Franklin, Southbridge and Watertown – do not have mayors.  Forty-six cities call their legislative body a “council”; five call them “board of aldermen”.  The City of Everett has it all: with a council, a board of aldermen, and a mayor, it is the only municipality in the entire United States to have a bi-cameral legislature.
 
Even the most basic difference between “towns” and “cities” – the difference in size – is no longer a reliable determinant.  The City of North Adams has a population of 14,681, while the Town of Framingham has 66,910 residents.  The City of Chelsea covers only 1.86 square miles, while the Town of Plymouth has 97.57 square miles within its borders.
 
Discussing the “difference” between a “town” and a “city” is an exercise in semantics.  It is like arguing whether Massachusetts is a “state” or a “commonwealth”.  From a practical standpoint, there is almost no difference; even if, from an emotional standpoint, the two words have vastly different overtones.
 
What’s in a name?  Why is Massachusetts one of only four “commonwealths” included in the United States of America?  One theory is because the term “commonwealth” was more politically palatable than “state”, back when John Adams drafted the Massachusetts Constitution.  A prior draft had termed Massachusetts a “state”, but that draft was overwhelmingly rejected for a number of reasons.  John Adam’s draft called Massachusetts a “commonwealth”, and that was approved in 1780.
 
The 1996 Charter Commission faced a similar dilemma:  should Amesbury be a “town” or a “city”?  The two terms carry very different emotional overtones: “cities” are big and bustling, and often impersonal; but in “towns” you borrow cups of sugar from your neighbors.
 
The Charter Commission made the conscious decision to “keep” Amesbury as a “town”, even as we were trading Town Meeting for a council form of government.  The Commission did not want to turn Amesbury into Chelsea, or Lynn, or even Newburyport.  We wanted to make local government more accountable, without losing the “town” characteristics of volunteerism and citizen involvement that have been so much a part of Amesbury’s history.
 
Amesbury is not the only Massachusetts municipality that has struggled with this question of semantics and shaded meanings.  Ten other communities – Agawam, Barnstable, Franklin, Greenfield, Southbridge, Palmer, Watertown, West Springfield, Weymouth and Winthrop – have “city” forms of government but still call themselves “the Town of”.  Methuen even named itself “The City Known as the Town of Methuen” and has only recently shortened that to “City of Methuen”.
 
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that what a municipality calls itself doesn’t matter: “It is the substance of the thing done, and not the name given to it, which controls.”
 
The Commission made a deliberate decision to retain the term “Town”, because we recognized that Amesbury still has the character of a “Town”.  People want to be involved: people want to know what their government is up to, people want to be part of the process.  
 
Therefore we left the Housing Authority, Library Trustees and Planning Board as elected boards, whereas in other cities these positions are appointed boards.
 
Members of the Commission were proud of Amesbury’s “town-like” characteristics; we recognized that, despite the change in government, Amesbury is still a “Town”.  It is frustrating to watch people refer to “the City Known as the Town of Amesbury”, or see signs printed with “The City of Amesbury”, or hear people suggest Charter changes to make Amesbury “more like a city” and “less like a town”.
 
In Massachusetts, there is almost no practical difference between “city” and “town” forms of government.  The only difference is in the imagery.  Do we want to live in a big, bustling, impersonal place?  Or do we want to live in a place where neighbors borrow sugar from each other?
 
-Tom Iacobucci
 
Tom has held the following elected offices in the Town of Amesbury: 
 
* Town Meeting Representative from 1984 until 1996;
* Selectman, from 1994 until 1996;
* Member (and Vice Chair) of the second Charter Commission, 1995-96; and
* Councilor-at-Large, from 1996 until 2001.
 
Tom also, served as Chairman of the Town’s Bylaw’s Committee from 1986 until 1996; and in 1992, and performed the most-recent recodification of the Town’s Bylaws, which were then approved by the Attorney General’s Office and enacted by Town Meeting.