Defending the right for referendums
Amesbury News. Friday, July 8, 2005
 
Recently, we have heard a lot about Amesbury’s “form of government”: particularly about what role ordinary citizens should play, and how much deference should be given to the decisions of elected officials. 
 
We have been told that our form of government is “a republic, not a democracy”.  We have been told that referendums are fine in municipalities with “town” structures of government, but no longer appropriate now that Amesbury is a “city”. We have been told that referendums somehow “undermine” our form of government, because they allow “a small group of people” to “impede governmental processes.”
 
The Mayor’s lawyers argued that capital projects should be exempt from referendum, but a judge ruled that we have a right to referendum, under Amesbury’s Charter – even referendums on capital projects.  Now we hear that the Mayor and Municipal Council are pursuing their legal appeals, attempting to reverse the judge’s decision; and some people are attempting to justify this legal action as “defending” the Charter from the “threat” of referendums.  
 
There has been a lot of rhetoric thrown at us, recently, but not very many facts. 
 
The fact is that, ever since the Home Rule Amendment was added to the Massachusetts Constitution in 1966, every municipality has been able to define their own form of government.  A municipality’s “form of government” is no more or less than whatever is outlined in its current charter.  Amesbury’s 1996 Home Rule Charter includes a section allowing referendums on actions taken by the School Committee or the Municipal Council.  So referendum is actually a part of Amesbury’s “form of government”. 
 
Hyperbole about “defending” Town government from the “threat” of public participation is the rhetorical equivalent of someone saying he needs to defend his kitchen from his refrigerator.  It may sound good, but if you stop to think about it, it doesn’t make much sense.
 
Citizen participation is a necessary part of our form of government.  It is such an important part that the 1996 Charter Commission devoted much of the document’s “Introduction” to explaining the various mechanisms that would ensure public participation:  “Citizens of Amesbury are provided with broad rights to impact the workings of town government.  … initiative petition … referendum process … recall of elected officials … right of Free Petition … open meetings … inspection of all public documents.”  All of these mechanisms are important parts of Amesbury’s “form of government”. 
 
If referendum is now considered a “threat” to our form of government, then what about the Charter’s other mechanisms for public participation?  Are open meetings going to be the next “threat”?  Or will it be the ability to inspect public documents? Or the ability to recall elected officials?
 
Referendum gives the public an opportunity to “veto” policy decisions they disagree with.  But it is not an easy process, particularly here in Amesbury.  Anyone in Amesbury who seeks a referendum has only 10 days to gather signatures from 5% of the Town’s registered voters (550 signatures).  Contrast that with the referendum requirements in Palmer, where citizens have 90 days to gather signatures from the same 5% of registered voters (403 signatures); or with Greenfield, which allows 30 days (573 signatures); or with Winthrop, which allows 21 days to gather signatures from only 3% of registered voters (358 signatures).
 
Or contrast it with the referendum provisions at the state level, embodied in Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution: referendum sponsors have 30 days to gather signatures, and the threshold is 2% of the turnout in the most recent gubernatorial election.  In a Commonwealth of 6.4 million people, it takes only about 11,000 signatures to force a referendum on a measure passed by the state Legislature.  If we had adopted that model here in Amesbury – 30 days to collect signatures equal to 2% of the turnout in the last mayor’s election – referendum sponsors would only have to get about 80 signatures on their petitions. 
 
The fact is that Amesbury’s referendum process makes it pretty hard to “impede government processes” – and it is not something that can be done by only “a small group of people”.  The 1996 Charter Commission carefully balanced the goal of efficient, orderly government with the need to have some sort of a “check” on the exercise of legislative powers.  The referendum process is not easy, and it is not undertaken lightly.  Of the hundreds upon hundreds of measures that have been passed by the Amesbury Municipal Council since 1997, only two have provoked a referendum drive.  And both those referendums overturned the Council’s action by a huge margin.
 
The referendum provisions included in Amesbury’s Charter are not anything out of the ordinary.  Every Massachusetts city that has a “plan” form of government has a referendum process under state law, which gives 20 days to gather signatures from 12% of the city’s registered voters.  Every city that has a Home Rule charter has a referendum procedure.  Of the cities with Special Act charters, only three (Boston, Everett and Taunton) do not have referendum provisions.  So out of 52 cities in Massachusetts, 49 of them allow referendums.  The City of Lynn even has an automatic referendum: any special appropriation for more than $4 million has to be sent to the voters.
 
So how can anybody argue that referendums are only appropriate for Town forms of government; or that they will somehow “weaken” a city form of government?   The fact is that 94% of Massachusetts’ cities have referendum procedures.  Just like most kitchens need a refrigerator, a referendum process is an important part of a city form of government.  Access to referendum is a necessary part of the “checks and balances” that make a city form of government work, over the long run.
 
-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.