Saugus charter board to present one proposal

SAUGUS – When the proposed charter changes finally come to a vote in November 2009, residents will be faced with an all or nothing deal, which some believe will hurt the chances of its passage.Charter Commission Chairman Peter Manoogian did not argue that selling residents on a new charter would become an issue of education. But he said it was not the charge of the committee to create a menu of options for residents. It is, he said emphatically, the commission’s job to put forth the best option.”People will have to ask themselves – they will have to make a judgment if the entirety of the changes result in a net improvement over what we have now,” Manoogian said. The decision to make the vote an all-or-nothing package did not come lightly. Manoogian said he and his fellow commissioners asked the same question.”But we could never do a smörgåsbord approach under the law,” he said.Michael Curran, the consultant hired to guide the commission on its quest to rewrite the charter, said simply, “The short answer to your question is that it is not legally possible to do this.” Curran, who has worked on numerous charters, said it is clear in both the Home Rule Amendment and the Home Rule Procedures that the Charter Commission can only submit one recommendation.The purpose of the Home Rule is to allow city and towns the right of self-governance in local matters.Manoogian said until they learned this, they toyed with the idea of putting forth two charters for residents to choose from, but again he agreed that it’s the board’s charge to put forth one choice. He said it was the commission’s job to do the research and conduct the surveys that would allow the group of nine to make the best possible decision for the community. Then, in November it will be up to the voters as to whether or not they agree.Curran also noted that the language used to set out the very question that appeared on the ballot creating the Charter Commission set a limit to what it could do, which was create “a single recommendation.”Upon its election, the commission was charged with submitting a charter or a revised charter to the Selectmen within 10 months – singular, one charter – Curran pointed out.He said while people might argue the interpretation, he feels in all good conscience it could not be read to allow for multiple alternatives.And in Manoogian’s mind, there is no need for an alternative because he has no doubt that the charter the commission has created is better than what the town has.”We do not have a Norman Rockwell Town Meeting right now,” he said. Manoogian said the only possible way to sort of piecemeal the charter would be through a non-binding referendum that would essentially ask residents what they wanted to see in a charter. But he argued his commission has already done that through its extensive interviews and research.Manoogian said Curran reminded him of the commission’s exact charge when he said, “You were elected to make the best decision for the town.”Curran also said in all the literature that has been written about municipal charter reform, essentially doing anything other than putting one proposal forward would be a violation of their charge.”To say they didn’t know what to do and that the uneducated, unknowing should make the judgment on their own would be ludicrous,” he said.Town Moderator Robert Long said what bothers him regarding the singular proposal is if the explanations become to complex or complicated, people will simply vote the charter down.”That’s the sad part,” he said. “People want to see things like transparency . . . I’m not sure everyone wants to reinvent the wheel.”