In Saugus today, there is no four-letter word more controversial or offensive than “city.” The town will vote on whether to convene a charter commission on Nov. 7, and many residents oppose it due to a fear that it will change Saugus’ system of government to a city. I want to clarify that if the commission is approved, there is no specific recommendation it is guaranteed to make. Its proposals would depend strongly on who is elected to serve on it, and the town’s voters would have to approve any of their suggestions.
But I think the question is worth asking: Would becoming a city really be so bad for Saugus? People associate cities with large populations and built-up urban landscapes, but that doesn’t have much to do with the actual distinction between cities and towns. According to the Commonwealth, “the essential difference is structural: a city is defined by the presence of a city or town council,” while towns have town meetings. Towns typically also have select boards that can serve as an executive body (Saugus has a relatively weak Board of Selectmen and a relatively strong town manager). Proponents of the town system usually argue that residents can be much more involved in local governments that are structured as towns rather than cities.
But Saugus doesn’t have open town meetings that allow all residents to vote. Instead, it has a representative town meeting, with 50 Town Meeting members representing the town’s ten precincts. This is a system that features the worst parts of both towns and cities. Just as in cities, the average resident does not get to directly participate in the representative town meeting. But the gargantuan size of Saugus’ 50-member town meetings creates an unwieldy body that rarely has all members in attendance. The representative town meeting is essentially an extremely large city council that rarely meets and, as a result, can not quickly respond to any urgent business.
Most of the Saugonians I have heard from are staunchly against the idea of their home becoming a city and many arguments center around the reduced number of residents who would have direct input on local government. This is pretty reasonable, but it raises a question: Why limit the amount of people who can contribute to Town Meeting at all? The main advantage of towns is that they provide the average resident with much more direct input on how their governments are run and managed. While more people can vote in a representative town meeting than in a city council, it is still an exclusive system based around an elected body.
Additionally, some of the candidates running for charter commission have advocated for an elected town manager. This isn’t something that appears to be possible in this Commonwealth. Michael Ward, the director of the Edward J. Collins Jr. Center for Public Management, said that a charter proposing an elected town manager and the retention of other systems of town government would likely be considered against Massachusetts General Laws. Saugus wouldn’t be able to elect a town manager and keep the institutions that make it a town, like Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen.
But there are valid reasons for an elected town manager. It would provide greater accountability for the chief executive of Saugus. It would also streamline the process. Right now, residents elect selectmen, who then vote to appoint the town manager with at least four votes. But once the town manager is in their position, four votes are required to remove them from the office and just three are needed to extend or renew their term.
Even if there is significant opposition to the town manager throughout Saugus, they can be entrenched in that position if just two selectmen want to retain them. Residents could technically recall the selectmen who support the town manager, but this is not ideal for Saugus’ political culture. Doing so regularly would make the other responsibilities and priorities of selectmen less important than their support for the town manager. The process would further politicize the position, undermining the entire reason why town managers are appointed in the first place: to serve as a professional, rather than an elected, official. If Saugonians support the idea of an elected town manager, it is likely because they think that the position has already become politicized or that preventing its politicization is no longer important.
Ultimately, Saugus is going to have to choose what its priority is. Do its residents want it to remain a town, or do they want to elect a single chief executive? A charter commission would allow this town to update and change all of the features of its government. I think this is an excellent chance for Saugonians to reflect on what parts of the town’s political system work and what parts should be improved. But they should understand what changes are impossible before they elect people to suggest them.
Stuart Foster is The Item’s opinion editor.
