To the editor:
The word oxymoron is derived from the Greek words oxys, which means “sharp,” and moronos, which means “dull.” How can something be what it is not? Examples like “awful good,” “pony express,” and “jumbo shrimp” are but a few examples of words that taken together, make no sense.
The “vote yes” group has added another oxymoron to the list – “elected town manager.” There is a reason why no such thing exists in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
According to the International City Management Association, city, town, and county managers come from a variety of professional backgrounds that require specific training and experience. While managers have authority to administer the financial, legal, and administrative aspects of local government, they also bear the burden of the responsibility to protect the town from liability, provide good stewardship over appropriated funds, and implement policies determined by their appointing authority.
A candidate for elective local office need only have three qualifications: 1.) Be a resident of the community, 2.) Be a citizen, 3.) Be 18 years old. That candidate need not be highly educated or have previous training or experience. Simply put, “elected” and “manager” are contradictory.
So why is the “vote yes” group promoting this oxymoron? Because when they mention “mayor” people know they are talking “city” and by their own admission, that is unpopular in Saugus. By putting forth the oxymoron of “elected town manager,” they can mitigate the negative reaction by voters. Let’s not forget that when this charter talk started last December, it was made clear in The Advocate, The Item, and on WBZ radio that the goal was for Saugus to become a city. Candidates on the “yes” side were recruited and attracted to that idea.
But let’s dig a little deeper into the pot of gold offered to the voters if they vote yes on Tuesday. They will also get staggered elections. No home-rule charter can be proposed in Massachusetts unless there are staggered elections. A rotating cycle of elections, held each spring, prevents an entire board from being replaced by the voters over a “tempest in a tea pot” type issue. The local election must be held in the springtime because such elections cannot be held in the even year in the fall when state officials are on the ballot.
Now let’s bring forward the promise of the “vote yes” candidates that they will have staggered elections along with an elected town manager. Will that elected manager be elected by plurality or majority? If five people run and no one candidate receives 50% +1, should the one with the most votes become manager? Under that scenario you could have a manager elected by a minority of those voting. If you feel the elected manager should be elected by majority, then you will need a runoff election to narrow down the candidates to two. Then you will need a final election to see which of the two obtains the most votes. Combine this with your staggered elections for Town Meeting members and the Board of Selectmen you will have what Peter Rossetti called “voter fatigue” in 2009, when staggered elections were proposed for just the legislative branch and the Board of Selectmen. Saugus voters are being sold a bill of goods now saying that we will remain a town, and we will still have Town Meeting, and we will still have selectmen, and you will get to vote on the manager. But once the work of an elected charter commission gets rolling, they will soon come to realize that their convoluted nowhere found plan is neither feasible or practical. At the end of 16 months they will say, “We really wanted to do this, but the complications it would create prevent it, so having a mayor and a council is the best way to go.”
Sincerely,
Peter Manoogian
Saugus
