Now This Would Be an Embarrassment.
By Jim Conley • Mar 13th, 2007 • Email This Post to a Friend •
Print This Post
• Email this author
I reported this in a previous post, but it bears repeating. In February, selectman’s candidate Jesse Mermell (running unopposed on the crony ticket) tells the Herald’s Wayne Woodlief that she’s embarrassed by the all-male Massachusetts Congressional delegation, saying:
“Washington state has two U.S. senators, a woman governor and one House member. We are one of 17 states to have no women in our delegation. It’s embarrassing.’’
She’s embarrassed because she’s paid by the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus to be embarrassed. Mermell traverses the Commonwealth as an advocate for putting more women in the halls of power. (A laudable goal, inasmuch that I suspect that if we put more women in the big chairs we wouldn’t measure progress by how many cruise missiles we’ve employed in a given year.)
But you know what would really be an embarrassment? If a board of selectmen with three out of five members being women elected a man to serve as their chair.
It’s hard to see how Mermell won’t cast her vote for her campaign co-chair Robert L. Allen, Jr. In most town meeting systems, the chair is usually the selectman who received the most votes of the group (whether they want it or not)…that would be Betsy DeWitt. Hey, she’s a woman.
In that one vote, Mermell will prove whether she believes in what she’d have the rest of us do. Or whether she’s just another political crony doing what’s best for her.
I’m betting it will be the latter.
Update: Now that I think about it, why not adopt a rule (through a warrant article, I suppose) that automatically makes the member of the Selectman who polled the highest number of votes in their election the Board’s chairman? That seems consistent with the so-called purest form of democracy - town meeting.
And yes that would mean that someone who didn’t want the position might end up in it. They then have the choice of not trying to get lots of votes. In that case, it’s a win-win.
Jim Conley is publisher of On Brookline.
Email this author | All posts by Jim Conley
APATHETIC OR PATHETIC?
Even the usually enthusiastic Stanley Spiegel (TAB, March 8, 2007) is concerned with the candidate shortage for the upcoming Town elections and how this undermines democracy in Brookline. So is it due to voter apathy or the pathetic performances that our five Selectmen and 240 TMMs provide our community of 56,000?
The system – Representative Town Meeting with its part-time governance – is too archaic, too costly, too inefficient and too unaccountable. I plan to vote at the May elections but only for candidates who are seriously prepared to consider a charter change to a modern, more efficient and accountable city form of governance. If there are no such candidates, I plan to write in “Charter” for each Town office.
As for the candidates who are unopposed, I wonder if they think that they have been “chosen” to serve Brookline. Or is all of this mostly a part of their social lives, like some fraternal order? Do these candidates, many of whom have long served, feel they have contributed to the well being of our Town? How would they measure their contribution? By the size of our tax bills? By what measure have they contributed, assuming they have the skills and are permitted to take positions that challenge the insiders?
Let’s put this to song:
“APATHETIC, PATHETIC, LET’S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF….”
By the way, if Mermell and the ladies take gender concerted action, I would be deprived of referring to that short portion of Washington St. between Bobby’s law office and Town Hall as ‘”ALLEN’S ALLEY.” And if that happens, what happens to Mrs. Nussbaum, Titus Moody and Sen. Claghorn? So, please, voters, for our sakes, write in “CHARTER”!
Unfortuntately for “thinkers”, the guy with the ideas is usually stuck trying to realize them.
So, Mr. Conley, you have until next week plus a few days to draft a warrant article, garner signatures (not too onerous, I believe, only ten) and submit them for stamping and dating to the Town Clerk for inclusion in the warrant.
Remember to include with the submission a statement of the “purpose” of the article, a requirement not made of the Selectmen, who frequently submit the warrant article argumentation much later.
And Jim, you can get the assistance of Town Counsel to word the warrant article in the proper fashion so it won’t be bounced. Then you can appear before the Advisory Committee and the BOS to explain the warrant article to them so they can disaprove it. And then, if the Town Moderator permits, TMMs can thoroughly debate the warrant article under the watchful cable presentation of Town Meeting, and then rubber-stamp the disapprovals of the Advisory Committee and the BOS. Perhaps your time would be better spent with a Charter movement. Where do I sign?
Correction: Never toss an e-mail together as oneis flyingout the door.
I mispoke: The deadline for warrant articles is THIS Thursday at noon, promptly. I wouldn’t want someone thinking of filing an article to miss the deadline. Sorry if I threw anyone off.
[...] Now This Would Be an Embarrassment.I reported this in a previous post, but it bears repeating. … [...]