Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/31/2021
EAST LONGMEADOW – The East Longmeadow Council spent three hours over two days discussing, amending and approving the town’s updated Home Rule Charter.
One councilor was particularly vocal about changes to the charter that he would have liked to see. The purpose of the charter review, Councilor Patrick Henry said, “is to take a town charter that works pretty darn well and make it work just a little bit better.”
Henry told his colleagues that he was concerned with issues not taken up by the Charter Review Committee in its eight months of weekly meetings reviewing the document. His examples included the council’s option of a veto within 45 days of certain town manager decisions, which he said “really didn’t work,” and a lack of communication with department heads. He also remarked that the bylaw process “is a real hassle,” but instead of being streamlined, he said more steps were added.
Henry argued that bylaw proposals must go from the council to the Bylaw Sub-Committee, back to the council, then to the Planning Board, at which point, it had to be published in the newspaper and undergo two public hearings before returning to the council. After that, the bylaw had to be reviewed by the town attorney and be read by the council at two consecutive meetings before a final vote is conducted. The Charter Review Committee had included a change requiring a second newspaper publication and third public hearing by the council, he said.
Councilors Ralph Page and Marilyn Richards, both members of the Charter Review Committee, explained that only zoning bylaws go to the Planning Board, leaving general bylaws without public hearings or publication. Richards said the change was “a huge sticking point” and was made in the interest of transparency. The change remained in the final version.
The council discussed at length whether a provision that councilors not give “orders” or “directions” to town employees could be interpreted to mean that they cannot ask employees questions. Henry insisted that it would strip councilors of their rights as citizens of the town. While the other councilors acknowledged the concern, no action was taken to amend the language.
Of the eight changes suggested by Henry on the first day of the council's review, only one was passed. On the second day of discussion, Henry withdrew all of his remaining challenges to the charter. He said that it was clear he was of a different mind than the other councilors, but appreciated that his concerns had been listened to and considered.
Other councilors also offered amendments to the charter. Councilor Donald Anderson suggested a 30-day limit of the length of time the council can go before reorganizing at the beginning of a new fiscal year. The charter had specified that the council president and vice-president must be present for the reorganization. Anderson noted, however, that office holders could essentially stay in power by strategically not attending meetings, and hence delaying the selection of a new president and vice-president. Instead, he asked that after 30 days, a super-majority of council members could move forward with reorganization. This amendment passed unanimously.
Councilor Thomas O’Connor suggested state and federal officials should be barred from holding a position of the council. He argued that working on a state budget would create a conflict of interest requiring the councilor to recuse themselves from the town budget. Page countered that a state official may have valuable experience. Similarly, Councilor Marilyn Richards saw no issue with the hypothetical double office holder. Eventually, O’Connor withdrew the amendment.
O’Connor also questioned the addition of language that specified non-residents could serve on committees, boards, and commissions, though residents would be given priority. “I see no value in having non-residents on our boards,” O’Connor said.
Council President Michael Kane boiled the question down to “would you rather have [the seat] remain vacant or go outside [of town residents.]”
Charter Review Committee Chair Lawrence Levine offered examples of recent residents who wish to remain involved with the town or experts from other communities. Richards noted that allowing non-residents was not unheard of and that she had been passed over for a position on the Council on Aging in favor of a Bluebird Estates employee and Pittsfield resident who had experience with the elderly.
“It may lead to an outside agenda that could potentially harm our town by allowing outside influence,” O’Connor cautioned. Henry shared similar concerns.
Anderson interjected with a suggestion that boards and commissions be limited to residents, while committees, which generally are less influential, allow non-residents with a preference for residents. The suggested amendment was approved.
Other new language added to the charter by the review committee and approved by the council included that raises or stipend increases of 10 percent or more in any fiscal year require prior approval by the council and that no municipal ordinance or bylaw may conflict with state laws.
The document will be sent to the state Attorney General’s office before it is voted on by residents in May.