Referendum Proposal Is Just Plain Sloppy

Ken O’Brien

Proponents of the referendum question that would return Southbridge to a town meeting/selectmen form of government are indeed outspoken in their support of the proposal.

However, their shrill proclamations on behalf of the petition shy away from dealing with the specifics of their proposal.

Rather, they resort to two forms of response to those who provide specific criticisms of their plan. Either they provide generic tracts extolling the virtues of town meetings in general or they engage in personal attacks denigrating their critics.

Unfortunately, they cannot escape the reality that voters will be confronted with a specific proposal on the June 24^th ballot. 

Despite years of advocating this idea, the core sponsors have produced a sloppy piece of work. If one needs proof of just how slipshod the effort behind this document is, one need look no further than the provision for the initial transition to the proposed Board of Selectmen.

Article 10.1 states, “Upon adoption of this act, the first annual election shall occur on the second Tuesday of April and subsequent annual town elections shall occur on the same day thereafter. Annual town meetings shall occur on the first Monday in June. At the first election five (5) members of the Board of Selectmen shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of the Southbridge Home Rule Charter as revised for the following terms: One for one (1) year, two (2) for two (2) years and three (3) for three years.”

According to that section the 5 selectmen, in the first year this petition takes effect, will be elected as follows:

1 for one year;

2 for two years; and

3 for three years.

And that folks is how we'll elect all 6 of the 5 selectmen.

This is only the most glaring shortcoming contained in the proposal. The sponsors refuse to confront criticisms head on. That is not merely an insult to their critics. It is an insult to all the voters of this town that they would be asked to vote on such a flimsy excuse for legislation.

The sponsors respond that any problems will be fixed by the legislature. Is that, in any way imaginable, consistent with the idea of “Home Rule”? Isn’t it, in fact, an affront to the legislature to expect them to do most of the work that should have been done before this was even put before the voters? Isn’t it just one more case of making Southbridge an ongoing joke?

If a Charter Commission produced something of this nature they would be roundly ridiculed - and rightly so. Do the creators of this sloppy screed deserve any less? 

The fact is that the proposal being put forth and the attitude of its advocates exhibit nothing less than contempt for the voters. It should be treated with a commensurate response when the public goes to the polls.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Articles

Southbridge Town Meeting Petition Is A Fraud

Steeves Takes Scalpel To Marino “Plan”

Restore Southbridge's Beloved Town Meetings
Don’t Vote For “A Pig In A Poke”