The Lighthouse Keeper
BY DANIEL W. DRAKE ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER
At Monday's presentation by the Town Government Study Committee ("TGSC"), committee member Nancy Sevrens commented that people need to realize that Nantucket isn't a village of 3000 people any more, but that it is much bigger and more complex. The inference from her remark was that there needed to be a structure in place that is able to skillfully address such complexities.

Despite those comments, which reflect a truth that has become self-evident, it does not seem that the committee has yet been willing to bite the bullet and address the questions that get to the heart of the issues which impact how the town functions. Without belaboring the point, TGSC's recommendations address the margins, not the heart of the problem. The real issues - those "needing further study" are left for later.

Those issues listed as needing more study are, in some instances, quite radical: a change in the form of executive government; a change in the legislative format; a run-off election in multiple candidate races. These are certainly political hot potatoes and therefore, they are difficult issues on which to develop a consensus, perhaps even in a committee of seven people.

But where does the postponement of consideration of the more difficult issues leave things? The answer is, essentially, not much of anywhere. The nine warrant articles submitted by TGSC, even if they were to have a real impact on they way things are done, require a two-thirds vote to pass at Town Meeting because they involve changes to the Town Charter. Then, after going through, and presumably passing, a vetting process with the state, the same questions have to be on the ballot of the annual town election in 2008. So, even if successful in navigating the shoals of the electoral process, it will be 14 months before they come into effect.

The 26 or so recommendations that TGCS put forward beyond the warrant articles are dependent entirely on the acceptance and good will of the selectmen and town administration - shouldn't that term be changed to "town management"? - for implementation. If this study is like most government studies, there will be a flurry of activity, and then many of the recommendations will go by the board.

This is not to denigrate the work of TGSC. The committee's mandate was not specific and the members have spent countless hours creating a role for themselves and then coming up with suggestions they thought would be palatable. They can not be faulted on their perseverance or on their good intentions and, indeed, in the context of trying to make things better, many of the recommendations make a great deal of sense.

The process is where it is. The question before the committee and the rest of us is where does it go from here.

TGCS has proposed a warrant article to insure that a study of government be undertaken on a five year cycle. That means that the process would begin again in 2010, which arguably, isn't that far off, although effectively it would mean that a new set of recommendations might not be forthcoming until 2012 and they wouldn't be effective for another year or two. That is too long to wait.

The last of the Committee's "Issues Needing Further Study" is the "future term and role of TGSC." Therein lies the Committee's opportunity to have a real impact on what happens in the future. Between now and Town Meeting when it delivers its final report, TGSC should seriously reconsider its current position that government study can be captured in a renewable, five-year cycle. It should take the bold step of amending on the floor of Town Meeting its Article 52 to provide that TCGS continues as a body for at least the next three years - until 2010 - to keep working at the issues as the will of the larger community becomes more apparent.

The Committee could suggest non-binding questions to be put on the ballot in 2008 to take the temperature of how the electorate feels about a significant change in the form of government. If such a change does get a thumbs-down, then TGCS should redirect its focus towards how to make the present system work better at the macro level.

This could entail changing the relationship between Town Administration and the Board of Selectmen so that the board really is primarily a policy making body with much less involvement in the day-to-day of municipal affairs. For example, the chairman of the current board remarked at the Monday meeting that his is a full-time job, he serves on many committees, and some of his time is spent "walking the halls."

Firstly, TGCS should figure out why being a selectman, or even the chairman, is a full time job and what might be done to provide some relief. One question is whether board members need to serve on all the committees? Secondly, if walking the halls is intended as a morale booster, that's great; if it works to get the selectman involved in the nitty-gritty of town departments, the role of hall walker should be eliminated from the selectman's job description.

Another reason TGSC needs to stay around is to provide some realistic accountability for the selectmen and town in the implementation of its non-legislative recommendations. In its final report, TGSC should add to its recommendations a new one which requests the selectmen and Administrator to report back to the committee - and the public - by, say, July 1, 2007 which of the recommendations are going to be adopted and by when, and which ones are not and why they are being rejected.

In the future, TGCS should be able to make similar recommendations it deems appropriate on a regular basis, without waiting to make a formal report at Town Meeting and, again, request formal feedback on such proposals.

Another area of unfinished business relates to town committees. It seems TCGS clearly wants to strengthen the committee system and thereby, hopefully, attract a larger pool of talent to man them. The one area that has not yet been addressed, however, is an administrative structure to support the committees and boards that do not have staffs. They are currently left totally to their own devices with respect to such ministerial tasks as recordkeeping and noticing meetings. These routines effectively turn off volunteers and more work needs to be done in devising and recommending support mechanisms.

The TGSC members deserve the community's thanks for a thankless job and may well be entitled to ride off into the sunset. However, as an entity, the TGSC has proved itself too useful to be allowed to die or even go into hibernation. There is no alternative but to keep it going. It has only just begun.

+ + + I

The "Lighthouse Keeper" reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the editorial position of The Nantucket Independent. Please send any comments to drake@nantucketindependent.com.