YACK on: Elected vs. Appointed
Grant Sanders
Spring, 2007 is a very exciting political season because not only is there a chance to solidify the position of the forces of good and safeguard the town against the forces of evil by electing two fine men to the Board of Selectmen, we also have an opportunity to make a very positive choice for the way town government is run by changing a few boards from elected boards to appointed ones.

Many people have told me that they can't tell when I'm joking or being serious when they read my column, so I will spell it out from the get-go. I'm serious. I think appointed boards are the way to go. For dozens of reasons. Not the least of which is "blame."

For example, and hypothetically speaking, say we had a Planning Board member who decided he or she wanted to use his or her influence on the board to get a quiet little waiver in order to build an insane cluster of houses on a lot that would only be allowed if the Nantucket Zoning Code were written by Dr. Seuss. (One house, two house, red house, blue house. Can you build them on a lot? Will it make the neighbors hot?) But if that Planning Board member is appointed, not elected, you can go back to the Board of Selectmen and say, in a public meeting, with the video cameras rolling and the local reporters scribbling their notes, "Hey, you dopes. Your Planning Board appointee is trying to build a cluster subdivision on four acres instead of the usual ten. What's wrong with you people?"

See how it works? With appointed officials, you have someone to blame. The appointing body. And they can do something about it. They can bring the appointee before them and say, "Hey, knock it off or tender your resignation." And then they can appoint someone else who does not have a vested interest in turning a particular neighborhood into Depressex Road II. If that Planning Board member is elected, who can we blame? Who can we hold accountable? Ourselves. The voters. And let's face it, people, that's no fun at all. What are we going to do? Beat ourselves up? Look in the mirror and say, "You really left your brains at home on that vote, Sparky."

Another Board that could potentially be changed from elected to appointed is SHAB. The Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board. Not only is SHAB the worst acronym going (Shouldn't it be HSAB?) it's also a board, currently made up mostly of scallopers and a boatyard owner. Now, I know for a fact these are all honorable and honest people, but the law says that if you sit on an elected board, you cannot vote on issues that affect you financially. Which means we currently have a board in which five of seven members should, by law, recuse him or herself on every vote. An appointing body might take that into consideration and put a few people in those seats who are qualified to vote on harbor and access issues who do not fish commercially or sell people boats and moorings. I'm just saying…

Another reason to make some boards appointed has to do with the structure of government and how power and accountability flows. Currently, with several elected boards, the town government is like a collection of feudal territories, each with their own priorities, each doing essentially their own thing. For example, the Board of Selectmen, our chief executives, if you will, have a series of goals and objectives that include addressing growth management, developing affordable housing, improving the harbor and developing and ratifying a workable, affordable sewer policy. While the Planning Board has its own set of objectives and guidelines, such as protecting the time-honored system of cronyism and favoritism, slandering the Planning Board alternates with public letters, granting each other waivers allowing some members to quite wealthy, and avoiding anything that resembles actual planning in any way, shape or form - at all cost.

As you can see, these two sets of goals and objectives may actually be at odds. If the Planning Board were appointed, the Board of Selectmen could call up and say something like, "Hey, Planning Board, how about doing some, oh, I don't know…PLANNING!? You know, like that 41-81D master plan that is a requirement of the state and was supposed to be done months ago? Start with that, why don'tcha?" And the Planning Board, being appointed, would direct its staff to do just that, or lose their jobs. See how nice accountability can be?

Now you may say that elections are more democratic. They honor the voter with the power to decide who sits on boards and who does not. To which I reply, "Get real, people." First of all, only a fraction of the island actually votes. So the Planning Board, HDC and SHAB are about as representative of the will of the people as Honey Bunches Of Oats is representative of the taste of all cereal eaters. If you think that the people who are elected are elected by the people, you are deluding yourselves. Elected officials are thus made through the efforts of a coalition of interests and money. I'm an ad guy. I know how people get elected. Give me $14,000 and I'll get my dog elected to the HDC. It would be easy. A few bumper stickers. Some buttons. A ride along with Geno in his yellow and white Dodge van and before you know it, my dog will be granted a waiver for a triple-decker on my half-acre lot by his fellow HDC members.

He'll recuse himself, of course.

YACK on. I

Grant Sanders is the Host of YACK, The Nantucket Online Community, (at yackon.com), which is not an appointed or elected position. It's a dictatorship. Albeit a benevolent one. His views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of The Nantucket Independent. Or the editorial stance of his wife.