After 15 months of work, I signed the Charter Review Committee (CRC) Summary Letter in April 2021. (The CRC only makes recommendations to the City Council and has no legislative power.) One recommendation — changes to the referendum process — has sparked considerable public comment, for and against.
With the CRC now disbanded, my observations are in no way official or intended to speak for the whole committee. They are my recollections (based on minutes available on the city website) and my personal thoughts on the issues.
I worked closely with Chairman David Singer on Article 7: Elections; Election Related Matters. We considered public comments and suggestions, worked through multiple drafts, and led many committee discussions.
Early on, the CRC decided to use a simple, guiding philosophy: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” We listened to city officials, employees, and interested citizens. Our hope was to make the Charter more specific and understandable and the governing process more efficient.
Article 7 contained 3 Sections that some people considered “broke.” The first (7-2) was the voting process that resulted in a mayor elected with just 38% of the vote in 2019. But we discovered that Massachusetts law requires a special Charter Commission (not Committee) to change voting laws, not just the mayor and City Council.
Public comment and CRC discussion showed dissatisfaction with two other Sections: 7-7 (Citizen Initiative Measures) and 7-8 (Citizen Referendum Procedures). Initiatives and referendums are often confused. An initiative forces a vote by the City Council on a measure that hasn’t been discussed or voted on, while a referendum seeks to overturn a vote of the City Council.
We considered changes for two reasons. First, the language and procedures weren’t written clearly. We rewrote the sections, using simpler language, and created charts showing the sequential steps. These changes, I believe, were successful and noncontroversial, and could fix one part of what was “broke.”
But the devil is always in the details, and the details that specify the number of signatures required, and the deadlines for filing petitions are what make the Sections work, or not work, depending on your opinion.
Supporters of a new library felt that the referendum process was “broke.” They worked for seven years on proposing it, raising money, and jumping through all the hoops required by state and federal agencies. After a torturous process that included a controversial compromise on zoning changes, the council approved it in March 2019. But a referendum petition was filed with just over 300 signatures (about 2½% of all registered voters) in April, and the process came to a screeching halt. The library project faced dire consequences, even if the referendum approved it. Millions of dollars in grants were in jeopardy as were other dependent projects, including a new fire station, since a referendum petition suspends the measure until the election, which occurred seven months later.
In Greenfield, referendums are a way to prevent elected representatives from taking actions that a majority of voters oppose. But should a democratic system also allow a minority to thwart the will of the majority? I believe the current national Senate is such a case: a minority of Senators (41%) can block any legislation and require unreasonable compromises to pass a bill.
Locally, library supporters felt they were “held hostage” by a small minority of voters. Referendums are a necessary check against officials who don’t listen to the people who elected them. But the Charter should not allow a minority (39% in that election) to easily stop every action they oppose, either.
The CRC wanted to make suspending council actions with a referendum “hard, but not too hard.” What is the appropriate percentage to meet that standard? Research showed that five other cities in Western Massachusetts of similar size, with the same type of government, require from 12-15% of registered voters to file within 21-30 days of a vote (Easthampton, Northampton, Pittsfield, West Springfield and Westfield).
I don’t believe anyone on the CRC felt they had Solomon’s wisdom to make a perfect choice. As someone who worked hard to understand the history and issues involved in Greenfield’s referendums, I urge the City Council to place the issue on the November ballot. Personally, I believe (along with the CRC) the percentage should be raised to 10% of registered voters within 30 days, a level I consider “hard, but not too hard.” I believe it is a way to fix something that proved broken just a couple of years ago.
Allen Woods, a Greenfield resident, served on the Charter Review Committee from 2020-21.