How many signatures of registered voters should be required to overrule an action by the City Council? At what point can the objections of a minority become an obstacle to good governance? An important decision affecting the stability of our community lies at the heart of the discussion in Greenfield over the number of signatures required to initiate a Citizen Referendum, and the amount of time over which those signatures can be collected.
Overruling an action of the City Council should not be burdensome, but it should not be so easy that a small group of dissenters could become obstructive. We need dissenters. Dissent can be instrumental in furthering justice and growth. Dissent can also be obstructive and petty. The question for Greenfield’s voters to consider is one of deciding an appropriate number of signatures on a petition that will enable dissenters to raise their objections to the level of a Citizen Referendum yet allow for reasoned decisions to prevail over obstruction and pettiness.
The City Charter requires signatures from 2.5% of registered voters to initiate a Citizen Referendum. This is too low. The Charter Review Committee proposes raising that to 10%, which is too high. I urge the Town Council to put before the voters a proposal of 7% to initiate a Citizen Referendum, the signatures to be collected within 30 days of filing for the petition.
Access to the Citizen Referendum is an important part of Greenfield’s system of governance. It is a remnant of the power all citizens had when open town meetings were practical in a community where most people knew one another and had more in common than is often true today, and when they had time and interest to participate directly in municipal affairs.
Our federal Constitution established a tripartite government: the executive, the offices of the presidency; the legislative, the two houses of Congress; the Supreme Court, the judiciary where conflicts between the executive and legislative can be appealed and settled.
Greenfield’s charter provides for two parts of government, the executive, the mayor, and the legislative, the City Council. The Citizen Referendum is, in a sense, our equivalent of the judiciary, a mechanism through which a significant number of people can appeal decisions and acts of the executive and the legislative branches of Greenfield’s government.
The importance of the Citizen Referendum has increased as the size of Greenfield’ City Council has decreased. That importance is evident in the discussions occurring over the Charter Review Committee’s recommendation to increase the number of signatures required to initiate a referendum from 2.5% to 10% of registered voters. Greenfield’s population has been between 15,000 and 18,000 since the 1920 census. The current Greenfield City council consists of 13 people approximately 0.072% of the population who are empowered to make decisions for nearly 18,000 people.
Council members are elected by the town’s registered voters. Candidates are generally known by their neighbors, examined by the media, and made visible through the various mechanisms of their campaigns. It is realistic to assume the majority of candidates are reasonable, intelligent, well-meaning citizens who wish to make positive contributions to their community. It is also realistic to assume that thirteen people can make an error in judgement, one that a significant number of their constituents consider a grave mistake.
The purpose of a Citizen Referendum is to correct such a mistake. Requiring the signatures of 7% of registered voters would not be an obstacle to initiating a referendum if the issue is one of substantial interest. It would help free the referendum process of petty squabbles and piques yet keep it accessible to a reasonable number of reasonable citizens.
Wilson Roberts, a retired professor of English from GCC and mediator, was a member of the Greenfield Town Council through the 1980s and is a former council president. The author of 13 novels and a book of poems, he is currently parliamentarian for the City Council.