The Greenfield City Charter provides for a referendum process that allows citizens to petition and suspend decisions made by the City Council. I am in complete support of that process as there will likely be a really bad decision made by the City Council at some point. How could there not be? The council is made up of human beings and humans sometimes make mistakes.
I have read with interest the many letters to the editor encouraging the registered voters of Greenfield to vote No on Question 1, which would raise the threshold of signatures needed in order to begin the referendum process. Voting for Question 1 will raise the threshold to 7% of registered voters or approximately 900 signatures.
The main theme (or “talking point”) in the letters encouraging a No vote is that a change would make it to harder to initiate a referendum. Yes, it would. That was the intention of Charter Review Committee 2020-2021. After much discussion, the Review Committee recommended a 10% threshold but the City Council, while agreeing the threshold should be raised, ended up with 7%. We, the people, have elected our councilors. And, their decision on 7% is a beautiful example of representative democracy at work.
Why make it harder to initiate a referendum? Because right now it only takes 350 signatures to initiate a referendum, and that’s too easy. I said the City Council is bound to make a mistake someday, but the vast majority of the time they get it right. How do they get it right most of the time? Because they work hard. Yes, the councilors spend many hours studying and deliberating items brought to the City Council. They do not agree on everything and their votes are not always unanimous. But once a motion is passed or fails, then that is pretty much it. There can be motions to reconsider but that is rarely done. I served on the Greenfield Town Council for three years, and was a committee chairperson for all three. I know how hard the councilors work to come to their decisions.
Several letters advocating for a No vote say a Yes vote of Question 1 will deprive citizens of their ability to have a “check and balance” over the City Council. Not true! They will just have to work a little harder.
I know the No-on-1 folks believe it will make it unfair. They have said so. A recent letter (Oct. 9) by Jerry Coney stated “Being forced to collect more than 900 signatures in 23 days in not reasonable. It’s like scaling Everest just to make your voice heard.” No, it’s not. Enough of the hyperbole. Yes, it will take effort to get a referendum on the ballot. It should take effort. It should not be easy.
It’s insulting to the City Council to have their decisions officially questioned by a small minority of citizens. If the council makes a big enough mistake, then it should not be that hard for a group of citizens to gather the 900 signatures needed.
Let’s compare Greenfield’s Question 1 to the state, other towns and cities. Citizens of Massachusetts wanting to put a referendum question of the ballot will have 20 days to collect 12% of registered voters. The town of Amherst requires 15 days for 850 registered voters. The city of Northampton requires 20 days for 15% of registered voters. So really, Question 1 is not unduly burdensome.
Now comes the question. What are the No-on-1 folks so afraid of? The only reasonable answer seems to be they are afraid of having to do a little work. Is that fair? Yes, it is fair.
Most of our city councilors work hard week after week all year long. It is not unfair to ask citizens that want to overturn a decision of the City Council to knock on some doors for 23 days, or fewer, if they have an issue that the vast majority of registered voters will support.
Please join me in voting Yes on the fair and reasonable Question 1.
Richard Wedegartner, LMT, lives in Greenfield with his wife Roxann, who is the mayor of Greenfield. He is the former city councilor for Precinct 5.