RHODE ISLAND: TIVERTON DEBATES FUTURE OF TOWN MEETING DIRECT DEMOCRACY

A townwide division over charter changes

01:00 AM EDT on Thursday, July 24, 2008
By Gina Macris

Source: http://www.projo.com/ri/tiverton/content/EB_TIVERTON_CHARTER_24_07-24-08_BJAVH4R_v8.412207c.html

Journal Staff Writer

TIVERTON — The tortuous deliberations of the Charter Review Commission during the last year have exposed a deep divide in the people’s willingness to finance town government — or to let go of the time-honored principle of direct democracy in the process.

The split in opinion is such that even the chairman of the Charter Review Commission says he doesn’t believe voters will approve any change to the annual Financial Town Meeting, despite the clear signal they sent at the polls two years ago that they wanted an alternative.

Two commission members, Frank Marshall and Richard Joslin, have bemoaned the lack of consensus on the nine-member panel, elected last July by just a few hundred voters in town.

The Town Council will at least move forward with a public hearing next Monday on a Charter Review Commission recommendation that an all-day referendum replace the annual Financial Town Meeting.

Another alternative, proposed by Town Council member Brian Medeiros, would delegate the Town Council with budget-setting authority.

A third plan, put forward by council member Joanne Arruda, would simply move the Financial Town Meeting from a Wednesday evening to a Saturday.

The Charter Review Commission would limit the authority of the Budget Committee in that it could not add money to fiscal proposals once they are approved by the Town Council or the School Committee.

And it would put pressure on operating revenues by requiring that the town’s unrestricted general fund be increased from 3 to 5 percent of the annual budget over the next eight years.

The fund would not be permitted to dip below 3 percent of annual operating costs at any time except in a state of emergency, and then only if three quarters of the electorate approves.

In other recommendations, the commission would limit the power of the Town Council in two ways.

Voter approval would be required of any decision to sell town-owned land, apart from property in the town Industrial Park.

And the commission would vest the appointed town administrator with the sole authority to hire and Fire Department heads.

If such a provision had been in effect last year, the council could not have reversed the decision of former town administrator W. Glenn Steckman III to fire Police Chief Thomas Blakey.


THE DIVISION in the community over alternatives to the Financial Town Meeting mirrors the tug between elected officials and so-called “anti-tax” voters, who in May tried to cut nearly $2 million from the Budget Committee’s recommendation for the fiscal year that began July 1.

The Town Council, the School Committee, and the chairman of the Budget Committee warned that the reductions would cripple the town financially, not allowing it to meet its legal obligations.

After a week’s recess in the meeting, the position of the elected officials won enough support to restore all but $100,000 to the original sum.

Since then, the Charter Review Commission has completed yearlong deliberations, putting forth its version of an all-day referendum.

In the event voters reject the Budget Committee’s recommendation, the town could raise the tax levy by no more than 4 percent, or the consumer price index at the time, whichever is less, according to the proposal.

There would be no exceptions to that rule, not even to make up for unexpected losses in outside revenues or to meet debt, as the Budget Committee had recommended in May.

The Charter Review Commission’s proposal received such a chilly reception that the commission amended the final language to allow for a special referendum in case voters initially reject the Budget Committee’s recommendations.

But Town Council president Louise Durfee says the final language is flawed because it does not provide for any finality to the budget process, allowing an “endless override.”

Two members of the Charter Review Commission, Laura Epke and Deborah Pallasch, had proposed a charter amendment that would move the town beyond direct democracy by granting the Town Council the authority to set the budget.

While the majority of the commission did not endorse that proposal, council member Brian Medeiros plucked that idea, tweaked it, and has offered it as an alternative to the all-day referendum.

Medeiros’ proposal would allow a minimum of 5 percent of the electorate to petition for a referendum to override the council vote.

The petition must clearly state the alternatives to the council’s figures, according to the proposal, the same as one approved handily by voters in neighboring Portsmouth last November.

In that town, there was backlash against a divisive special Town Meeting in 2006 in which the taxpayer group Portsmouth Concerned Citizens engineered a cut of about $1.7 million to the school and municipal budget then in effect.

HERE, THE CHARTER Commission first came up with the idea of a Grand Committee of elected officials representing the Town Council, School Committee and Budget Committee to decide the budget.

But Leonard, the chairman, said the idea was discarded because of reluctance to let go of direct democracy.

In the last seven or eight years, he said, voters have rejected two proposals to turn over the budget-making authority to the Town Council, Leonard said.

Because there was no widespread support on the commission for any one alternative, commission member Frank Marshall suggested that the panel forego making any recommendation. But that idea never even came to a vote.

Leonard said that the commission was bound to fulfill the charge of voters, who clearly said in 2006 that they wanted to see an alternative to the Financial Town Meeting.

Not that the members of the commission were elected by a broad mandate.

In a town of about 10,000 voters, 229 cast ballots. Of the nine commission members, six ran for office and three were write-in candidates.

Town Council members have indicated that, while they generally favor having a public hearing on the commission’s recommended alternative to the Financial Town Meeting, they are not enthusiastic about placing the question on the ballot.

Leonard, who says he doesn’t believe voters will go for a change, nevertheless is making an issue of the council’s authority to decide what questions will be on the ballot — or not.

He said the voters who called for a Charter Review Commission should decide whether to accept or reject the results of the deliberation.

Town Solicitor Andrew M. Teitz, however, said the council’s authority to set the language on the ballot flows from the Rhode Island Constitution.

The Constitution is not crystal clear, he said, but it has been the practice for many years for town councils in Rhode Island to decide what questions will appear on the ballot.

gmacris@projo.com

__________________________________________________________________________________

Decision on Tiverton budget referendum off ballot

01:00 AM EDT on Tuesday, July 29, 2008
By Gina Macris
Journal Staff Writer

Source: http://www.projo.com/ri/tiverton/content/EB_TIVERTON_CHARTER_29_07-29-08_Q7B195T_v9.42cebe1.html

TIVERTON — On a 5-to-1 vote, the Town Council balked at putting before the voters a proposed change in the Home Rule Charter which several members said was deeply flawed in the way it would replace the Financial Town Meeting with an all-day referendum.

Instead, the council agreed to ask voters in the November general election whether to retain the annual Financial Town Meeting, changing only the date, or whether to delegate the budget-setting authority to the Town Council.

It appears that most people don’t like the Financial Town Meeting, but finding a workable alternative “has defied a lot of people,” said Louise Durfee, council president.

When she has expressed doubt that the all-day referendum should go before the voters, Durfee said, people have told her she is not giving respect to the Charter Review Commission, which spent a year coming up with the plan.

“I respect everyone in this room,” Durfee said, presiding over a public hearing in the high school auditorium attended by fewer than 100 people.

But the details of the proposed budget preparation process did not reflect a sense of community and furthermore, provided “gold mine for lawyers,” said Durfee, a lawyer herself.

Jay Edwards, another council member, said the proposal of the Charter Commission was “so incredibly flawed it would be irresponsible to let it go through.”

Of the six members present, all agreed except for the council’s vice-president, Donald Bollin.

While he did not favor the Charter Commission’s proposal, Bollin said “this is an issue where people should speak for themselves.” Bollin drew applause from the relatively meager audience.

Cecil Leonard, a candidate for Town Council and the chairman of the Charter Review Commission, has maintained that the council did not have a right to keep any of the commission’s recommendations off the ballot.

But Andrew M. Teitz, the town solicitor, said both the Home Rule Charter and the Rhode Island Constitution give the council the responsibility for deciding what questions go on the ballot.

Durfee said she found it disturbing that the commission proposal, by allowing only a yes or no vote on the budget, could undercut community obligations.

“We have an obligation to provide rescue and library services,” she said.

A no vote would limit the maximum increase in the tax levy to 4 percent or the consumer price index, whichever is lower. There would be no exception to build a new library or take on any other new debt.

As a result, the town would have to cut essential services, she said. “I can’t support this.”

Leonard said that the existing Financial Town Meeting has the potential for disaster, recalling the session on May 21 in which voters initially cut nearly $2 million from the proposal of the Budget Committee. That decision was largely reversed the following meeting.

“I don’t understand how the council assumes that any voter will vote no, that we don’t care about the town,” Leonard said.

Durfee pointed out that the Financial Town Meeting, unlike the proposed all-day referendum, provides room for discussion and compromise.

“At the Financial Town Meeting, you can whack each other in the heat of battle,” Durfee said, but “there is flexibility if you want to cut a budget or increase a budget.”

The council approved a ballot question offered by council member Brian Medeiros that will ask voters to put the budget in the hands of the council.

“We’re not a direct democracy,” he said. “Why single the budget out as the one thing subject to direct democracy and then have three to four percent of the people come out” to decide the town budget for the next year.

“We’re a council-administrator form of government,” he said.

Also approved was the proposal of council member Joanne M. Arruda, which would move the annual Financial Town Meeting from the fourth Wednesday of May to the second Saturday of the month.

Arruda said she believed the change in date would allow more people to attend, although Leonard disagreed, saying people are too busy to come out on a Saturday morning in the spring.

Christopher Cotta, the chairman of the town Budget Committee and a candidate for Town Council, favored Arruda’s proposal as a “baby step” toward change.

“Any time you’re dealing with people’s taxes, you need to take very small steps,” he said.

gmacris@projo.com

For more on the Financial Town Meeting in Rhode Island, see: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:hp52wrKcZM4J:www.muni-info.state.ri.us/documents/publications/Financial%2520Town%2520Meetings.pdf+rhode+island+town+meeting&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=safari

LEXINGTON: THE HISTORY OF THE TOWN MEETING FORM OF GOVERNMENT

This column from a Lexington, MA paper gives an overview and history of the town meeting form of direct democracy in Lexington. The practice is widespead throughout New England and has it's origins in colonial times- Editor

Scene and Herd: Town Meeting has a long, involved history

By Mary Lou Touart/Columnist
Thu Mar 20, 2008, 06:27 AM EDT

Lexington -

Many residents of Lexington may still not know all there is to know about the Town Meeting form of government. So, since the annual March session began yesterday, perhaps it might be time to talk of the history of this ancient tradition.

A person has a sense of awe and history if elected to Town Meeting in a community such as Lexington. You become one of 189 members exercising direct democracy in action. There are nine precincts in town and you are one of 21 representatives from your precinct. The number of elected representatives is determined by each town.

Lexington was settled in 1642. The first Town Meeting was held in 1692, as soon as there were enough land-owning men, the only villagers who were eligible to vote. This was when the village was still called Cambridge Farms. It became the incorporated village of Lexington in 1713, and six days later held it first Town Meeting as Lexington.

Like those in other small- to medium-sized towns all over New England, Town Meetings were instituted early on and became a tradition that continues to the present day. Depending on the size and wishes of each town, some have open forums like neighboring Weston and Concord that include all registered voters at their meetings. Others have a representative form like Lexington that was voted into existence in 1929, and convened in 1930. Lexington now has a population of about 31,000 people.

Town Meeting is the legislative body of the town. It has sole authority to appropriate funds for the operating budget and capital projects. It can vote on municipal budget line items and adopt, amend, or repeal bylaws, including all those related to zoning. Like any good legislative body, it holds the purse strings. And there is always lively discussion.

With the exception of the town moderator who is elected every year, all other officers are elected to three-year terms. These include the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, Planning Board, and Lexington Housing Authority. None has an acknowledged political association. The town manager is appointed by the Board of Selectmen.

The town moderator, selectmen, or town manager appoint major town committees and officers for three-year terms. These include the Appropriation, Capital Expenditures, Permanent Building, Recreation, and Lexington 2020 Vision Committees, Historical, Conservation and Historic Districts Commissions, Personnel Advisory Board, Board of Registrars, Board of Health, Board of Appeals, and the town clerk. All, including lesser committees, have their own specific purposes.

When women acquired the right to vote in 1920, they began to take an interest in their town government. They successfully ran for Town Meeting in 1930 and have now become members and chairmen of major committees. There are 83 women of the 189 Town Meeting members and there are 106 men. Three of the nine at-large members are women. A woman presently serves as chairman of the Board of Selectmen and the woman town moderator has held that office for 21 years.

One of the unique aspects of Lexington’s Town Meeting is its Town Meeting Members Association, or TMMA. Started in the 1930s, the unofficial TMMA continues to thrive and is unusual among towns in the state. Each precinct has three representatives that make up the TMMA Board. They are: clerk, vice-chair, and chair. These 27 plan a series of TMMA Warrant Information Meetings at which questions about forthcoming warrant articles are raised and answered.

The hope is to educate all Town Meeting members on the forthcoming issues upon which they will eventually vote. Written material is available for members to study.

Over the years, Town Meeting membership has become a much more sophisticated and time-consuming job. Today, it faces the complications of a town government that must meet the times and challenges of the 21st century. The recent election had no direct competition for major offices. However, there were competitions in some of the precincts with new candidates unseating some long-time members. So the ancient tradition remains alive and competitive in our own local democracy.

Mary Lou Touart is a Lexington resident and regular columnist for the Minuteman.

A MASSACHUSETTS CITIZEN DEFENDS THE DIRECT DEMOCRATIC TRADITION OF THE TOWN MEETING

This reflection inspires attendance at Town Meetings by remembering the history that created the reunions as a form of self-governance that remains to this day. Town Meetings are a meaningful way to participate and cooperate with neighbors and community members on issues that impact everyone. Toward the end of the article, Woodfin points out that sometimes individuals celebrate victory after a vote and other lament, but everyone continues to participate because it is their opportunity to voice their opinion on local issues. Another interesting opportunity to participate in areas where Town Meetings are not common practice or simply not established would be school board meetings and and public meetings regarding land use. When we are all able to find a forum where we can participate within our own communities, we will truly be making a real difference.

(Photo: The Old Town House, built in 1727, is often referred to as "Marblehead's Cradle of Liberty" for the many pre-revolutionary war meetings held there. It is one of the oldest town halls in America that has been in continuous use.)

In the documentary "An Unreasonable Man" about Ralph Nader, the presidential candidate reflects upon his own experiences in Town Meetings and recalls his father provoking him to come up with answers to the community's problems. These experiences and thought processes create a sense of civic responsibility that safeguards a sense of community and common well-being. Viewing the above-mentioned documentary is highly recommended for those hoping to change the world little by little, even when the battle is daunting and seemingly impossible. -Editor

Column: Open Town Meeting: Archaic, Unwieldy... and Irreplaceable

By William Woodfin
Wed Apr 30, 2008, 10:01 PM EDT

Source: http://www.wickedlocal.com/marblehead/news/lifestyle/columnists/x828498264

Marblehead - The calendar’s approach to May got me to thinking about our chosen form of government here in Marblehead: open, participative town meeting. Although I couldn’t find hard statistics on those of the Commonwealth’s 351 cities and towns that continue to practice the New England tradition of open town meeting, I feel secure in opining that this form of government is practiced by increasingly fewer communities as we approach the second decade of the 21st century.

The practice of the open-town-meeting form of government is an old one, its genesis coming in early 17th-century New England. Townspeople who were property owners gathered in meeting houses (the site of Marblehead’s original one was on Old Burial Hill) to make communal decisions related to payment for local services such as the constabulary and public schools, the appointment of local leaders, the defense of the community from physical attack and epidemic, and rules about topics as diverse as livestock grazing, fowling, the keeping of swine and the funding for the “poorhouse.”

Marblehead’s historic town’s records (the earliest of which are written by quill and ink in the glorious, flourished handwriting of the earliest town clerks) tell us that Marblehead has been conducting an annual open town meeting since 1629 or thereabouts — a prolonged record of almost 380 years of participative democracy in which we should take pride.

Like many things in small New England towns, town meeting is an “acquired taste,” which was often ingrained in childhood by parents who would retell over the supper table funny and often bawdy actions and words offered by Marbleheaders as part of this institution.

My earliest memories of Town Meeting come from my father Ben, who related his experiences as a child observing town meeting during the early 1930s. At that time, Marblehead’s town meeting was conducted in the upper auditorium of Abbot Hall, with hard wooden chairs and deacon benches arrayed on the main floor and the upper gallery reserved for observers and children alike to watch the verbal sparring. In his memory, these meetings were not for the “faint of heart,” as swearing during comments was commonplace, the grumbles of dissent with statements made by others from the floor was often loud and derisive, and the town generally betrayed her old Yankee roots that the opinions of “outsiders” and the Commonwealth shouldn’t have a hell of a lot to do with governing the actions of Marbleheaders and their beloved home town. According to my dad, the language of Marbleheaders at town meeting would often “peel the paint.” These meetings were as much about R-rated verbal barbs as effective governance, where “expletive deleted” words were used liberally. “What the hell do the laws of the Commonwealth have to do with Marblehead?” was the prevailing mantra of Marbleheaders. A liberal dose of “grog” before Town Meeting often was a common way to prepare for public speaking.

In my dad’s memory, Town Meeting was almost a hybrid of “a night at the Improv” (including swears) with Frank Capra’s “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Interestingly, in his experience (as well as my own), special derision was often reserved for elected officials, who, although they may have been elected annually by wide margins, were often derided by those who elected them as either “out of touch,” stupid or “from the shallow end of the gene pool.”

My first direct memory of Town Meeting was as a boy of about 13 when my father asked me to accompany him to observe the Town Meeting about the building of a new high school (around 1969). By this time, Town Meeting had been moved to the “real” high school auditorium (now the PAC at the Marblehead Veterans Middle School), where guests and kids needed to get a “ticket” from Town Clerk Clarence “Winker” Chapman and then be escorted by a police officer to sit on the stage to watch the debate.

Of course, when it comes to spending money, Marbleheaders have never been “blushing violets,” and the debate that night was long and contentious ultimately ending up with a close defeat of the proposed new high school. Incidentally, it would take almost 30 years before another new high school was proposed and eventually approved by Marblehead’s voters at the dawn of the 21st century — that is called institutional memory!

Over my years of attendance, I can remember a number of entertaining incidents, including Anthony “Tony” Fiore being chased around the auditorium by Marblehead’s finest (Harry Christensen the Senior, Herm Nickerson, Red Howe, et al) because he wouldn’t end his comments about dump regulations at the behest of the moderator; David Stern’s classic response to a voter’s question about the meaning of a zoning amendment about irregularly shaped lots (what this means is that “pork-chop lots are not kosher,” he said), and dissension about how a proposed granite breakwater across the harbor would ruin the view off “the Fort” and that which God didn’t put there should not be placed by man, regardless of damaged boats.

In the experience of my earliest years of attendance prior to 1980, Town Meeting was branded by the involvement of many elected and appointed officials who were always present and speaking (Jim Skinner, Tommy Jordan, Peter Martin, Norris Harris, Arnold Alexander, Donald Peach, Hill Rockett, Bill Conly, Joyce Maffei, Joe Whipple, Moderator Steve Howe, FinCom Chairman Bill Sleigh) along with regular attendees with a laudable sense of “citizenship” (talented and hesitant public speakers alike) who were accorded a modicum of respect and always had their say.

Over the past several years, I have heard various naysayers offer that open town meeting is archaic: unworkable in the complex regulatory environment that is Massachusetts, too much of a “pain” to attend and not truly representative because of attendance numbers typically in the 400-700 range (of 12,000-plus registered voters), the electorate is uninformed and disinterested or that the participatory town meeting is subject to “special interests” that show up, vote exclusively for their articles and leave.

To all that I say, “To hell I pitch it!” and “Bunk!” Sure, Town Meeting can and always has been a place that can be “packed,” and I also get upset when some people get up after their articles and walk out en masse (Katie bar the doors), but I also think of the times when I have walked up the aisle to the restroom (note: not enough PAC WCs; more next time) and seen and nodded to the same faces in the same seats, year after year, no matter the weather, the content of the warrant or the advancing years of age.

I also think of the way that a particularly effective argument, presentation or, yes, emotional genuflection to our town and her history has changed the course of the town’s business over the years: the 90-year-old lady (whose name escapes me) and former teacher who got up and gave the most eloquent speech and swayed an entire auditorium to her way of thinking and got a standing ovation to boot; the fact that if one has the “guts,” you can get up and say your piece whether popular or not and feel like your point of view has been voiced; that one person’s “special interest” is another’s democracy in situ; and, yes, that direct democracy still has a place in this increasingly complacent and jaundiced nation, where lobbyists wander the halls of Congress and the Legislature with impunity and checkbook in hand, elected officials often forget that they are supposed to be representatives of those in their district that elected them and that fundraising, media exposure, polls and slickness often define electability on a national scale.

To those who take the view that open town meeting is archaic, I ask, “Maybe, but what is better?” And, “Is there no place where responsible participatory citizenship should trump the siren call of new, streamlined governance?” I say, “Huzzah!” to Marblehead’s open town meeting and the scores of involved citizens that have historically made it work, and may God bless it and keep it for future generations.

It is with some sorrow and trepidation that I look back on the past year or so and see the score of Town Meeting “good citizens” that have passed: Virginia Gamage, Pat Warnock, Milt Bloom, Jim Hourihan, Paul Lausier, Lib McKinnon, Bud Orne and, yes, at the risk of sounding self-serving, my dad Ben and countless others who never said a word but, for decades and without fail, have shown up, taken their regular seats, voiced their opinions, rustled their FinCom reports, shifted their cheeks, raised their hands in assent or opposition and celebrated or grumbled on the outcome of votes but have always kept on attending. Among the named individuals there are few common threads of policy, spending or governance, but all had an abiding belief in town meeting and the participatory democracy that they cherished. Sometimes they won, sometimes they lost, but they ALWAYS attended and voiced what they thought was right for the town they loved. Not unlike Rockwell’s depiction of “freedom of speech” from his series of paintings entitled the “four freedoms” created at the onset of World War II, Marblehead’s open town meeting IS democracy and something we should never sacrifice to expediency or complacency.

Come May 5, 2008, I too would love to sit home and watch the finals of “American Idle” (oops, sorry, “Idol”), some other top-10 program or Paris’/LiLo’s/Britney’s latest calamity, but like my father before me, I will do my best to be at the PAC and hope that you also consider attending because you can become a legend of Marblehead’s open town meeting simply by attending.

Until next time, Marblehead forever, God bless this dear old town and don’t give up the ship….

Bill Woodfin is a selectman and Marbleheader who is in the process of writing a book and photographic retrospective entitled: “Marblehead: More Than Just a Place.”

TOWNS TURN TO CHARETTES TO INCREASE PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

The following article from a Connecticut paper highlights another possible vehicle for expanding participatory democracy within local communities, that of the 'charrette.' - Editor

Towns Turn To 19th-Century Tradition Of Charrettes

By REGINE LABOSSIERE Courant Staff Writer
April 28, 2008

Source: http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-charrette0428.artapr28,0,6552639.story

As "big box" stores and large developments build up in suburbia, local groups in the Farmington Valley are fed up with a land-use approval process that involves the public mostly in the final stages.

So, in a nod to a 19th-century tradition, residents increasingly are raising the idea of holding charrettes — open workshops involving all local stakeholders — to bring development discussions into the public arena much earlier in the process and taking control of the future of their communities.

The idea is gaining more appeal as area towns struggle with the need to decrease property taxes by bringing in economic development without inviting commercial sprawl. The issue was evident in Simsbury this month, when hundreds of residents expressed their opposition to a mixed-use zoning proposal that would have allowed a big-box store. Their outrage helped defeat the proposal.

"[A charrette is] more by the will of the people rather than something that is imposed by the government," said Justin Falango, a town planner with the Florida urban design firm Dover, Kohl & Partners. The firm conducts charrettes all over the world and has been consulting with Simsbury since last year.

The other appeal, Falango said, is the collaboration.

"Everyone gets to voice their concerns at the same time, and everything is worked through all at once," he said.

Falango, who has worked in Simsbury with Victor Dover, a partner in the Florida firm, said Simsbury is untouched by commercial sprawl development. He warns that if any zoning regulation allows a development in town that doesn't fit in with the character of Simsbury, then residents and town officials could see similar developments constructed.

"By having a charrette, it would affirm what they want the character to be and how they want the character to stay and it would help development," he said.

The word, which means "cart" in French, comes from the 1800s, when proctors at a Parisian art school circulated a cart to collect final drawings while students finished up their work, according to the National Charrette Institute in Portland, Ore. Nowadays, a charrette is an intense series of workshops where all stakeholders in a community — residents, business owners, developers, town officials — come together for at least several days and work with urban design planners and architects to discuss, research and produce a master plan detailing how a section of a municipality or the entire municipality should be developed. A set of drawings is produced each day of the charrette to convey the overall desire of the group.

Charrettes can cost between $75,000 and $500,000, depending on the size and location of what is being reviewed. The cost includes preparation, implementation and fees for the design firms involved and can be paid for by municipalities, grants and developers. Falango said many charrettes lead to zoning regulations or municipal ordinances that enforce the vision created.

Simsbury conducted what First Selectwoman Mary Glassman calls a mini-charrette 10 years ago that led to the town buying land in the town center and developing a performing arts center, bike paths and soccer fields. Now, Glassman said, Simsbury needs to conduct a full charrette that would lead to zoning regulations. Glassman said she knows the idea has support in town based on the turnout at a recent public hearing about the proposed mixed-used zoning regulation that eventually was voted down by the zoning commission.

"The fact that you had more than 500 people come out to a public hearing and comment on a land-use application is a strong message that the residents of Simsbury want to be involved in a public process to plan the development of Simsbury's future," she said.

Both developers and town officials in Connecticut and the rest of the country say that charrettes have helped their economic development strategy. Stephen Soler, president of Georgetown Land Development Co., sponsored a charrette in Redding that led to a zoning regulation change in the Georgetown neighborhood and paved the way for his redevelopment project, which will break ground this summer. He said the charrette was helpful in guiding his plans and navigating through the town's land use boards.

Hamden held a charrette in October that reviewed the city's three major corridors, State Street and Whitney and Dixwell avenues. Town Planner Leslie Creane said the charrette succeeded in getting ideas to improve those areas, and she expects new zoning regulations in Hamden in less than a year.

Mansfield is in the midst of developing a new downtown near the UConn campus. The town had a charrette and lots of public workshops in the past eight years that led to changes in its zoning regulations to allow for mixed-use development for the downtown project, which should break ground next year.

One North Carolina town believes in the public process so much that it has written into its zoning regulations that there must be a charrette for almost every development application submitted. Davidson, N.C., Planning Director Kris Krider said the process is necessary because Davidson is a small town of 9,100 and is issuing 250 building permits a year with an average of 2.5 occupants per unit.

"The growth rate is really high here, and it's about managing that and making the most of opportunity that development brings, and the charrette identifies what those opportunities are. It's usually a much better plan than the developer's," Krider said.

In Connecticut, Farmington Valley residents interested in having a charrette in their towns aren't looking for that extreme of a process, but they want the chance to help shape their town. "In Canton, we really have no vision for what we want the town to look like 20, 25 years from now, and I think the best way to see that vision is to have a charrette," said Tom Sevigny, president of the resident group Canton Advocates for Responsible Expansion. "It's a direct democracy, people getting together and saying what they want the town to look like."

Several groups, including the local economic development agency, have met with Sevigny's group to promote the idea to town officials. Some boards and commissions see the idea as a good one, but one that is not now feasible.Canton First Selectman Dick Barlow said the town will have to redo its plan of conservation and development in the next two years, possibly with the help of state grants. He said a charrette could be included in that process.

Simsbury residents have said they'd like to see a charrette done in the northern and southern gateways, two areas where developments have been proposed, and the town center. But the board of selectmen recently said the project would be too expensive.

"As a compromise, we're certainly open to looking at doing [the town center], which is significantly less money, and using that process to help us develop mixed-use regulation for the other two sites," Glassman said.

"It's the only process, I'm convinced, that will get this town to move forward."

Contact Régine Labossière at rlabossiere@courant.com.

PHOTO JOURNALISTS STUDY DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN NEW ENGLAND

The 10 page photo essay found at the link below provides historical information regarding the development of direct democracy in New England. The longstanding 'town meeting' system of participatory democracy in New England dates back to revolutionary times and was the inspiration for those of the founding fathers who favored a direct system of governance for the new nation they were creating. Unfortunately they did not prevail and a representative system was adopted. Nowadays people in New England get up and voice their opinion on a variety of issues in many towns, in an exercise of participatory democracy that hints at what might have been had the likes of Paine, Jefferson and Henry gotten their way. While the term direct democracy is not one that we often hear in mainstream media or in day-to-day dialogue, the practice is actually quite common in the many towns studied here. - Editor

http://www.photojournalistas.com/Sept_Oct_2003/Town_Meeting/story_pages/townmeeting1.html

U.S. SMALL TOWN GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES CAN OPEN UP THE POLITICAL PROCESS

Simple autonomous initiatives such as the one highlighted by the following article in a small town paper are a way for local governments to open up the political process and increase direct and participatory democracy by inviting citizen engagement and involvement at the grassroots level. Widespread practices such as this would provide people with a voice and stimulate participation on a larger scale nationwide, especially if they were taken a step further by insituting participatory budgeting as well. - Editor

Germantown Welcomes Public Input

By Lyndee Kemmett, Special to the Freeman
03/02/2008

Source: http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19350505&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=8

GERMANTOWN - To encourage a dialogue between town officials and residents, Germantown officials will host a series of open meetings starting Thursday.

The Thursday session will be at 7 p.m. in the Town Hall on Palatine Park Road.

At a Town Board meeting last week, Supervisor Roy Brown called the forum an opportunity for residents to voice their views on any topic that concerns them.

"There is no agenda," he said. "It's just open to discuss whatever people have in mind."

One likely topic was raised at the board meeting by Kay Abraham, head of the town's Democratic Party, who urged the board to move forward in adopting the town's Comprehensive Plan.

The town recently created a rezoning committee that is expected to review the town's zoning ordinance - a recommendation of the draft Comprehensive Plan. Brown said the town is seeking guidance from experts at Pace University on both rezoning and adopting the Comprehensive Plan.

The rezoning committee will have its first meeting at 7 p.m. Monday.

• Also at the board meeting last week:


• It was announced that the town now has a completed draft of a new policy and procedures manual for the town Police Department.


• Board members threw their support behind a plan by Caleb Fieser to clean up 18 miles of the Roeliff Jansen Kill. Fieser is planning to fund the project by holding a canoe race around Memorial Day weekend.


• The board agreed to plant a tree and install a bench on town property in memory of resident Martha Lorenz van Allen.