"Tip"
O'Neill, the longtime Speaker of the US House
of Representatives who grew up in North Cambridge MA, has been often quoted for
his observation that, "All politics is local." This week I had an inside view of politics at
its most local through participation in the Swampscott Town Meeting.
The annual Town
Meeting is described glowingly on the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s web
site as “this ancient
American assembly”, [where] “the purest form of democratic governing is practiced”. Growing up in a small town in Connecticut, I knew
about town meetings, but never attended one, and now through an odd turn of
events, I had the opportunity to serve as a town meeting member. At this point, loyal reader, you may be a bit
nonplussed. Trudi and I have lived in
Swampscott for less than a year, how could I have risen to such a heady
position of power?
In
Massachusetts, town meetings come in two flavors, open town meetings in which all town voters can vote on all meeting
matters, and representative town
meetings in which voters elect town meeting members, who, in turn, vote on
issues at the town meeting. Swampscott holds
representative town meetings with each of 6 precincts electing 54 town meeting
members, for a total of 324 members.
When the sample
ballot was released on the town web site, it revealed that several of the
precincts, including ours, had not filled all available slots for members. So,
anyone with a spouse or significant other, voting age offspring, or a couple of
willing neighbors could probably be elected as a town meeting member through
the write-in process. It struck me that serving
as a member would be a fine way to learn more about our new hometown. So I did a little very local campaigning and,
low and behold, I got a call a couple of days after the election from the town
clerk saying that I had received all of five write-in votes and should report
Monday evening to obtain my credentials
and attend my precinct caucus held just prior to the Town Meeting. This was heady stuff!
It also
turned out that I had a horse in this race, as I was excited to see that the
warrant report, which is a detailed agenda of what was to be voted on at the
Town Meeting, included as Article 10, a request that the Town of Swampscott approve
a call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision
“Citizen’s United v. FEC”. I had
recently attended a lecture at Endicott College by Jeff Clement author of the
book “Corporations are Not People” and cofounder of Free Speech for People , and was convinced of the
absurdity and destructiveness of the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that corporate funding of elections
equals free speech. The main sponsor of
Article 10 was my across-the-street neighbor, so the two of us plus another neighbor
strategized over the phone on how to encourage a positive vote. This level of preparation turned out to be
unnecessary, as, after he spoke in favor of the Article, the Town Meeting assembly
applauded energetically, the question was called by the Moderator and the
Article was approved with little to no dissent.
I was gratified, but a bit let down, as I had prepared a stirring speech
myself, which was no longer needed.
 | ||
| Standing up to vote yea |
The most
dramatic moments of the two-evening span of the Town Meeting revealed a major
fault line running through the community.
These moments came during the more than two hours of debate over whether
or not to fund major improvements to the main athletic field in town. The improvements included a new grandstand,
parking area, press box, lights for night games, and, most crucially, an
artificial field to replace the natural turf field.
 |
| The existing field |
In contrast
to Arlington Virginia, Swampscott has scant public resources to do much of anything in
the way of infrastructure improvements. There is even a golf tournament in town to
help pay for Fourth of July fireworks. To help fund the upgrade to the athletic
field, supporters pledged to raise $750,000, approximately a third of the total
cost, and cautioned that this pledge was
a “once in a lifetime opportunity”. They
argued that the existing turf grass field was overused, often unavailable due
to poor drainage, dangerous to players because of its uneven surface, and
limited in total playing time due to the absence of lights. Proponents, including the parks and rec
director (who is the wife of a former town selectman), high school coaches and
parents of star athletes, and even the 2010 Republican candidate for Governor, delivered
passionate pleas that members “support the kids” by funding the project.
Lined up in
opposition to spending close to $2 million were fiscal conservatives who
pointed out that the town has over $30 million in unfunded pensions for town
employees, and that it would be irresponsible to add to this debt. Other opponents identified the need to spend
on higher priority items like upgrading sewers that have the unpleasant habit
of overflowing into basements during heavy rains. Environmentalists were concerned about toxic
runoff into the nearby ocean from the artificial field. Some
parents of athletes were worried about children inhaling toxics from the heated
“crumb rubber” surface. The Board of
Health director also weighed in against the proposal stating that there needed
to be more study on the health effects of the artificial surface.
The field
improvements Article required a 2/3rds affirmative vote because of the funding
requirements, and it failed to reach that level twice, initially on the first
evening’s vote and then on a reconsideration vote the next evening after
additional debate. The People had
spoken. I’m not sure we had experienced the “purest form of democratic governing”. But we were able to vote our consciences
after considering the facts before us, and without the influence of corporate
lobbyists. And, I’m sure the athletic
field upgrade supporters will be back to try again at the next Town Meeting.
