Small Town Politics

"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.