Time to rein in rogue committee before they hurt the town
 |
| CRACers think they're CRABs |
By Will Collette
Here’s a question for Charlestown
In my article on Monday, I noted that the group I had been calling the “Charter Revision Committee,” applying the name consistently used in their minutes, had lately started calling itself the “Charter Revision Advisory Board” (or CRAB).
But if the committee had actually looked at the Town Charter they are supposed to review and revise, they might have found Chapter Six, titled, aptly enough, “Charter Review Advisory Committee (CRAC).” Look it up for yourselves, folks.
So is it any surprise the CRACers’ first public hearing (last Monday, February 27) on their seven proposed Charter changes was a disaster – indeed, an embarrassment – from start to finish?
 |
| CRACer Donna Chambers said she's a "sworn Ill Winder." |
I had noted in earlier articles that the CRAC is dominated by the anti-wind power NIMBY group Ill Wind. Their minutes show the CRAC was largely driven by their experience in fighting the Whalerock wind farm proposal. These observations were proven right at the CRAC February 27 hearing.
The CRAC members started out with the story that they were working for the public good, and only that. But that tale fell apart when CRACer Donna Chambers blurted out that she was a “sworn Ill Winder” and the committee wanted to prevent future Whalerock projects.
Her husband, Mike Chambers, the only person in the audience who spoke in favor of the Charter proposals, also broke discipline and got into heated exchanges with the chair of the Zoning Board, Mike Rzewuski. He also had another exchange with former Town Council President Deb Carney where Chambers attempted to drown out Carney.
In neither instance did the CRAC Chair intervene to at least maintain order. Well, after those sharp exchanges subsided, she later joked that they’d make Chambers join the Mosquito Abatement Committee if he didn’t behave himself.
 |
| Zoning Board chair Mike Rzewuski charges the CRAC with bias |
My earlier reports that, based on the minutes of CRC/CRAB/CRAC’s earlier meetings, this group simply didn’t know what they were doing were also borne out. Nearly all of the members came to the task with Whalerock vengeance on their mind and either didn’t know or didn’t care to know much about anything else.
They didn’t know – and certainly could not explain – what their own proposals would actually do to the town, should the Town Council be so irresponsible as to send these proposals to the voters.
Indeed, their proposals seemed to be sloppy at best. They even came to this first public hearing with a proposal for alternative language for one of their own proposals.
The audience, which filled about half of the Council chamber, rejected all seven proposed Charter changes. The intensity of the opposition to the changes varied, as Tom reported earlier, depending on how outrageous they found the CRACers' proposals.
Audience members told the CRACers their proposals were dangerous in some instances, often unworkable and in just about every instance, unnecessary.
As the evening wore on, several audience members noted the CRAC proposals seemed to share a common theme: deep mistrust for the Town Council and town government. At this stage of the game, with their cover blown, the CRACers pretty much admitted this was true.
 |
| CRAC Chair Mary O'Connor had a very bad night |
Town Treasurer Pat Anderson noted that several of the business-related proposals, especially Question Three, would tie the town up in knots. The proposals for changes to town purchasing and capital improvement planning are already being done by the town, passed the auditors’ review with flying colors and were dictated by state law (which supersedes town law anyway). The CRACer proposals would actually increase town expenses with little or no benefit.
Question Two, the CRACer proposal to impose term limits ONLY on the Zoning Board, triggered the most rancorous exchanges.
In addition to hearing objections from Zoning chair Mike Rzewuski and vice-chair Ray Dreczko , the CRACers also heard objections from the chairs of the Affordable Housing Commission, the Economic Improvement Commission and even, to my surprise, Planning Commissar Ruth Platner.
All spoke against term limits on any town board, commission or office.
 |
| Can't wait to see how CRAC Secretary Maureen Areglado writes this meeting up. |
This hearing is a point in a long process that does not end with the CRAC. The CRAC will continue meeting until they decide to (a) go with what they have; (b) alter their proposals to respond to objections and problems, (c) drop some or all of their proposals or (d) add some others.
The CRAC – as well as the town – will need to deal with both the substantive and procedural flaws revealed by this public hearing. The February 27 meeting was not recorded on Clerkbase – even though it dealt with some of the most important decisions a town can make.
I don’t know how CRAC Secretary Maureen Areglado will prepare proper minutes for this meeting since she spent a large chunk of time standing at a flip chart and jotting down snatches of the discussion.
The CRAC Chair announced the follow-up CRAC meeting was to be on Tuesday, February 28. Except someone forgot to properly post the notice, so the meeting was cancelled.
At several points during the meeting, the CRACers looked over at Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero when they were taking fire from the audience about their flawed proposals. Ruggiero shrugged and said that his job was to try to translate what they said they wanted into legal language – not to judge the merits of the proposals.
Council member Gregg Avedisian , the Council liaison to the CRAC, noted his objections to many of the CRAC proposals, but those objections were not heeded.
In my opinion, I think the town needs to rein in what appears to be a rogue committee.
The CRAC was told by a broad array of citizens and town officials that their seven questions are the WRONG questions. The CRAC also heard in detail how their proposals could hurt the town. They should trash these seven questions and re-think what is really necessary.
The main defense the CRAC had for its proposals is their desire to open up more opportunities for town residents to be heard and listened to. Now we will see if they follow this principle themselves.
There is nothing wrong with reporting to the Town Council that the Charter is working fine. Absent positive recommendations for change – and it’s hard to imagine any coming from this group – that should be the end of the charter review process for this election cycle.
