Trying to save face

Spinning the February 27 CRAC fiasco

By Linda Felaco

Mike Chambers, dutiful husband of Charter Revision Advisory Committee member Donna Chambers, the CRAC’s sole “member of our Public” throughout the months of meetings, and the only person to speak in favor of any of the CRAC proposals at the February 27 public hearing, has been attempting to do damage control via the “Comments” section of the Charlestown Citizens Alliance website. To wit:

Michael Chambers says:

February 29, 2012 at 10:10 am

This comment goes along with the notes on the cost of education but also refers to comments garnered at the Charter Review Advisory Board meeting. Something may be broken.

“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Deb Carney subscribes to this adage. So do I! However, this presupposes that what ain’t broke does what it is intended to do. As long as it does what it is intended to do, I agree!
I look back at my time overseas and the hours and hours spent on motor stables and realize that those trucks weren’t broken. They were doing what was intended. In a moment’s notice we could be rolling without worrying about whether the trucks would even start. Those trucks weren’t broken and yet we spent so many hours on them. They did what was intended. If the Army wants to save money, cut out motor stables and put those drivers to productive work. Don’t waste money.
That brings me to the third part of the equation – maintenance and inspection. I agree don’t fix it, if it ain’t broke. Don’t mess with it if it is doing what it is intended to do. Be aware that systems, like machines, need maintenance to keep them running efficiently and inspections to ensure that they are doing what was intended.

Response from an astute CCA correspondent:

Lizzy Max { The Town Charter is not a truck. It does not need a lube job. It does not need a maintenance crew smacking it with a monkey wrench when they have clearly not read the instruction manual. } – Mar 01, 12:56 PM

The Town Charter: Army truck or Porsche?

Indeed, the town charter is not a truck. As Will Collette has frequently pointed out in his series on the charter revision process, it is our town’s constitution. Except there’s one major difference between the U.S. Constitution and our town charter. Our country’s founders, in their wisdom, gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, but also made it an extremely difficult and drawn-out process requiring major buy-in from large segments of the population. It’s what’s made our constitution the longest-lived of any government on earth. In fact, the most recent amendment was 203 years in the making.

Charlestown's charter, on the other hand, allows—indeed, requires—us to open the hood every two years and fiddle with the wiring whether it needs it or not.

Think about that, folks. The U.S. Constitution, which governs the operations of the entire federal government and its powers relative to those of the state governments, has been amended a mere 27 times in the 221 years since it was ratified, or on average about once every 8 years. Except the first 10 amendments, a.k.a., the Bill of Rights, were adopted en masse along with the Constitution itself, so really, we’ve only amended it about once every 13 years throughout our history. The last time the Constitution was amended was in 1992. Pop quiz: What does the 27th amendment say? (The answer can be found here.)

Charlestown’s charter, on the other hand, goes into the shop for service every 24 months whether it needs it or not.

Is the U.S. Constitution the old reliable American-made Chevy to Charlestown’s high-maintenance Porsche? Why on earth are we changing the oil before we’ve gone 3000 miles? Have the 2010 revisions even gotten “used” often enough for us to be able to judge one way or the other whether they’re working properly?

Unless the CRAC takes up any of Will’s suggested revisions, I think the only charter revision that should appear on November’s ballot is one that would end the requirement that we form a CRAC every two years.