“They” are the problem, “it’s them,” am I right?

 “We the People …” is perhaps the most powerful opening clause ever uttered on this planet.  Yet how many of “We,” really take to heart what those three words mean on a personal level? When it comes to the state of civic participation in the United States today, to paraphrase Jimmy Buffett perhaps, “We are the citizens, our forefathers warned us about.”

I write not about voter participation. Political scientists have been arguing about the true levels of voter participation for decades. If they can’t agree, who am I to say? What I am talking about is how so many of us today feel disconnected from our government.  "Dysfunctional Congress," "polarization," "gridlock" are terms shouting from the daily headlines. I’ve come to the opinion that part of the problem is the way that so many of us habitually portray our relationship with our government through language that is disconnected.

Those politicians, that Congress, “if they would only …” The pundits, pols, lobbyists and those corporate interests; Argh! It’s “all their fault.” 

What about “We the People?”  When do we take personal responsibility for the government that we continually create and in whose name elected officials are duty bound to act? How do we escape responsibility? I think a big part of this is the language that we use.

The Constitution of the Unites States of America is not written with personal distance. The preamble speaks not from the second or third-person.  “We the people of the United States,” is a statement in the first person plural. The institutions it creates are therefore personal to the authors and to those of us who claim the “the Blessings of Liberty” bestowed by the document.

I hear a lot about original intent. How about we worry less over arguments about the original intent of the Framers and instead emulate their relationship to our government “We” are the Congress. We are the Executive. We are the Judiciary.  When “they” fail, it is we who fail.

When we speak about the institutions of our government in anything but personal terms, we betray the fundamentals upon which our government was founded. 

The Constitution is a contract. It is a contract not between a people and their government. It is a contract between people which generates a government.

The contract generates government not only once; part of the key ingenuity is that from ratification the Constitution set in motion a process of continual regeneration. We may have valid arguments about the pace of that change. It may well be that processes set up during the 17^th century are failing to keep pace in the contemporary age. However change is possible because our national contract contains provisions that all but one feature, that of equal apportionment, are open to amendment.

By understanding the document and interpreting the institutions created by the agreement we the people struck, in anything but the first person, we allow ourselves to disassociate from “our” outcomes.  Changing our language and talking about our government in the way that the Framers did will change much. Getting there will involve a process of personal acceptance.

In such a process, a twelve step program, “Admitting,” is the first step. I therefore admit to my guilt. Like so many I am busy earning a living, saving for children’s education, hopefully preparing that someday I may retire and many other activities that consume my time.  Little time is left to truly understand the complex issues facing our country today. I have a hard enough time keeping track and understanding the many issues facing my small community. I’ve missed many a town meeting and at other times felt embarrassed to be so unprepared to understand the issues. Then there’s my state government and its complexity.  The compendium of problems faced by Washington lay even more distant. It is often overwhelming.

That being said, at least perhaps I can begin to take responsibility for my government if I change my language. If I adopt language that doesn’t give me a pass, maybe then I can begin on the path to greater personal accountability for the direction of our country.  Adopting a language that does not allow me to disassociate from my government’s actions and outcomes will remove my built-in deniability and force me to confront the things that I might be able to change. Personalizing my relationship our government may hold personal risk.

What will happen when I leave behind the cognitive dissonance of third-party speech? Time will tell. Whatever the results, the best I can do is to aspire to the relationship that our Founding Fathers and their words had to our government. For them government was so personal as to be an issue of life and death.  It was Benjamin Franklin who famously said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

So I shall begin my journey to do my part, “to form a more perfect Union,” by changing my language about my government. I will make our relationship more personal.

Eleven more steps and who knows what types of progress towards improved, “general Welfare,” may be possible.  If you will join me perhaps we can each take on a small chunk of the problems facing our nation and the multiplicative power of the masses may crowd source solutions to our most vexing challenges.

+++

If you found value in reading this post, perhaps you will also enjoy: Born in Turmoil, Tested by Time, the Original Crowd-sourced Solution is Meeting Today's Challenges

Dear Readers:

I'll be honored if you chose to follow me on Twitter @gclinch check out my professional profile on LinkedIn and subscribe listen to my podcasts: http://AvayaTechTalk.com.

Warmest regards,
Guy W. Clinch

We the People vs the Original One Percent

Is the One Percent a new phenomenon? How long has this type of income disparity existed as a feature of American society? Is it a modern aberration or a part of the fabric? How did it come to be? What perpetuates it?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,” but what happens thereafter is subject to circumstance. When it comes to the concept of the “One Percent,” which emerged in the collective consciousness out of the Occupy Movement, perhaps for the words "all men" and "equal" are nuanced terms. In the following paragraphs I will give evidence that principles embedded in the American system serve dual purposes: Primarily, defending against political tyranny and less overtly, protecting the accumulation of wealth in influential sectors of American society from challenge. 

In the popular imagination income disparity may be viewed as a transient problem. We have in our minds periods of excess and archetypes such as the Great Gatsby. Perhaps we think back further to the era of the Robber Barons. We may compartmentalize these periods as we remember Progressive Eras when the situation seemed to be brought back in line because of some inherent justice embedded in the American system.

In a graduate research paper I prepared for a recent class I asked the question, “What if the income disparity we see today is not an aberration, but instead a feature the American system?” We know income disparity is persistent in the recent decades, but just how far back does it span? My answer came in part from University of California, Berkeley Professor of Economics Emmanuel Saez, in the paper “Top Incomes in the United States and Canada over the Twentieth Century.” Professor Saez demonstrates that over the past forty years since the 1970’s top shares of income have increased dramatically. Further this trend is the resumption of a long-term historical pattern that was interrupted only during intervals of time, most notably the period of 1914-1945.

Recent generation's view of income disparity may be distorted because of the “great equalizer” of the two World Wars as described by Bradford Lee in his article, “The New Deal Reconsidered.” The truth is that besides that notable period, income disparity is an embedded feature of the American system.

How can this be in a republic whose founding testament begins in part by saying the purpose of the federal government is to, “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity?” Language holds the key.

Part of the answer to this question is to ask, when the Founders said, “We the People,” who did they really mean? We know that they did not mean to include the human beings that even the authors of those great words held as possessions. Women were similarly excluded. In fact in the time of the founding of the American Republic, the franchise of citizenship was intimately tied to possessions; land, money and property.

The reality is that the Founding Fathers were the One Percent of their day. This is proven in part after making some subjective judgments about the occupations up until 1787 of the members of the Constitutional Convention. As Brown writes the Founding Fathers were, “a group set apart.” There was a degree of social distance between these men and the ordinary citizens of their day.

By occupation forty three percent were lawyers either full or part time. The next largest categories are the merchants (20 percent, including those who were both merchants and planters). The next largest groups are those who derived their wealth from agriculture (11 percent as planters and 4 percent as farmers).

The primary occupation of eight percent were politicians, six percent were physicians, three percent were ministers and two percent were land owners who earned their living from rents and speculative transactions. These occupational distinctions carried through among members of the early congresses. During the administrations of Adams and Jefferson 75 percent of the members of Congress were lawyers.

By comparison to the rest of the population they were wealthy. According to Tyree and Smith, per capita annual income from 1799 to 1800 as measured in 1926 dollars was $216. Professions typical to the Founders incomes averaged $878 versus $165 for other work classifications. At this time 99 percent of the country’s population lived on farms.  Unlike the participants of the Constitutional Convention, Onuf writes, few ever traveled more than 50 miles from home and when they did it was typically travel into town to barter.

Machiavelli wrote, those who obtain power through their own means, “cannot leave their foundations and correspondencies fixed in such a way that the first storm will not overthrow them.” From Samuel Adams to Newt Gingrich American history is filled with lessons that once power is obtained, the tendency is to protect it. Adams who played such a key role in rallying the people of Massachusetts to revolt against the King showed an abrupt change in perspective towards the Shaysites. Even though he had aggressively espoused tactics similar to be used towards the Crown and against similar grievances as those inspired by Shay, in letters and correspondences and as part of a three-person General Court committee Adams labeled Shays’s revolt, "a wicked unnatural rebellion." He urged Massachusetts Governor Bowdoin to denounce Shays’s followers as insurgents and branded them as traitors.

So when we look at a feature of our system as persistent as income disparity, isn’t it reasonable to conjecture that the authors of that system may have built in features to sustain their hard fought gains?

It is true that a core ideal of the American national system is to protect the people from the passions of the majority. The features of the national government including the system of checks and balances, the separation of powers, the bicameral legislature, the differences in electoral cycles between the two houses, equal apportionment of Senators, the need that both houses agree upon the exact text of a bill before it can be sent to the president for his signature, the needs for super majorities to overcome the veto and filibusters and other features creating procedural resistance accumulate to limit Congress’ ability to deal with complex problems. This resistance was inserted intentionally.

This is demonstrated by the mythology surrounding the example of the bicameral legislature. Thomas Jefferson is said to have asked George Washington, “Why do we have two houses?” Washington answers with an analogy of pouring hot tea into a saucer, “to cool it.” James Madison in Federalist No. 39 described the bicameral system by saying that the Senate is there to provide, “more wisdom, than the popular branch."

Extensive arguments have been written about the compromises that led to ratification of the Constitution. It is beyond the scope of this discussion to go further than to say that commercial motivations were among the many reasons for the compromises adopted. Ackerman and Katyal describe how the Virginia Plan ostensibly intended to mollify the opposition of “the decentralizers,” provided for equal apportionment of the Senate and in the words of Madison established of the states as “political and co-equal societies.” It also established the Senate as, and gave to those who influence that body, a powerful control mechanism.

The Great Compromise in turn provided a set of tools for interests who sought a gate-keeping mechanism. Over time the effectiveness of this tool is shown in the disparity in power between the Senate and the House. According to Mayhew, data from the decades between 1820 to 2000 shows that Senators have had greater impact on policy by a four to one ratio. By extension results accomplished by those able to create influence with Senators pays off more than investment in the less powerful House. Other decisions made during the Founding Period can be viewed through this perspective.

The commercial interests of Northern entrepreneurs factored into the compromises over slavery. Although at the time, “merchants, farmers, and fishermen of the North” viewed the institution of slavery with “deep suspicion,” it is also true that the expansion of cotton cultivation is directly related to the manufacturing revolution taking place in the Northeast states. Entrepreneurs in the textile industry depended upon access to low cost domestic raw materials. According to the Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History, by 1810 a growing industrial base stretching from New England to Philadelphia and the Delaware Valley produced approximately $200 million in goods. By 1860 the textile industry generated $2 billion in products. Even in the face of the abolitionist movement and the growing recognition of the immortality involved, slavery, “found congenial company in the market revolution’s growing demand for raw materials.”

Across the history of our country there are many examples of how mechanisms in the federal contract work to perpetuate income disparity. There are the impacts of the concentration of wealth resulting from tariffs imposed by Congress in the Antebellum Period. There is the example of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 that extended federal power as never before and eventually preempted state control over the railroads resulting as Hovenkamp said the, “beneficiary of federal policy toward the railroads during this period was the railroads themselves.” Contrary to those who advocated for it, the Sherman Act proved that Congress was unable to confront the status quo and as Bork writes, “The federal courts in all the years since 1890 have never arrived at a definitive statement of the values or policies which control the law's application and evolution.”

There has been a long term trend of accumulation of wealth in the top socioeconomic strata that began in the earliest days of the American Republic. It was impeded only by periodic historical events and today is exceeding historical levels. This persistent feature of our society is baked in by the codicils embedded in our national contract: the United States Constitution.

L-Podcast Episode 007 - Robin Crosbie Town Manager in Ipswich Massachusetts

Welcome to the latest edition of the series of discussions with thought leaders who are bringing new and innovative solutions to the challenges government faces in delivering services to the citizen.

+++++++

My guest for this episode is Robin Crosbie Town Manager in Ipswich Massachusetts. In June 2012 Ms. Crosbie was chosen as the new town manager in Ipswich after an exhaustive search conducted by the Board of Selectman.

Robin Crosbie (right) Town Manager in
Ipswich Massachusetts

As town manager Robin's responsibilities include management of all town hall departments, active participation in the twice per month Board of Selectman meetings, active planning for and participation in the annual and special town meetings and various other committee meetings and citizen gatherings.

Since coming to Ipswich Robin has identified strategic opportunities to focus its resources upon. She has worked to make sure that the town budget is tied to the goals of the Board of Selectman and the community.


Robin worked with the Capital Planning Group comprised of town and school personnel to develop a proposed five year capital plan. She has worked with state and federal agencies including seeking support for the town from FEMA after the impacts of the February 2013 blizzard. We talk about her typical day, her responsibilities, challenges and opportunities for the town.

Listen to highlights here (1:26):
 

Listen to the entire interview here (30:50):

Or:
Download your copy.



+++++++

Town Government Resources:

• Town of Ipswich Home Page
• Massachusetts Secretary Of State’s Website
• Acquire a copy of Town Meeting Time

+++

Thank you for listening to this episode of the “L” channel. Please stay tuned for future editions. You may follow us on Twitter @LyceumPodcast and subscribe to our episodes on iTunes and through my feed.

Warmest regards,
Guy Clinch
Google


Subscribe to the "L" podcast channel

L-Podcast Episode 006 - Barry Hopping, Chairman of the School Committee of the Town of Ipswich Massachusetts

Welcome to the latest edition of the series of discussions with thought leaders who are bringing new and innovative solutions to the challenges government faces in delivering services to the citizen.

+++++++

My guest for this episode is Barry Hopping, Chairman of the School Committee of the Town of Ipswich Massachusetts. Barry has served the Town of Ipswich and has been involved in education in many ways over a long career. We discuss a spectrum of topics ranging from the three focus areas for the current school committee to the disposition of the Little Neck Trust, the settlement with the Feoffees of the Grammar School and the positive results created for the children of the town of Ipswich.

For fifteen years Barry taught English and Language Arts at the Ipswich Middle School. For almost two years he served as principal of the Ipswich Middle School. During part of that time he was also Athletic Director at Ipswich High School.

His career took him away from full time participation in Ipswich Schools. For twelve years he served as the principal of the Hanscom Middle School on the Hanscom Air Force Base and later as principal
at the Rupert A. Nock Middle School in Newburyport. He is also an adjunct lecturer at Merrimack College.

Barry has served on a number of subcommittees for the Ipswich School Committee including serving as chairman of the Policy Subcommittee responsible for keeping school system policies up to date, and the Collaboration Subcommittee, which worked with the town looking at ways to improve efficiencies. Barry also worked on the Operations Subcommittee which participates in the evaluation for the School Superintendent.

He has served on the Athletic Subcommittee, the Recreation Commission and the Athletic Fields Study Committee. Barry is also past President of the Ipswich Little League and serves on the Board of Directors. He has coached youth sports at various levels from Little League through high school.

Barry was elected to the Ipswich School Committee in 1999 and served continuously since that time. This past July he was elected chairman of the committee by unanimous vote.

Barry’s wife Kathy is a Math Specialist in the Lincoln, MA Public Schools. His son Brendan attends 6th grade at the Ipswich Middle School.

Listen to highlights here (3:58):
 

Listen to the entire interview here (27:43):

Or:
Download your copy.


Synopsis:
We begin with a description of an average Ipswich School Committee meeting which Barry describes as well structured with time limits on each item of the agenda. The meetings take place at the High School/Middle School complex and can  be viewed live in on Ipswich Community Access Media (ICAM). The meetings begin with housekeeping, announcements and the reading of the mission statement by student representative Madeline Werner. Next is the opportunity for citizen's comments. The business of the meeting itself is next. Barry says, "By definition, it's the working meeting of the school committee."

Barry tells of new a new feature during the school committee meetings started this year, the Celebration of Teaching and Learning. These presentations take place the second meeting of each month. Students, faculty and administrators are invited to come forward and talk about positive developments.

A recent example was students who came forward to present artwork they had done in conjunction with their science curriculum. In upcoming meetings the foreign exchange students who are studying in the Ipswich schools will be highlighted. In December Chris Burke and Amy Gregory will come to talk about how Ipswich is using technology in the classrooms. Barry says that Chris and Amy recently drew considerable positive attention during their presentation at the MassCUE conference 2013.

Barry then talks about his role a chairman. He works very closely with the school superintendent. This includes meeting to establish the agenda for the school committee meetings, interacting with other town boards, community outreach and providing guidance and advice to the superintendent.

Barry talks about how most of the work that is done by the school committee happens in the 17 subcommittees. Examples include the Policy Subcommittee, the Collaboration Subcommittee and the Operations Subcommittee. The subcommittees meet by need. The work of the subcommittees is reported out during the school committee meetings and Barry remains in constant contact with all of the subcommittees. Other members of the school committee are each assigned to one or more subcommittees. Some have three to four assignments. Barry says, "We have some really good people."

I ask Barry about the recent Ipswich Chronicle article where he outlined the school committees goals for the 2013-2014 school year.  Barry categorizes the goals as budget, collaboration and communication. Barry talks about the structural deficit that the school system faces and outlines a number of innovative tactics the school committee is discussing to generate new revenue and control costs. "Unfortunately, because of what we've been through in recent years it seems like we are constantly looking at reductions," Barry says.

Barry says, you can never communicate enough. He says, "We are constantly looking for new ways to reach out to the community." Initiatives include looking at rolling out a new website for the school system and encouraging people to participate either in person or view the meetings live or on demand through ICAM. Later this year the school committee will be publishing articles in the Ipswich Chronicle and other media piggybacking off the Celebration of Teaching and Learning to highlight some of the accomplishments of students and teachers.

On collaboration Barry says, "We need to find ways to be much more efficient." He points out that, "Both sides, the municipal side and the school side, we're pulling at the same tax dollar ... If we can collaborate in some of those services and realize the savings on both sides with a better end product we'd be foolhardy not to consider that." Barry says we are going to continue to look for ways to make sure that what our students and staff deserve is provided.

Barry reviews recent developments related to the disposition of the Little Neck Trust and the settlement with the Feoffees of the Grammar School. Barry points out that, "In the first three years of the settlement the Ipswich Schools are receiving $800,000 each year." He details some of the ways the money is being spent including Instructional Mini Grants. Educators are able to propose projects that can be funded up to $5,000 each. 37 of 60 initial proposals were approved. Seven other grants were awarded after the applicants took advantage of the opportunity to resubmit and work with members of the grant committee.  Another $1.5 million has been funded through the Paine Grants, a second category reserved for "big ticket" items. ( Click here to view a complete list of projects funded.)

Barry shares ways that concerned citizens may become more involved in the work of the Ipswich School Committee. His suggestions include attending the school committee meetings and volunteering for one of the many formal and informal projects and committees.

I conclude the interview by asking Barry, "What drives you?" Barry tells of his appreciation for the support of the school committee and the townspeople. He says, "I've dedicated my entire life to public education." The job is never done he says and continues, "I'd like people to embrace that same approach and help us every step of the way."

+++++++

Schools:

• Ipswich School District Home Page
• The History of the Ipswich Public Schools

Town Government Resources:

• Town of Ipswich Home Page
• Massachusetts Secretary Of State’s Website
• Acquire a copy of Town Meeting Time

+++

Thank you for listening to this episode of the “L” channel. Please stay tuned for future editions. You may follow us on Twitter @LyceumPodcast and subscribe to our episodes on iTunes and through my feed.

Warmest regards,
Guy Clinch
Google


Subscribe to the "L" podcast channel

We the People of Ipswich

Welcome to the continuing series of discussions with thought leaders who are bringing new and innovative solutions to the challenges government faces in delivering services to the citizen.

++++

Last Tuesday we the citizens of Ipswich carried on a tradition that is documented to have taken place in town since at least 1635. The tradition of the town meeting in Ipswich is as close to the ideal of a pure democracy as any form of self-governance demonstrated across history. Any voter may attend the town meeting, address the body on topics germane to the issues and vote. This unique franchise is something to be cherished and preserved.

The Ipswich Town meeting is more than just a historical artifact. It is a living legislative body. Real issues that impact the day to day lives of the citizens of the town are decided upon by those affected by their decisions.  Rules are made. Money is spent. Taxes levies are recommended to the ballot. Unique to just about every other form of government, this deliberative process results in votes cast not by proxy by a representative in some distant legislature.  These decisions are made by neighbors, with neighbors, for the good of the community.

As different from the 17th century as is the world of today, the matters of community dealt with at the town meetings remain remarkably similar. During the April 20, 1635 meeting the issues deliberated included regulations on fencing of house lots and the distribution of land grants. Last Tuesday we the people of Ipswich decided issues including the grant of an easement providing public access to the Ipswich River and regulations for the location of marijuana dispensaries in town.

There are also stark and telling differences between the town meeting of history and today. These distinctions inform part of the reasons that the town meeting remains essential. In 1635 only a few select individuals were able to make decisions that affected anyone living in town. Today although we retain some of the vestiges of those days in such institutions as the Board of Selectman, the town meeting has evolved into a democratic institution that is uniquely American. That you are registered to vote in the Town is the only qualification to attend and participate.

 

The Ipswich Town meeting is a living demonstration of the American political ideal of inclusion. More importantly in an age of factionalism and gridlock, government in Ipswich works. We come together as a community, we debate as a community and we decide as a community.

Is it perfect? No institution involving people can ever be perfect.  Nor can everyone be happy when difficult decision are made. The town meeting reflects our human condition. We are the town meeting.

                                                                    ++++

+++++++

October 15, 2013 Special Town Meeting Resources:

• 2013 Special Town Meeting - Warrant
• 2013 STM Finance Committee Report

Town Government Resources:

• Town of Ipswich Home Page
• Massachusetts Secretary Of State’s Website
• Acquire a copy of Town Meeting Time

+++

Thank you for being part of the audience of the “L” channel. Please stay tuned for future editions. You may follow us on Twitter @LyceumPodcast and subscribe to our episodes on iTunes and through my feed.

Warmest regards,
Guy Clinch
Google


Subscribe to the "L" podcast channel

L-Podcast Episode 005 - Charles Surpitski, Chairman of the Board of Selectman for the Town of Ipswich Massachusetts

Welcome to the continuing series of discussions with thought leaders who are bringing new and innovative solutions to the challenges government faces in delivering services to the citizen.

+++++++

My guest for this episode is Chairman of the Board of Selectman for the Town of Ipswich Massachusetts, Charles Surpitski. Mr. Surpitski and I discuss a range of topics including how the Board of Selectman conduct business as the Chief Executive body for the town, how the Board relates to other boards and panels in town and the planning for the upcoming Oct 15, Special Town Meeting.

Mr. Surpitski has worked for the Town of Ipswich for 35 plus years starting as a patrolman in the Police Department in 1971 and rising through the ranks culminating in being appointed the Chief of the Department in 1989.

In 1991 the Town reorganized the department adding to Mr. Surpitski’s duties as Chief the responsibilities as the Town's first Director of Public Safety.

His duties included managing the police department, fire department, shellfish warden, overseeing the harbors, emergency management, ambulance services and animal control.

Mr. Surpitski retired in 2006. He did the usual newly retired projects and trips and then had an urge to return to public service. He decided to seek election as a selectmen and in 2008 was elected and then re-elected in 2011.

He is a lifelong resident of the town and comes from a family of civil servants. His Dad was a police officer and Chief of Police and his only sister was a public school teacher.

Mr. Surpitski says that it has been an honor and pleasure to grow up in such a wonderful diverse town and to be able to contribute to the quality of life of the residents.

Listen here:

Or:
Download your copy.


Synopsis:
Charlie and I discuss a typical Board of Selectman meeting which begins with the “minutia” of government. In addition during each meeting the board tries to deal next with one or two issues that are important to the community. Recent examples include efforts by the board to use town resources to enhance economic development in the town. The town has three sources of revenue: property taxes, fees and state aide. “In order to continue the services that we offer in town government,” Charlie says, “it is necessary to find other sources of revenues.”

On the subject of economic development, Charlie says the board’s recent discussions have been about what areas of town are attractive to businesses and what infrastructure resources will attract new businesses to the town. “There is always some items of substance related to the future of the community that are on the agenda,” Charlie says. Correspondence, new business and updates round out the typical Board of Selectman meeting.

Charlie urged that citizen participation is important. The best way to view the meetings are to come to the meetings. Recognizing that people are busy there are other options to participate. Citizens may watch the meetings live on Ipswich Community Access Media (ICAM). Board meetings are also available for on-demand replay via the Community tab of the town’s web page.  The Board of Selectman is, “One of the few places where we legislate in front of the people,” says Charlie.

Charlie talks about the responsibilities of Chairman. These include working continually through the weeks with the town manager and the professional staff keeping on top of issues that are import to the Board, to the town as a whole, setting the agenda, running the meetings and dealing with the significant amounts of correspondence received.

Charlie says that it is really important that someone respond the correspondence. “We don’t wait, it’s the responsibility of the chair to direct communications to the right party and that someone get in touch with that person and let them know that someone is looking into their issues.“ Charlie says, “It takes a great deal of time, but it is time well spent,” he continues.

Other important issues in front of the Board today include finding a way to renew the town’s public safety facilities. Charlie said, “Our fire station was built in 1907 actually for horse drawn fire apparatus and certainly apparatus has changed.”

Storm water, sewer extensions, no matter what the issue is, even if it is in relative terms small, if someone took the time to bring it up, Charlie says, “We view these smaller issues as just important as the bigger ones.” He goes on, “We continue to try to improve town services, make sure they are running efficiently and economically; their all big issues.”

Getting back to the issue of economic development, Charlie points to New England Biolabs and EBSCO Industries as two examples of businesses who have made a big commitment to Ipswich revitalizing the downtown and being great community partners.

We talk about how the Board of Selectman works with other boards and panels in town. Charlie says the Board of Selectman is made up of only five members and so they depend a lot upon volunteers. He says the Planning Board, Zoning Board of Appeals and the Conservation Commission are regulatory boards and they need the support, understanding and thanks of the Board of Selectman. They are, “Folks stepping forward, without pay, to make sometimes very difficult and tough decisions,” he says.

Charlie continues that there are also a myriad of other interests in the community including the Shellfish Committee interested in preserving the resource, the Storm Water committee who are making sure that water that flows through the rivers and over the clam flats is clean. Charlie says, “It is so important that people who have an interest participate and to advise us as to how to proceed.”

We then talk about the role of the Board of Selectman in planning for what Town Moderator Tom Murphy describes as the, “Pure Democracy” of the town meeting. Ipswich maintains the tradition of the open town meeting where all residents are encouraged to attend town meeting and participate in decisions including passing the town budget. Charlie says, “It’s one of those unique situations where people decide the fate of government.”

With regard to the town meeting the role of the Board of Selectmen is to bring the issues that need to be decided upon by the body politic to the warrant. This is includes working with the Town Manager Robin Crosbie, other boards and citizens of the town to create the warrant which forms the agenda for the meeting. All citizens have the right to bring issues of concern to the town meeting. The most important issues is probably the town budget. “The people,” Charlie says, “actually vote to implement it, Charlie says” In between town meetings he continues, “It’s up to the Board of Selectman to make sure that will of the legislative body is implemented.”

The interview concludes with Charlie encouraging the citizens of Ipswich to attend the public hearings, to hear the pros and cons of the particular issues and to be prepared to participate in the town meeting. Charlie urges citizens of the Town of Ipswich to attend town meeting. “We understand that it can be difficult to get there and to dedicate three or four hours on a Monday or Tuesday night,” he says.  The bottom line is that, “It is our town, it is important, and we want to have the widest participation that we can,” Charlie says.

+++++++

October 15, 2013 Special Town Meeting Resources:

• 2013 Special Town Meeting - Warrant
• 2013 STM Finance Committee Report

Town Government Resources:

• Town of Ipswich Home Page
• Massachusetts Secretary Of State’s Website
• Acquire a copy of Town Meeting Time

+++

Thank you for listening to this episode of the “L” channel. Please stay tuned for future editions. You may follow us on Twitter @LyceumPodcast and subscribe to our episodes on iTunes and through my feed.

Warmest regards,
Guy Clinch
Google


Subscribe to the "L" podcast channel

L-Podcast Episode 004 - Heidi Paek, Co-Chairwoman of the Planning Board for the Town of Ipswich Massachusetts

Welcome to the continuing series of discussions with thought leaders who are bringing new and innovative solutions to the challenges government faces in delivering services to the citizen.

+++++++

My guest for this episode is Co-Chairwoman of the Planning Board for the Town of Ipswich Massachusetts, Heidi Paek. Heidi and I discuss a range of topics including the upcoming Oct 15, Special Town Meeting and the proposed amendment the Ipswich Protective Zoning Bylaw to set conditions for a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center.

Prior to joining the Planning Board in 2011, Heidi served on Ipswich’s Commission on Energy Use and Climate Protection, which measured the town’s carbon footprint and developed a Climate Action Plan.

 Heidi grew up on the north shore. She and her husband moved to Ipswich in 1996.

Listen here:

Or:
Download your copy.

Synopsis:
Heidi and Guy discuss the role of the chairperson on the Ipswich Planning Board and describe a typical meeting. The Ipswich Planning Board is authorized under the Massachusetts General Laws to regulate the laying out and construction of ways in subdivisions and to insure the safety, convenience and welfare of the present and future residents of Ipswich. The Board is also authorized by the Ipswich Protective Zoning Bylaw to approve site plan review applications for all non-residential development and to grant special permits for various residential and non-residential uses.

Along with the School Committee, the Select Board and the Finance Committee, the Planning Board is among those entities of town government that have the most direct impact on people. The Board deals with issues that can inflame passions and members need to make decision that may not please some in the community.

Heidi discusses a recent controversial issue. She tells of the need for board members to "leave our opinions in the hallway" and to look at the existing bylaw, to understand what is allowed and not allowed, and then to see how applications and proposed construction projects measure up. Hiedi says the bylaws are enacted by the will of the people at previous town meetings and, "Sometimes, it’s truly a pleasure to vote in support of a project that meets the criteria of the bylaw. Other times, it’s not so gratifying."

Heidi relates another recent example dealing with a new Assisted Living Facility that’s being built on County Road and how pleasing the process was to work with the community, experts, the developer and other board and committees in town. Heidi says, "Before we reached our decisions, we sought the expertise of many other groups. And when we asked for changes and improvements, the applicant was very willing to work with us."

Heidi and Guy talk about the upcoming Special Town Meeting taking place on October 15, 2013. Heidi describes the Planning Board's role in preparing for a town meeting.

Among the issues the board has worked on that will be voted upon at the meeting are propose regulations for a medical marijuana dispensary. A working group, including members of the planning board, planning staff, the health agent, the chief of police, and others devised draft bylaws, after researching the Commonwealth's model bylaw and similar ones enacted in other towns. Three public hearings to seek comment and input were held fine-tuning happened during the public hearings. The members of the Planning Board also appeared before the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee for their review and some additional minor improvements.

The interview concludes with Heidi and Guy encouraging as many people as possible to take the opportunity to participate in the “pure democracy” of the town meeting.

Resources:

• Town of Ipswich Home Page
• Massachusetts Secretary Of State’s Website
• Acquire a copy of Town Meeting Time

+++

Thank you for listening to this episode of the “L” channel. Please stay tuned for future editions. You may follow us on Twitter @LyceumPodcast and subscribe to our episodes on iTunes and through my feed.

Warmest regards,
Guy Clinch
Google


Subscribe to the "L" podcast channel