Submitted on 3/7/11 by Marc Warner.

1. Northampton Charter Review Committee
Councilor Jesse M. Adams (Vice-Chair)
Colleen Currie (Secretary)
Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge
Councilor David A. Murphy
Alan Seewald (Chair)
Margaret Striebel
Marc Warner
March 7, 2011
City Council
City of Northampton
212 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
RE: Minority Report of 2010 Charter Review Committee
Dear President and Councilors:
This letter presents a dissenting view from that expressed by others on the 2010 Charter
Review Committee in their report to the City Council. It is thus a minority report.
The nature of the dissent is not about the worthiness of revising the current charter. It
does need revisions. Rather, it is about the tactics that the city should follow and the
costs that the city should incur in the effort to make the changes. The majority
recommends that proposed charter changes come from a new, large committee with
broad representation, and with a budget, staff, and the ability to hire consultants. I reject
these findings. Charter revisions should instead come from a) one or two council-
appointed and unpaid editors to bring the current document to a “state of good repair,”
and b) one or two council-appointed and unpaid facilitators to moderate public debates of
potential new initiatives. City resources should be limited to the provision of meeting
space, documentation on the City web site, discussion of results at City Council, and the
dissemination of any materials for a public referendum if needed to support a home rule
petition for changes to the Charter.
This letter presents the reasons for these conclusions. It begins with a discussion of the
current state of the Northampton Charter.

2. The state of our current charter
The Charter—adopted in 1883 and amended incrementally through several special acts of
the state legislature since then—has not aged well. This is not to say that the Charter
should define a radical new structure of city governance. None of the Charter Review
Committee members, nor any testimony we received, indicated a preference for a
fundamental division of power other than between a strong mayor and a nine-member
city council.
The basic organization of governance in Northampton—and thus the basic substance of
the Charter—does not need to change. There is, however, great value to changing the
basic organization of the Charter itself. After 128 years of piecemeal revisions, the
Charter can no longer be said to provide Northampton residents (or policy makers) with
simple clarity about city governance. In this regard, the Charter is failing at its primary
objective and is thus not in a “state of good repair.” The improvements needed here
include the following:
 eliminate the need for the dozens of editor’s notes that direct the reader to
amendments superseding the current text;
 shift details about departmental workings that have nothing to do with the
structure of governance out of the Charter and into city ordinances where they
more appropriately belong;
 group related clauses under more logical headings, rather than having them spread
out throughout the document;
 remove the obsolete references to the Board of Aldermen, the Hampshire County
Commissioners, the Overseers of the Poor, the Massachusetts Central Railroad
Company, and to other defunct organizations
These changes would provide a clear document—a Charter in a state of good repair. We
can think of it as a “Charter 2.0” on which to build the next hundred years of substantive
charter amendments. The changes are also the ones that could most assuredly reach
fruition. These are not galvanizing proposals that would lead to opposition. They are not
even the type of changes that would warrant extensive community input and
deliberations. This is not a question of community values; it is simply an issue of editing.
The role of the editor
The editor’s task can benefit from examples of several other Massachusetts
municipalities. West Springfield, Easthampton, Newton, and Braintree have each in
recent years adopted a new charter with a mayor and city council form of governance.
Look at these documents on the respective city web sites, and you will see a key feature
in an instant: they are all almost identical. A further review shows that they would also
be an easy fit for Northampton governance. The substantive differences that exist are

3. largely in regard to contingency planning (e.g., methods of filling the city council
president position in event of an unexpected vacancy). These do go beyond simple
editing, but they again do not indicate a need for weighty or drawn out deliberations.
I have attached to this letter an outline of a revised charter based on the examples
identified above. A second attachment shows how I have edited the three principal
articles: incorporation, the legislative branch, and the executive branch to be consistent
with Northampton’s current provisions. This is a big start to the editing. Finishing the
task should not be viewed as an overwhelming effort or one in need of city staff or hired
consultants. I have no doubt that Northampton is full of interested and capable city
residents who would be delighted to conduct this civic effort on a volunteer basis.
It should in any case be apparent that the models for a clear, effective, applicable charter
are available. These models have worked in comparable cities. They are contemporary
and they have passed the attorney general’s review for consistency with state law. The
City Council should give the editors one month to complete these Charter changes.
New initiatives
“New initiatives” refer to Charter provisions that would significantly change the business
of city governance. The majority report has identified several of these, including:
 the mayor chairing City Council and School Committee meetings;
 appointment, rather than direct election, of certain city government positions;
 term length and term limits for the mayor and city councilors; and,
 the number of signatures required for candidates to get on the ballot.
I agree that these are worth considering, and I think the list should also include the
number of signatures needed to get a petition on the ballot. Note, by the way, that the
Charter Review Committee did not debate or reach conclusions about these (or any other)
specific policy issues.
In any case, the new initiatives again do not merit the creation of a committee or the
expenditure of further city resources. A better approach, I believe, would be to hold one
or two well-publicized public forums with a structured, moderated debate on each of
these issues. The point of these debates is not just to inform and to ensure public
participation, but also to gauge the breadth and depth of public support and opposition. If
it is apparent that the opposition to any particular new initiative is strong, then it is likely
that the initiative is doomed at the polls anyway. Drop it, and move on to other issues.
This process could generate more informed discussion, would be more open, and would
certainly be quicker than a year of new charter committee meetings.

4. The other key point here is that the new initiatives should be separable from the editing
changes and from each other. When voters see the proposed Charter changes on the
ballot they should not see an all-or-nothing choice. The new initiatives cannot be
allowed to undermine the chance for a clear and logical document. Thus, the first choice
on the ballot would be the Charter edits. The subsequent separate votes should be for
each new initiative that has a chance to succeed.
Time line for action
As noted above, the editors should have one month from their appointment to submit a
clear document that would bring the Charter back to the state of good repair that it
probably hasn’t seen for at least 50 years and perhaps since 1883.
City Council, the mayor, and any other interested parties should review the document and
provide testimonials about the legitimacy, value, and the essentially clerical nature of the
changes.
Preparations for debates on the new initiatives should begin immediately after that. The
Council—or the designated facilitator(s)—should find informed individuals willing to
speak for or against each of the proposed changes. Get these individuals to write a quick
“point-counterpoint” section for the Gazette and the City web site. Hold the public
forums. Build a degree of excitement, charge the air, and publicize the results. Keep the
momentum going and all of these proposals could be on the ballot in November, with a
home rule petition to the legislature shortly after that.
* * * * * *
Thank you for the opportunity to serve on the Charter Review Committee and to submit
this minority report.
Respectfully submitted,
Marc Warner