I’m writing this in an effort to urge you to not only attend the Monday, April 2, Westbrook City Council meeting, but also to contact your councilors to express your views on two public hearing items scheduled for discussion that evening.
The council will be voting on whether to place two items on the ballot for a vote in June. If approved by you, our voters, we will fundamentally change our form of government. That is, of course, your choice and your right, but as your mayor I would like to share with you my thoughts on these two critical issues.
First, it has been suggested that we longer elect our city clerk. This deviates from our city charter and also, and most importantly, takes away our tradition of electing “one of our own” to serve in this important position. Supporters of this change argue that there is a need to professionalize the office. It’s been said that the job cannot and should not be done by just anyone wjp chooses to run for the office and happens to get elected to it. Gosh, that could possibly be said for all our elected officials, but that’s not how we do things in this country.
I believe it is important to keep a Westbrook resident in this visible position and I have faith in capable people running for office and in their ability to get elected based on qualifications that all of us who run for public office have – a desire to serve our community and our residents to the very best of our ability. If the person elected to serve as city clerk lacks some of the technical knowledge necessary to be the true “professional,” a highly skilled deputy clerk or other support personnel can augment those missing qualifications. To eliminate electing our city clerk in favor of hiring essentially two professionals, without first exploring other alternatives, is neither cost effective nor prudent That’s what concerns me the most about this proposal, and it should you, as well.
I’m bothered that the council has not asked the administration to look at other solutions if they are dissatisfied with the performance of the clerk’s office. And, while I have not been asked to offer a solution, I do have one to share with you. Mine is to continue to elect our city clerk as we always have, and simply reduce this elected position’s pay and benefits to one similar to the mayor’s and council’s, and make it a part-time position. I would then propose we augment the deputy clerk’s position with another skilled clerical person using some of the salary savings achieved by redefining the clerk’s position. This gives us the best of all worlds. It keeps the position an elected one and keeps a Westbrook resident in the job (a fact not assured if it is a hired position). This alternative should be pursued before asking voters to possibly toss out what we have had in place for years and years.
The next item you will be asked to consider is the removal of political party designation from the ballot and along with it, possibly the elimination of the caucus system. These are long-standing traditions not only in our city, but also in our state and our country. To eliminate the caucus system and the party designation from the electoral process here in Westbrook is fundamentally wrong.
The rationale given by the councilor proposing this change is that having it in place discourages good people from running for elected office and that we also have no clearly defined method for getting on the ballot. I say, if good people want to run for elected office they need to embrace the caucus system and gather their supporters to ensure their nomination, or they may choose a path that I once took – run as an independent. Either way, the candidate’s message, bearing and sincerity will be what wins him or her the nomination, and there is already a system in place for that to happen. That’s the American way. If a candidate for public office does not want to work to secure the nomination, one must certainly question that person’s desire to work for and serve constituents if elected. If there is truly uncertainty on how to get on the ballot, we can easily fix that by writing an ordinance that lays out that process in a clear manner. We don’t need to change our system to fix these “problems.”
While it can certainly be said that I am a supporter of change, I contend that it must be positive change. I can see no positive benefit to the changes being proposed, and ask that if you agree you attend the April 2 meeting and let the council know how you feel. Also, call your councilors and tell them to leave things as they are.
This is a knee-jerk reaction to issues that have not had nearly enough public discussion prior to suggesting they go to a public referendum. That’s not how our representative form of government works. We don’t take issues to ballot without first having substantial public discussion and debate, and we should not be doing this now simply because we have a citywide election coming up in November. Don’t let these items go to a June ballot simply to meet that time line. If there is any merit to considering one or both of these changes, it will surface after much more in-depth discussion and then, and only then, should you be asked if you want the questions put out to a public vote. This is premature now.
We should not let the fact that our current city clerk is not running for re-election dictate changing how we fill that position or how we get on the ballot to run for elected office. Certainly not with little more than seven months before Election Day.
Bruce Chuluda is mayor of Westbrook.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
