| The Town Charter says that within 10 days of the town election each district must gather and elect from amongst themselves a chairman, vice-chairman, and secretary (Section 2-11 (h)). The Charter does specify that their terms are for one year, but I don't think that would prevent a district from meeting again to reconsider the vote. Then, like in any other election, it would come down to who could get more of their supporters to show up.
There is a procedure provided in the Charter for calling special sessions of "multiple member bodies." Section 6-10 (a) says
Special meetings of any multiple member body shall be held on the call of the respective chairman, or by one-third of the members thereof by suitably written notice delivered to the residence or place of business of each member at least twenty-four hours in advance of the time set. A copy of the said notice shall also be posted on the town bulletin boards.
In this case 1/3 of the members of District Three would be 13 people. The question then becomes does a district of Town Meeting Representatives fall under the category of a "multiple member body, defined in the Charter (Section 6-7 (d)) as "any board, commission or committee consisting of two or more persons whether elected or appointed." I think you could make a strong argument that a district is essentially a committee of the Town Meeting.
Of course all this would have been easier if Kruegerites had moved to reconsider during the precinct meeting, and easier still if they had shown up on time in the first place, but if they are that committed I think they can still install their man. While there is nothing in the Charter that explicitly says a chairman can be replaced before his term is up, there is nothing that says it can't be done, either. If a district chairman should move out of town or die before the year is over then there would have to be a way to replace him, so I don't see why it couldn't be done for any other reason as well. There is a procedure laid out for the recall of elected officials (Section 3-15), but it applies only to major office holders such as the Selectmen or the Planning Board.
It isn't as if there is a whole lot that goes into being a district officer. Once a year I get an e-mail from the District Four Secretary telling me about the reorganization meeting, and then that's all. The seven chairmen elect a chairman of themselves and then host what's commonly referred to as Mini Town Meeting, but that's about it. The chairman's only defined duty is to call a meeting to fill a vacancy.
Still, every so often there will be a battle for the position, usually to send a larger message. A couple years ago Precinct One had a marathon reorganization session when Shaw McDermott, an opponent of the Hebrew SeniorLife project, beat the then incumbent chair Margot Pyle, a HSL supporter. I think this year's coup was more about sending a message that there is new and active leadership in East Dedham.
Those looking to send that message may wait until next year, but I don't think they should have to. I'm not advocating for the special session just to elect different officers (though it would be interesting to watch it play out), but instead I think the districts should meet more than once a year in the run up to Town Meeting. In the District Four meeting we spent far more time discussing other neighborhood issues than we did articles on the warrant. Quarterly gatherings like these would be useful to air out just some of these issues and hopefully get them resolved.
Now, at the risk of sounding like I am engaging in a vendetta against Tracy Driscoll, I attended the special session of the School Committee last night as well. Like the disaffected Precinct Three Representatives I got there a few minutes late, and walked in as Vice-chairman Margaret Matthews was explaining why she chose not to run for chair. Her rational, or at least the part I was there for, centered around her being on the negotiating team and how she didn't think it was prudent to be both on the team and chair at the same time while negotiating teachers' contracts.
Each of the other members of the committee then commented on how and why they were about to cast their votes. With, I think, varying degrees of sincerity each of the men began by saying that their no votes were not a reflection on the job Tracy has done over the past year. The other women both said that their yes votes were, at least in part, based on the job she did.
Superintendent June Doe, in her proper role as presiding officer, then called for the vote. That she was running the meeting means I was wrong when I said I expected Tracy to continue to preside over it in violation of the policy. It was a tie vote with three ayes and three nays when Tracy cast the winning vote in her favor. She looked a little shaken up during the discussion, but was composed enough after the chair was handed over to her to defend her decision to stay on for a second year.
Ironically she cited the lack of a policy dictating the proper succession order for who should become chair and how long they should serve. Of course she is right, there is no such policy, but her flouting of the School Committee's own policies were what prompted my "screed" on this topic the other day. I think such a policy would be ill advised, but the tradition of having the second in command watch and learn for a term and then take over has served both the School Committee and countless other organizations well.
Next came the vote for vice chairman. Margaret Matthews' name was put forward and seconded, and discussion was opened up. The first question came from Tom Ryan, who wanted to know what would happen next year. Would Margaret run for chair at that point in time, or defer again? She responded by saying that her decision this year was very contextual, and that she would have to see what was happening next Spring. John Healy then commented that while he thought very highly of Margaret, both as a fellow Committeeman and as a neighbor, that to be consistent in his belief that the chairs should rotate that he would be voting against her as well. When the vote came it was 5-2 with Tom and John voting no and all others voting yes.
I also think it was a poor decision to reinstall Margaret as vice chair. I think both Tom and John had correct sentiments when they made their comments, but it goes beyond that. Margaret is up for reelection next year. Should she have competition I will be the first one out holding a sign for her, but there is the possibility that she could lose. If that happens then there is not even the possibility for the vice chair to ascend to the chairmanship.
There is also the chance that contract negotiations will be even tougher than expected, and they won't be completed before it's time to elect a new chair. If Margaret won't accept the position now I doubt she would do so in the midst of a heated contract battle. Then we either have a third year of Chairman Driscoll or someone moves up from the membership without the year of preparation. Neither would well serve either the Committee, or the Town.
If there is anything positive to come from this whole situation it was to see a vote on the School Committee that wasn't 7-0. Division isn't always a bad thing, though I still think its a sign of weakness if a chairman can't get a unanimous vote on their election. I think this vote shows there is a divide on the School Committee, even if it largely stays out of the public eye. |
