I’m an active member of the Kennebunk Charter Commission, but I do not speak for, nor do I have any authority to speak for, the commission as a whole. I’ve represented Kennebunk many terms in two tours of duty in Augusta, but I am not speaking as a former legislator.
This time, I speak on behalf of my life’s work as a social studies teacher. My job then, as I saw it, was to help Kennebunk students to understand and appreciate the story of our evolving democracy, and for them to develop the character, skills, and confidence to be an active force for good in their community.
Because American democracy puts ultimate power in the hands of its citizens, the welfare of all depends on the wisdom of those citizen-made decisions.
Kennebunk’s new charter, its town constitution which defines its type of government and the role of its voting residents, is near completion and ready to replace our current charter if approved by voters in November.
Our current charter provides that many important decisions, including budget, is not final until approved by town referendum. An alternative town council structure supported by many on the commission typically provides that the councilors have authority (the buck stops here) to make decisions, including budget, without voter approval. One of these, or even a hybrid keeping a Select Board/referendum structure but giving the Select Board more power to act independently, could possibly be in the final proposal.
I believe in government. It is a structure that can protect fairness when strong opposes weak, and can accomplish much as a community that we could not do as individuals. I have attended meetings all my life, almost always to defend reasonable budgets. Generally my concern were people who sought cuts regardless of consequence. Therefore, educating the citizens about the reasons articles are proposed becomes, to me, an important responsibility for public officials. That interaction is central to the public servant-constituent trust.
But I have observed there is disagreement on that point. Some see the only involvement of voting citizens to be at election at the end of a three-year term. This removes an incentive to educate and/or involve the voters until election year, if at all.
The advocates of Town Council have many reasons. Government officials see an unobstructed path when voter approval is not required. People who have come to Kennebunk from outside New England, or from a city government within New England, have never known the privilege, or responsibility, of voter approval.
Some see Town Council as an expression of trust. Some see it as matter of inevitability as the community grows. And some citizens just don’t want to deal with the responsibility of voting.
Some see a Town Council as a matter of efficiency, because, on important matters, why wait two months to set up a special town meeting when a council could decide in less than two weeks.
The town meeting comes from New England’s unique heritage. We were self-governing charter colonies for a century and a half before the Revolution. When state and local governments were codified, democracy was protected by large assemblies and annual elections. That’s why Maine today has a large House of Representatives, and why most municipal budgets are sent by the Select Board to be approved by the voters. Participation in local government, through town meeting or referendum, has been understood as a right of citizenship in New England towns.
The advocates of keeping town meeting (actually referendum) point to keeping citizenship rights. They like having an equal vote in determining what kind of town Kennebunk becomes. They like voting to show their support for the Select Board, and they appreciate the right to vote against, and perhaps redirect, actions of the Select Board if needed. . They value the referendum as a check-and-balance, a necessary act of accountability, and an acknowledged recognition and respect by public officials that the community they serve has the final say on board recommendations on the biggest issues.
They maintain Select Board powers can be enhanced, without need for voter approval, to use only in emergencies, thus, in normal times, preserving the ultimate authority for big approvals to be that of the voters.
The educational and egalitarian aspects of town meeting were sacrificed for efficiency more than a decade ago when we went to approval by referendum only, although, officially, it is still called town meeting government because final disposition is still decided by the voters. Now we ask if the referendum vote itself is necessary.
Regarding natural disasters such as those impacting Beach Avenue, would a Town Council have ability to react more quickly? Under the present charter, the Select Board did have options. It dedicated its $100,000 contingency account, and it approved the .5% budget amount currently allowed without going to voters, about $75,000, to make a total of $175,000 to get work started.
Of course, a special town meeting to approve more dollars could be scheduled. Is a Town Council necessary to approve more spending in a timely fashion? Or instead, is it better to expand, in the charter, the ability of the Select Board to access more money without requiring a change in our form of government?
Voter-initiated petitions to change ordinances and voter-initiated petitions to recall officials are already proposed to be more difficult. The biggest decision of all is if voters should be removed from deciding land use changes, borrowing approvals, and passage of the annual budget.
The commission wants to get its proposal finalized in a manner that would earn approval by Kennebunk voters.
Chris Babbidge represented Kennebunk in the 122nd, 123rd, 127th, 128th, 129th, and 130th legislatures during 2004-2008 and 2014-2022. He taught at Kennebunk High School for 31 years through 2012.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
