Table of Contents

Ballot Question 1 surrenders our rights... twice!

 
(April 2002) May's election will offer voters a more far-reaching choice than who we pick to be our next selectmen, sewer commissioners, or health board members. Look for the ballot question that will ask voters to approve combining the Treasurer's and Collector's positions into one appointed post. You won't find it. Instead you'll find an ambiguously worded one sentence question without any reference to the changes being proposed.

And, when you see it on election day, vote no on this "combo deal."

Approving this will not only combine two separate positions, it will remove the selection process from the voters and put it in the hands of the Board of Selectmen. By approving this measure, we voters will forfeit our right to choose who fills these town functions.

Currently, Rocky Cole and Priscilla Palombo hold the positions of Town Treasurer and Town Collector, respectively. Both are duly elected by Kingston voters.
These have both been elected positions for many, many years. Those who are better schooled in Kingston history can tell you just exactly how long it's been that way. There were times, back when Kingston was still described as a "sleepy little town" (we don't hear that anymore!) that the positions were held by the same individual. The late George Cushman most recently enjoyed that distinction.
But those were simpler times. Kingston didn't have an $26 million budget, a $1 million deficit, and growth issues that would make even the most seasoned corporate CEO wince. These financial officers-our Town Treasurer and our Tax Collector - should continue to be chosen by (and directly accountable to) Kingston residents.

It is after all our money that they're collecting and investing. Why shouldn't we continue to have a direct say in who handles these important tasks?
What prompted this recommended change in the first place? Last year, a selectmen's article -- advocating combining the two positions and making one appointed spot -- was approved by a town meeting vote. As a zero quorum advocate, I shouldn't care how few people it took to approve this measure, but suffice it to say that the supporters could have ridden off to celebrate on a very small school bus.

So that's where we are now. The measure has the approval of town meeting. But because it will alter our form of government, it needs to be approved by voters on the ballot.

Our decision-day for this matter is town election day. It's the only chance we'll get to preserve our right to choose our Treasurer and Collector.

The selectmen are the architects of the proposed change. While they haven't confided their rationale to me, it's a fair guess that the stormy relationship they "enjoyed" with former Treasurer Chuck McCoy has contributed to their enthusiasm for the measure.

Without revisiting that conflict, and without questioning the passion or sincerity of intention that the selectmen feel on this matter, it still comes down to the same issue - approving this removes two choices from the voters.

Let's face it, folks. There is no other governmental venue where we have as direct an input as we do at the local level. Choosing our town officials is a privilege, one that we should not surrender lightly.

Taking choices away from voters is bad governmental practice, pure and simple, no matter what the motive. If there is any argument to be made here, it should be that we have more elected and fewer appointed positions.

Our selectmen should serve as visionaries and broad policy setters. They already enjoy extensive powers of appointment and exert considerable influence in determining who sits on committees and boards.

They appoint our Police and Fire Chiefs, our Appeals Board members, the Conservation Commission, and are responsible for a number of other influential decisions in the town. When a vacancy occurs, or if no one runs for an office, selectmen would have the appointing authority - sometimes jointly, sometimes individually. Our Town Fathers also enjoy considerable discretionary powers over what appears on our Town Meeting warrant. To put it simply, they've got enough to do already.

Let's keep the financial branch of town government separate from the executive branch. I'm not suggesting that our Town Fathers are incapable of recruiting, appointing or even managing quality individuals. I believe, however, that independently-elected treasurers and collectors are part of a checks and balances system that helps keep our local government running smoothly.

Remember, we already have two safeguards firmly in place to address the issue of someone's unsatisfactory job performance. The first is the time-honored one. We can always vote someone out of office. And, in extreme cases, we have a recall mechanism that allows voters to remove an official at any point during his or her term.

We have safeguards. We have checks and balances. And, as voters, we have a long history of being able to choose elected officials, and have always taken the task seriously. So, if the system isn't broken, why are we trying to 'fix' it?
Surrendering our right to directly elect an officeholder is a dangerous precedent. Don't allow it to happen. Vote against the combination and safeguard your power and rights as a voter.