At our April 6 council meeting there is a motion to place a non-binding question on the November ballot asking, “Shall the City of Westfield extend the term of Mayor from 2 years to 4 years.”
The length of term for mayor is of great importance, and I agree that voters should have a say in the matter. As an Army veteran, I served three years overseas, to protect this country, the Constitution, our way of life; your right to your opinion, free speech and your right to vote.
What is the purpose for changing the term of Mayor?
Not a single compelling reason has been given, which is reason enough to vote against it.
Saving money is not a valid reason because it won’t save any money. City elections would still be held every two years for city council, half the school committee, and the G&E Board.
Westfield has a good form of government. Great thought and deliberation went into deciding how long mayors, councilors, school committee members, and the G&E board should serve. The issue is about a representative government held accountable to the people by “regularly scheduled elections”.
This is the second time this issue has been brought up in the last year. The first attempt was to send this to the state legislature for “a home rule petition” that presumably would have come back “blessed” by the state house. After all, the legislature in Boston would assume that the Westfield City Council knows what it is doing. At that time, I spoke with Rep. Velis and Sen. Humason. Both gentlemen would have dutifully presented this to Boston, even though both were not in favor of it. They have to run every two years. Fortunately, the council voted against sending this casually offered motion to Boston.
“How does extending the term of mayor benefit the people of Westfield or give them a more responsive or accountable local government?” I believe it would not. The reason we have regularly scheduled elections every two years is it keeps democratically elected officials mindful and accountable to the people.
I believe it would be a huge mistake to change the term of mayor because it would lead to lower voter turnout in off-year elections without a mayoral race. In 2011, less than 5000 people voted, or 19.74% of eligible voters, when Mayor Knapik ran unopposed. Can you imagine if there was no mayor running? And what would stop a mayor who did not have to run for re-election from putting their efforts to pack the council with his supporters?
This could have a disastrous effect on the election and make up of the city council. And, God forbid if we ended with a crappy mayor some day, because that would have a detrimental, affect on people willing to serve on boards and commissions.
It would not be fair to those running in an off year, and would confuse voters.
Not being able to pursue one’s agenda is not a reason for extending the term of mayor. We are still dealing with affects of votes and actions of prior councils and administrations. We are elected to serve the public, to vote on issues and manage the city’s affairs, to the best of our ability. We need to be held accountable by voters with regularly scheduled elections.
To reduce the number of elections by increasing the length of the term of mayor or city council limits the ability of people from participating and voting regularly. It could prohibit some people from running for office.
Let’s be honest. The public’s memory is not so long, that they would hold elected officials accountable for something that happened three or fours ago. Changing elections for mayor to four years, would mean new residents in Westfield could wait as long as four years before being able to cast a vote, or run for local office.
Some people have had to run for office more than once to get elected. Waiting four years would make it more difficult for challengers.
How does taking away the ability of people to react in the short term to the actions of their local government help people to, either vote more often, be more involved in local government, or affect change? The answer is, it will not.
The US and Massachusetts Constitutions, and subsequent local ordinances are designed to protect citizens from an over reaching government, powerful special interests, and ambitious politicians.
The old adage, “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” seems to apply. And “If you break it, you will own it.”
Some councilors mentioned not having to campaign so often. That argument does not rise to the level of deliberations by the framers of our government when they decided on regularly scheduled elections. No one is forcing anyone to campaign for office.
I do not intend to vote for extending the terms of mayor, because it diminishes the role of our citizens to participate in the political process, and I believe the voice of the people matters.
Dan Allie – City Councilor
