I want to clarify a number of issues relating to the Charter changes. I’ll address why we have 3 on the ballot and focus on the one that would allow (but not require) the Town to have DPW employees work on school property: what that change proposes; how it came about; and, why I couldn’t meet privately with DPW employees.

Background

The Charter Review is at least every 10 years and the result of the most recent comprehensive review was 39 proposed changes on the 2014 ballot.  That was far too many. As Council President, I proposed more frequent reviews to address minor issues at each election, along with those that couldn’t wait. I urged that we limit proposals to a more reasonable 3 questions. 

What the Proposed Change Means

Currently the Charter makes DPW responsible for “for the maintenance and repair and operation of all public buildings and properties, excepting those of the school department…” The proposed change deletes the word “excepting” and replaces it with “and including”.

The change doesn’t require DPW to work on school property, it just allows it, and only if the School Committee requests, and the Manager agrees. This is spelled out in a separate part of the Charter (Title 9) that already exists and won’t change: 

At the request of the School Committee, the Town Manager may direct the Department of Public Works to maintain and care for school buildings, grounds and motor vehicles, provided that the costs be charged against the appropriation for the public schools….

It’s under this provision that the DPW currently cares for the schools’ athletic fields, and charges the schools so that the cost for that work appears on the school side of the budget.

How the Proposed Change Came About

Our Manager and Superintendent agreed that the DPW should perform minor maintenance on a few school owned vehicles, (wiper blades, light bulbs, etc.), rather than outsourcing repairs. The DPW employees’ union filed a grievance and pointed to the “excepting those of the School Department” language to support their objection to performing the work.

Because I favor finding efficiencies in our relationship with the School Department and because there was a conflict between the two portions of the Charter quoted above, I moved that we put the change to the voters and the Council unanimously agreed.

Why I Didn’t Meet Privately With DPW Employees

Although a Union Representative called me twice, I twice explained that the Charter prohibited me from meeting privately with him. Title 3 of the Charter contains a provision called “Non-Interference with Manager” which says that Council members are to deal with the various departments “solely through the Town Manager.” (Emphasis mine). I encouraged him to write to the Council explaining his concerns. Though I haven’t seen any letters to the Council, I have read the letters to the Editor in the Times.

I still believe that the Charter change is appropriate and I will vote for it on November 6.

Michael Carroll

Barrington