Government: Home Rule

Goal:

An effective state government; home rule for Massachusetts cities and towns in local matters. (1966)

The League supports:

• Constitutional home rule for Massachusetts cities and towns (adopted 1966)

• Sharing of functions among all levels of government

• Right of federal, state and regional governments to set standards of performance in broad areas of public concern

• Cost-sharing by all levels of government to implement standards

• Statutory implementation of home rule

League action

Home rule amendment

LWVMA supported passage of the home rule constitutional amendment in 1966. The people of every city and town were granted the right of self-government in local matters, limited only by the constitution and the standards and requirements established by state law. The amendment allows communities to adopt, revise or amend an existing charter under specific procedures. It put the responsibility for local government on the local level. Applying the Home Rule and Public Personnel positions, local Leagues can support removing their local personnel systems from state civil service, provided the local system is based on merit principles.

At the same time, specific restrictions were placed on the powers of cities and towns and the power of the General Court to legislate through general laws was affirmed. This was important for continuity of function throughout the state and for setting standards of performance in broad areas of public concern such as education, housing, health, public safety and the environment. The Anti-Snob Zoning Act (Ch. 774 of the Acts of 1969) and the hazardous waste siting legislation of 1980 are examples of the state setting standards of performance in broad areas of public concern.

Cost-sharing

The League finds it irresponsible for one level of government to force expensive programs on another level, and therefore, to implement standards, supports cost-sharing by all levels of government. Cost-sharing should develop a sense of responsibility, involvement and participation at each level of government. LWVMA supports adequate funding by the state for state-mandated programs. ( See Fiscal Policy section)

Implementation

In the late 1960s, the Special Home Rule Commission recommended legislation to facilitate the use of home rule, but the General Court did not accept any of its proposals. The governor, in 1975, established a home rule committee to explore ways to strengthen implementation of home rule. The committee, on which the League was represented, reviewed the state statutes governing municipal affairs and recommended a number of changes. The Legislature, however, has been reluctant to relinquish its authority in local matters. As a result, a disproportionate number of bills dealt with in the Legislature are so-called home rules bills, i.e. bylaw changes and matters passed by city councils or town meetings. Many of these matters should not have to go before the Legislature.

Charter Commissions

Since the adoption of the home rule amendment, local League action has focused primarily on charter commissions. Often as a result of League action, many cities and towns have made use of home rule powers and elected charter commissions to frame or revise local constitutions. The success rate for new charters or charter revisions is not high. Voters often seem reluctant to make what seem to be drastic changes. It appears that charter commissions often recommend too many changes, creating local opposition. Changes often can be effected by new town by-laws or city ordinances.

Legislation has been enacted to improve procedures related to adopting and revising local constitutions. A League-supported amendment, which increased the time period allowed for a charter commission to submit a charter from 10 to 18 months, was approved by the voters in 1978.

Background

• 1965: Home rule study was adopted. Members became aware of the problems of intergovernmental relationships, and the need for strong, effective local and state government.

• 1966: Consensus was reached regarding the need for increased home rule for cities and towns in purely local matters.