|
Where We Stand
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
LWVM 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. LWVM 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.
Previous Page: Fiscal Policy
Back to Where We Stand: Government
Next Page: Legislature
|
