By William C. Shelton

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville News belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville News, its staff or publishers.)

The United States was fortunate to have a rare abundance of political geniuses that came together to write its Constitution. It was truly blessed that these framers had the wisdom to listen carefully to each other and the capacity to keep doing so until they had put the young nation’s wellbeing above their own personal interests.

Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France at the time, conveyed his views in a series of letters. In November 1787, 21 years after he drafted the Declaration of Independence, he wrote, “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion… The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Somerville adopted its current charter in 1899. It has not proven to be as durable as the Constitution. The Constitution mandates a president, Congress and a judiciary. The charter mandates two fence viewers, a wood and bark measurer, and a grain weigher. It also invests overwhelming authority to govern in the mayor. 

More outdated than the charter is the city’s political culture. That culture was the product of social institutions that provided rich opportunities for citizens to interact kept local government and patronage appointees accountable and demanded prudent fiscal management. With the passing of those institutions, the political culture has, like a zombie, continued its increasingly uninspired, ill-tempered and belligerent march, oblivious to profound changes in the city, competing visions of good government, the suffering of many long-term residents and the fiscal abyss along which it staggers.

Demonic possession may be as apt a metaphor as zombie-ism.  I individually like and enjoy the company of our mayor and aldermen. Yet, I often struggle to recognize their lively intelligence and goodwill in many of their actions or inactions that are motivated by calculations of advantage within this political culture.

I believe that we can achieve the renewal and redemption that Thomas Jefferson wrote about without the bloodshed that he anticipated. The U.S. Constitution‚Äôs legacy and Article 89 of the Massachusetts Constitution enable us to change the charter. I don‚Äôt have sufficient wisdom to understand all the changes that are needed, but I believe that all of us, together, do. 

It does seem clear to me that we should consider the form of government in which the people elect a council to represent them, and the council hires qualified professionals to manage municipal functions. I don’t suggest this because I believe that a council or manager form of government is inherently superior to a strong-mayor form. A glance at our neighbor, Cambridge, should dispel this fantasy.

It is true that the other Massachusetts cities and towns tainted by corruption scandals have all had strong-mayor forms of government. As Mayor Lawrence Bretta once said, “Money comes to you if you’re the mayor of Somerville, whether you want it or not.” But my suggestion is not based on the strong-mayor form’s greater susceptibility to corruption.

Instead, I‚Äôm remembering Douglas McArthur‚Äôs decision to allow communist parties under the Japanese Constitution. Although severely criticized, he said that with a counterweight to Imperial Japanese fascism, the people would choose a moderate democracy. They did. 

Similarly, I don’t believe that we can change our deeply stuck political culture without rebalancing our political institutions. The change we need is to shift greater power to the legislative branch and shift the balance of influence upon our legislators coming from the executive branch to the people who elect them. Doing so, I believe, would base policy decisions more firmly on real-world evidence, make governance more participatory, moderate escalating campaign spending, reduce the influence of self-interested parties whose contributions constitute a large portion of that spending, make the city’s true fiscal conditions and choices more transparent to all and help shift political discourse from name calling to civil interaction.

I have some other specific changes that I think we should consider. It would be unfair and unconstitutional to deny elected officials’ relatives employment based on their relationship. But we could make it illegal for an official to advocate for anyone’s employment by the city.

The Somerville Redevelopment Authority rarely meets. Its functions could be easily assumed by the Planning Board, eliminating expense and ensuring that decision makers are more fluent regarding Somerville development.

I know that appointing the superintendent of schools is a crucial function. But I don’t get what else the School Committee does that justifies our investment in compensation, staffing, retirement and election costs. I remain open to hearing evidence on why it’s worthwhile.

An elected auditor, charged with monitoring the city’s financial condition, could present it fully to the people. One of our bloggers has wisely suggested that the mayor or aldermen should not control the auditor’s budget. And I believe that the substantial funds managed by the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development should be part of the public budget process. That is not now the case.

I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

I don’t even know all of the questions. But next time, I’ll write about how we might ask and answer some of those questions together.