Guest Editorial: Scott Landis on the Proposed Recall Amendment

The following is a statement that South Berwick citizen Scott Landis recently made at an information meeting concerning the proposed recall amendment coming before voters on June 10.

I have stood up on various occasions in this room to express my misgivings about the political process here in town. In the past, I voiced my concern that our town council or the administration had failed to adequately invite or consider public opinion.

Tonight I’m raising my voice again about process, but my concern is not about the undemocratic tendencies of our government. It’s about the attempt by fellow citizens to undermine the most fundamental democratic process of that government: the right to vote. Here in South Berwick, we operate under a blended “Council—Town Meeting—Manager” form of government, in which “the town meeting [or citizens] vote on the budget and our [elected] council tends to all other legislative functions.” This is a close approximation of the republican form of government that applies at the national level, as well.

In our form of government, the representatives comprise an independent ruling body—the town council—which is charged with the responsibility to act in the people’s interest. It is important to understand that they are not our proxy representatives. In other words, they will not necessarily always govern according to our individual wishes. They are expected to function with “enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances.”

There are four or five other forms of municipal government in Maine. Some of them come closer to the “purest form” of direct democracy—one man, one vote. But the essential element of republican government, and the Council/Manager form of government we have here, relies on majority rule. In South Berwick, we elect our councilors to represent the best interests of the town, as they see fit. We do not elect them to do our bidding and I, for one, do not expect to agree with every position or vote they cast. However, I take comfort in the knowledge that they can be retired every three years if enough people believe that someone else can do a better job. So the provision for removing unresponsive representatives already exists.

If a little democracy is a good thing, what’s wrong with more of it? If we feel a misguided councilor has made some mistakes or voted the wrong way too many times, why wait for another regular election to make him or her more responsive to the “will of the people?” Why not turf them out now, which is, in effect, the guiding principle of this proposed charter amendment?

If this amendment is adopted, it will effectively take the power of government out of the hands of the democratic majority who elected our representatives and place it in the hands of a small but determined minority with a large axe to grind. The new provision would make it possible for only 10 percent of the voters in the last gubernatorial election—roughly 280 people—to replace any councilor they wish. This means that about 280 people—out of more than 4,000 registered voters in South Berwick—could oust an elected official for any reason and at any time. Instead of voicing their grievances and competing in a normal election cycle, when far more citizens always turn out to vote, this small but determined minority could disenfranchise a far larger majority of their fellow townspeople.

Setting aside the costs of a petition and two special elections—the first to vote on the recall and the second to install a replacement councilor for the one who was removed—this strikes me as profoundly un-democratic. Democracy depends on patience, persuasion, compromise and respect for one’s fellow citizens. But it seems to me this recall procedure would make old-fashioned values of patience, compromise and respect redundant.

Do I think this will actually happen if the recall provision is adopted? Frankly, I don’t. I believe a majority of level-headed citizens will rise to the occasion and resist any temptation to dump our duly elected representatives—just because an angry minority won’t wait until the next election to challenge them legitimately at the polls. What such a recall provision will do, is derail the process of good government. It will raise the specter of government by perpetual election, government by intimidation and tyranny of the minority. And it will distract and inhibit the neighbors and fellow citizens who represent us from conducting the urgent business at hand.

In that sense, it hardly matters whether the supporters of a recall election win every—or even any—recall vote they attempt. Win or lose, the threat of recall will politicize every issue. It will inject more antagonism, more intimidation, more chaos—and less democracy—in a town whose political life is already reeling.

Is this the South Berwick we want to live in?

–Scott Landis