This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.

Makes No Sense

People are asking for the pros and cons of the proposed Chester charter. Even without doing that, it’s very easy to make the following argument for voting no on adopting the charter.

Chester, Deep River, and Essex are partners in many important components of our municipal government and civic activities. The most significant, by far, is our educational system, which constitutes 67% of our budget. Additionally, we formally share animal control services with both towns and share sewer and bulk waste disposal with Deep River. Many other minor affiliations also exist.

Deep River and Essex have governmental management systems that mirror our current system. If we were to adapt the charter as proposed, Chester, the smallest of the towns, would now introduce a new system of government that would need to mesh with the other two towns,

History shows we have always maintained good relations with the other two towns, and while there may have been a few bumps in the road, it manages to work well. If adopted, the Chester management system would be overseen, most likely, by an individual living elsewhere, with Essex and Deep River managed by town residents. It’s very easy to understand that residents managing their town often bring emotions into their decision-making process. Now, put a well-paid professional manager who acts pragmatically in the mix, and it seems like a recipe for disaster.

Does that scenario doom the prospect of this charter system working when it comes to the tri-town alliance? No. But why consider it when other elements come into play that put the proposal in a negative light, So when you add the dynamics of working with Essex and Deep River in an alliance of dissimilar governments, it simply makes no sense. Vote no.

Gary Pipkin

Chester