A number of people in Chester have questioned me regarding the proposed charter, saying that, in their opinion, there hasn’t been enough clear, straightforward communication regarding the pros and cons. There’s been much communication, but as for clarity, not so much.

I tell inquirers, given my knowledge and biases, I suggest two words to understand the charter debate and suggest they understand the underlying reasoning. The two words are “bad charter.”

“Bad charter” means I will be voting against it. The underlying reasoning is that although I could favor a charter form of government, I’m opposed to a “bad” charter. The proposed charter is bad because it frighteningly concentrates power in the hands of a few people, giving them too long four-year elected terms (twice as long as now), while it eliminates the now powerful Board of Finance for a virtually powerless fiscal accountability board. That finance board change is akin to building cars without brakes.

I believe many people and groups on both sides have muddied the communication. As an example, anti-charter lawn signs wrongly claim there’d be a loss of the right to vote; while some voter impact might be lost, we’ll still vote. And democracy isn’t going away; its scope likely will shrink. As for “saving Chester,” a charter alone won’t kill the town.

The charter, as proposed, is the only one we get to vote on. I will vote against a bad charter. That’s not to say that a different charter effort in coming years, if my interests as a voter, taxpayer, and resident are protected, might get my vote. But in early voting and Tuesday, Nov. 5, I suggest remembering two words: bad charter.

Joe Cohen

Chester