Reading the StarDem July 20th front page coverage of Oxford’s vote to amend the town charter made it sound like democracy has finally come to the town after 300 years under the tyranny of three commissioners and a town manager.
The campaign for the charter resolution (to revise the commissioner vacancy election system) in Oxford was largely a deception. We were told that it was about having popular election when it was actually a ploy for opportunists quickly to replace two of the three commissioners and fire the town manager as retribution for releasing the police chief, and perhaps appoint the former police chief as a commissioner.
Until the police chief was fired, few residents bothered to attend town meetings or read the meeting minutes on web site or even vote for commissioners. Why? Because most folks knew the town was effectively managed.
I’d strongly suggest that if no one had gotten wind of Mr and Mrs. Wells planning to sell their house, that this “Resolution” scheme would never have been conceived. Quickly to ram through a charter amendment to gain an immediate political advantage in a moment of high emotion is prima facie evidence of demagoguery, not democracy or patriotism. Quick, sign here. The absurdity here is that the language of the Resolution was quite flawed yet it was slammed through anyway. It will have to be changed again, but ironically, by the commissioners.
My view of Oxford had already been shaken and lowered by the ugly scenes at the Fire House event berating the three commissioners and town manager, as if they had committed some crime. I’m quite certain it was a difficult decision but that they felt was required. Sometimes it takes real courage to make an unpopular leadership decision. The same goes for the town manager. And finally, they would never have taken that personnel action without the advice and agreement of the town attorney.
It is the right of every Oxford citizen to believe or not to believe in the integrity of those three decision makers, the town manager and the town attorney and believe they acted on some personal bias. All three commissioners had previously maintained reasonably good personal relationships with the large majority of townspeople. It utterly disgusted me to see so many people turn so viciously on the three, including threats and gross personal affronts. If you think that the emotional and visceral reactions are a good reflection on the town or ethically appropriate and not an affront to democratic principles, think again. There was nothing patriotic in that behavior unless you think mobocracy is a legitimate part of the American way.
Further, the recent campaign for commissioner employed constant falsehoods, innuendo and horrendous rumor mongering unworthy of an ethical effort, in my view. Unsubstantiated accusations of skimming money from the nearly $3 millions in grants that the town manager worked so hard to successfully bring to Oxford that have benefited this town so much is beneath contempt. Innuendo that the town’s annual audits were not completed or not legitimate were shameful and inappropriate.. Making federal cases out of identifying a centrally located park for another grant and as some egregious outrage is absurd, but it helped fan the flames of resentment against the town manager. The steady drumbeat of accusations and innuendo on local chat web sites were also consistently false.
Equally troublesome and a bad reflection on Oxford is the reality that many residents in our town have largely ignored any involvement or participation in town hall meetings for most of the decade that the town manager has served Oxford. Most folks haven’t attended monthly town meetings nor checked the town web site to read minutes or updates. If there was a weakness of democracy in Oxford that is it.
Further, the primary reason for residents’ relative nonchalance about the town’s management is the excellent job done by the town manager herself! She knows her job and that she can’t be giving breaks and deals to “entitled”, wealthy residents who simply expect to get their way when protesting a water bill or some town building code requirement. Thus, there has existed an undercurrent of resentment by some. This resentment, combined with the anger over the police chief’s release was seized upon by numerous residents with personal grievances against the town manager whose job it is not to grant immunity from paying for incurred bills and handing out special favors upon request or demand.
Democracy has been present in Oxford for many decades. The town manager and commissioners have done well. They have acted in the best interests of the town, with the involvement of the town attorney. The slapdash charter amendment isn’t creating democracy. If anything, its creating a torch and pitchfork mentality to punish those who have acted responsibly to protect the interests of the town and its residents.
Mickey Terrone
Oxford
Gerry Early says
Why was the police chief fired? What’s the story on the Wells’ house? Why publish somthing like this without laying out sufficient facts or context to understand its principal points?
Mickey Terrone says
If you need a full backgrounder, you probably haven’t been paying attention. It’s an Oxford thing.
Chip Heartfield says
Why the flip reply, Mr. Terrone? You sent a letter to the “Talbot” Spy, after all. I read the Spy and the Star-Dem and even so, wished for more facts and context, too. I understand you have personal feelings about this, but a more thoughtful and detailed letter might have benefited folks who live in other small municipalities and been instructive about the merits of appointments vs elections. Educating and explaining are always better than just venting.
Mickey Terrone says
Mr. Heartfield, I believe there is ample information available in Spy and StarDem articles, and thus, I don’t think its very important to rehash the whole story in every article. I actually checked the Oxford Diectory but did not find Mr. Early listed anywhere. I also think the article was fairly long anyway. With respect to the theme of the workings of citizens in small town democracy, I believe my commentary was fairly instructive.
Margaret C. Fisher says
The letter writer fails to mention that his wife benefitted from the pre-resolution vote by being appointed to fill the Wells vacancy. Does he also mention the fact that his wife was defeated in her run to be popularly-elected? I ran out of interest in his letter to find out by giving it a close read.
Mickey Terrone says
The beneficiary of Susan’s appointment isn’t Susan. Its Oxford, which will benefit from her commitment to civic duty, which she has demonstrated for many years in Oxford and Talbot County.
Paul Callahan says
The ability to choose the leaders of our government is considered a sacred and inalienable right within our American Democracy. Some within Oxford reject the idea that the leaders of the town, both elected and appointed, serve at the pleasure of her citizens. Any power and authority which the leaders of Oxford wield has been delegated onto them by her citizens. At one point in Oxford’s history the citizens bestowed upon the commissioners the authority to appoint a commissioner to fill a vacancy when required. Now the citizens of Oxford desire to rescind that authority and return that important decision to their own deliberations.
There are allegations of “malfeasance” on all sides. Such allegations and counter allegations has always occurred in our democracy and continues today at all levels of government. History, however, has made it absolutely clear that whenever power is consolidated upon a few true malfeasance occurs at the expense of the people.
Mr. Terrone asserts the competency of the leaders of the town of Oxford, but in reality it was their own actions and misjudgments that placed them in the situation where the people of Oxford desire to both censor and correct their actions. Regardless of the accuracy of any “he said” accusations, it is the absolute right of the people to return upon themselves specific powers and authority which they had previously bestowed upon the Oxford Commissioners.
Mickey Terrone says
Mr. Callahan. You wrote ”History, however, has made it absolutely clear that whenever power is consolidated upon a few true malfeasance occurs at the expense of the people”.
How do you know the commissioners committed “malfeasance” of any kind. How do you know they didn’t act wisely in the best interests of the people of Oxford according to the oaths they took? How do you know this emotional and visceral campaign based upon unsubstantiated allegations is at all legitimate and worthy of anything that resembles our American democratic traditions?
What is clear is that until the action to replace the police chief occurred, there was no groundswell of demand to change the manner of replacing commissioners who would/could not complete their term of office. There wasn’t even a peep about it. In fact, there have been excellent examples of that system working for the benefit of Oxford, even during the time you lived here.
You wrote “…..in reality it was their own actions and misjudgments that placed them in the situation where the people of Oxford desire to both censor and correct their actions.” There is no evidence whatsoever that the commissioners’ and town manager’s actions were misjudgments at all. The only real evidence is that the former chief signed the NDA is his own best interests to protect his own reputation. I believe neither of us would have signed anything if we believed we were not culpable of some action (or lack thereof) serious enough to be removed from a long-held position.
Thus, the frantic push deceptively to ram through this poorly worded resolution is little more than a ploy quickly to replace a second commissioner when it was realized that Brian Wells was planning to move from town. Susan and I signed it under what we now believe to be false pretenses and I believe many others would have done so, as well. There is no evidence that the commissioners did not act other than according to the oaths they took. Even now the resolution needs immediate revision, and technically thus, not what the citizens voted on.
If you believe its justifiable, based upon your own uninformed judgments of “malfeasance” and “misjudgments” to change the town form of government and act precipitously to remove a highly competent town manager, that is unfortunate. The town will have the opportunity again in 2024 to vote on a commissioner.
Editor says
I’d like to thank the participants who engaged in our comment section. The issues and concerns raised in this exchange are helpful for the entire community to hear and debate and the Spy is grateful for many different voices heard.
We are now ending this comment thread but with the hope that others will continue to share their thoughts and suggestions for a better Oxford through our Letters to the Editor section.