To understand the divide over a proposed city charter that goes before voters in Afton on Nov. 2, look no further than the panel that has spent nearly three years drawing up the document.
Jon Kingstad, an attorney who is chairman of the 10-member Charter Commission, sees the proposal as an opportunity to make an often-gridlocked local government more responsive and accountable to its citizens.
David West, an equally civic-minded former research ship captain who serves on the commission, sees a deeply flawed document that's essentially a solution in search of a problem. He is one of three Charter Commission members who opposed the document's final version.
At public meetings, on two competing websites and in personal conversations around town, voters are trying to sort through passionate arguments from both sides.
About 110 of the state's 850 cities are organized by charters -- essentially local constitutions. The rest are "statutory cities" that are organized under rules set by state law. There are advantages and disadvantages to each system.
For Kingstad, the impetus to come up with a new way to do things began in 2007, when the five-member Afton City Council bogged down in debate on funding a road project.
"The upshot is that the City Council ended up proposing a property tax increase of 38 percent -- it was a huge, huge increase all at once, just for this one road," he said. "We should have some kind of mechanism for calling people on this."
For Kingstad and supporters, it was one more frustrating example of City Council gridlock. A 3-2 majority would set policy one way, then a change in regimes would bring a 3-2 vote to undo the prior policy. On top of that, council members serve four years, and the mayor serves two years, leaving little recourse in breaking the deadlocks.