Smithfield's Antiquated Government - William Hawkins

Smithfield's Antiquated Government - William Hawkins

For far too long, the Town Manager form of government in Smithfield has represented political stagnation disguised as stability. What may have worked decades ago for a much smaller community no longer reflects the needs, expectations, or challenges of a modern town approaching 30,000 residents and operating with a budget exceeding $100 million.

 

The greatest disappointment is not simply the outdated structure itself, but the repeated unwillingness of town leadership to allow the voters to decide whether change is necessary.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

 

During the last Charter Review Commission process, the proposal for an elected mayoral form of government was seriously discussed, yet the Town Council ultimately failed to place the question before the public. Now, history appears to be repeating itself. Residents continue to hear discussions about reform while being denied the most basic democratic opportunity — the right to vote on the future structure of their own government.

 

That is wrong.

 

A system where three members of a five-member council can effectively control executive leadership, influence budget priorities, and dominate legislative direction is no longer adequate for a town of this size and complexity. Concentrated authority without direct voter accountability inevitably leads to complacency, limited vision, political insulation, and resistance to meaningful change.

 

Under the current structure, the town manager is ultimately accountable not to the tens of thousands of residents who live, work, and pay taxes in Smithfield, but to five elected officials — and, realistically, often to the majority of three who control the council. Instead of directly representing and answering to more than 22,000 residents, a town manager ultimately needs to satisfy five elected officials. That dynamic weakens transparency, dilutes public accountability, and distances executive leadership from the people most affected by its decisions.

 

For years, Smithfield has operated under a structure that too often confuses maintaining the status quo with effective governance. Stability is important, but stagnation is not leadership. Residents deserve more than a government focused on preserving political comfort and administrative routine while larger issues involving long-term planning, economic development, infrastructure, fiscal strategy, and community vision remain inadequately addressed.

 

Budgetary policies should reflect forward-thinking leadership and strategic investment for the future — not short-term decision-making designed primarily to avoid controversy or maintain the existing political balance.

 

An elected mayor with clearly defined term limits would create stronger executive leadership, clearer accountability, and a direct line between the voters and the individual responsible for carrying out the town’s priorities. At the same time, the Town Council would continue to play its critical legislative and budgetary role, creating a healthier and more balanced separation of responsibilities within town government.

 

Most importantly, the people themselves — not a council majority of three — would choose their executive leadership.

 

I sincerely appreciate the time, effort, and dedication of the Charter Review Commission members who volunteered to undertake this responsibility. Public service is demanding, often thankless work, and their willingness to participate in the process deserves recognition and respect.

 

However, respect for the commission does not require agreement with its conclusions.
 

Unfortunately, the commission appears constrained by institutional thinking and outside political influences that favor preserving the existing system rather than honestly evaluating whether it still serves the best interests of the taxpayers and residents of Smithfield. At times, it feels as though the process has been approached with blinders on — protecting the comfort of the current structure instead of embracing an open-minded discussion about accountability, modernization, and reform.

 

Smithfield cannot continue governing a growing modern community with an antiquated structure that discourages innovation, limits accountability, and protects political inertia. Leadership requires vision, independence, transparency, and the courage to trust the voters themselves.

 

Whether residents ultimately support or reject a mayoral system is secondary to the larger principle at stake: the people deserve the right to decide.

 

It is time to stop shielding the public from the question and finally place it before the voters.