Airport opponents pushing initiative to revamp Massport board
By Steve Leblanc, Associated Press, 8/14/2001 15:17

BOSTON (AP) Airport foes are pushing a ballot question they say would make
Massport more accountable by abolishing the appointed board and replacing it
with an elected one.

But Massport, which runs Logan International Airport, is hoping to quash the
ballot question before voters get the chance to weigh in.

Massport's seven board members are currently appointed by the governor to
staggered seven-year terms. The ballot question would let voters elect a new
board every eight years.

An elected board would be more democratic and more willing to listen to the
concerns of Massachusetts residents, said Sumin Tchen, 50, a Concord
technology entrepreneur pushing the question.

''It does require voters to be more aware of the process, but at the end of
the day you end up with a better result,'' said Tchen, an opponent of
commercial air traffic at nearby Hanscom Field in Bedford. Massport runs
Hanscom Field.

The question would also require Massport to draft a new regional
transportation plan every seven years.

Tchen said the plan would force Massport to look at alternate means of
public transportation instead of pushing for new runways at Logan or opening
Hanscom Field to commercial airlines.

But Massport is hoping to block the question from the 2002 ballot.

In a six-page letter to Attorney General Thomas Reilly, who must rule on the
constitutionality of proposed ballot question, Massport attorney David
Mackey said Tchen's question violates the state constitution.

Ballot questions are prohibited from targeting a ''particular town, city or
other political division.'' Mackey argued Tchen's question is
unconstitutional because Massport is a ''political subdivision distinct from
the commonwealth and analogous to a municipal corporation.''

Mackey also pointed to an opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court in 1956, the
year the Legislature approved the law that created the Massachusetts Port
Authority.

Before approving the law, the state Senate asked the court if Massport would
be vulnerable to a ballot question. The court said Massport ''would not be
subject to referendum.''

''There is no doubt that the Supreme Judicial Court would conclude that any
(ballot question) seeking changes to the Massport Enabling Act...would be
improper,'' Mackey said.

Tchen isn't convinced the current SJC would agree with the opinion expressed
in 1956.

Anastasia Lyman lives in the Jamaica Plain neighborhood of Boston and has
been battling Logan expansion for years. She said she isn't surprised
Massport is trying to quash the question.

''Anyone who's dealt with Massport would be interested in anything that
would undo this little monopoly, this little fiefdom they have and bring
some accountability into the process,'' she said.

Jose Juves, a spokesman for Massport, declined to comment.

At the very least, Tchen said, Massport should be required to take a
comprehensive look at the region's transportation needs every seven years
instead of waging protracted legal battles over new runways.

''The way to solve (transportation needs) is not to come up with Band-Aid
solutions and then go to court,'' Tchen said.

Reilly is expected to rule on the constitutionality of potential ballot
questions by Sept. 5.

==========
**NOTICE:  In accordance with 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.**
==========