In a succession of 5-4 votes, the Charter Commission tonight approved (in a straw vote) 12-year term limits for mayor and city council, and to retain eight-year term limits for School Committee.
Members acknowledged that they hadn’t heard much from residents about wanting term limits for mayor, but several felt that if the City Council is going to be term limited, it was important to do the same for the mayor’s office to retain the right balance of power.
Update: The votes were as follow:
In favor of 8-year term limits for School Committee: Frantz, Manning, Krintzman, Haywood, Barash. Opposed: Kidwell, Larner, Lipsitt, Steele (Note: some of the commissioners were in favor of 12 years instead of 8 for SC.)
In favor of 12-year term limits for mayor: Frantz, Manning, Barash, Larner, Kidwell. Opposed: Haywood, Lipsitt, Krintzman, Steele
In favor of 12-year term limits for City Council: Frantz, Manning, Larner, Kidwell, Haywood. Opposed: Barash, Lipsitt, Krintzman, Steele
So much for democracy.
I am dying to know who voted which way. If anyone knows, please post.
Interesting that Ward Councilors were removed as not being accountable to the voters at large but all positions will be accountable to the voters unless the term limit gets them first 🙂
Jeffrey,
I’ll double check my notes from the meeting and report back. What I do know is that it wasn’t the same people each vote.
Personally, I think that putting term limits on the mayor is practically asking for the charter to be defeated. Josh Krintzman, who voted against the term limits, made this point several times last night.
Nobody is asking for this fix. Newton residents loved having Ted Mann as their mayor for 24 years. Why would they vote for something that would prevent another Ted Mann-like legacy?
“Nobody is asking for this fix.”
Nobody asked for many of their changes, most prominently the elimination of the ward councilors. They seem blissfully unconcerned with what people actually want.
I am putting together a ballot question committee in order to defeat the charter commission changes, anyone interested in helping out please email me, my contact info is at http://www.emilynorton.org.
@Emily: Why do you need a ballot question? Why not just campaign against the proposed changes when it’s up for a vote?
Also, Emily: We know that the electorate wants a smaller council. You may not agree with the Charter Commission’s strategy for getting there (and I’m leaning toward agreeing with you), but it’s not accurate to say that nobody asked for that fix.
I withdraw my question about the ballot question committee. I misunderstood Emily’s comment.
Thanks Gail – for anyone else who is wondering, under campaign finance rules it is required to set up a ballot question campaign in order to pool funds to fight a local ballot question, which is what the charter change is. I will be fighting this with all I’ve got.
I agree with Gail that there is general support for “downsizing the Board [Council]”, though I think there are strong arguments against doing so. But in m opinion there is NOT strong or even weak support for doing so by getting rid of local representation in the form of ward councilors. If the charter commission had chosen to reduce the size of the Council by eliminating half the at-large seats, so there were half ward and half at-large councilors, and left it at that, I think there would be much more support for that. However that would empower rather than eliminate ward councilors which would be counter to the goal of at least some of the power structure in this City, which is to make it easier to get large developments approved.
@Emily: Isn’t it premature to be rallying support for a ballot question committee already? As Jane said, these are straw votes. We don’t know what the Charter Commission is going to revise for the final draft. I’ve already heard more than one commissioner say that s/he wants to revisit the article about the make up of the City Council.
I think it would be a lot more productive right now — and better for the community — to continue explaining to both voters and the commission why you disagree with them, rather than sending out a rallying cry for a battle.
I wouldn’t support any of the C.C proposals. The main reason is that all the commissioners have a central reason for all their proposals. That is to alter direct participation by the electorate in city government. They want to consolidate power into the hands of a few leaders who have a very different vision for Newton’s future.
Whether I vote on the proposed charter depends on whether I think it will result in a higher proportion of contested elections. Based on what I know today, I will vote for the charter (while plugging my nose).
The Charter Commission is on tightrope. In most elections, votes follow the recommendations of elected officials. Elected officials will not support the proposed charter and many will actively campaign against it. To overcome this, the CC needs to make a compelling case to the public. They can do so on council size. They should be able to do so on SC/Council term limits. Making a compelling case for mayor term limits, eliminating Ward councilors, and not having councilor races for individual positions will be harder.
As nutty as this sounds, I am surprised that CC has not paid for a robocall to likely voters to try to assess what will fly and what will not. Maybe public funds cannot be used for such things.
I think the mayoral term limit is a huge mistake. As Gail correctly pointed out, it would have cost this city a decade of Mayor Mann’s stellar leadership. I’m very opposed to this change in the Charter, as I remain opposed to eliminating ward representation. I do however have a lot of respect for the Charter Commission, their courage, along with the open and transparent way they are going about their work. I would hate to see this all come to nothing at the ballot box, leaving us with the same size City Council. Because in my mind at least, the size of the council was the principal issue the Charter Commission was formed to address.
I felt like there hadn’t been a lot of discussion on Mayor’s term limits so please email us if you have concerns or arguments as to whether it is a good idea.
To give people a bit of insight into my thinking:
I am of the belief that term limits must be addressed because it is inherently unfair and inconsistent to have term limits on the school committee but not the city counsel. My sense from my conversations with constituents is that most of them agree that it is unfair.
I am also of the belief that where we already have term limits on the school committee, most people seem to think that they work extremely well and would not support removing them. My sense is that people are very open to term limits being extended to the city counsel.
I don’t have a great sense for what people think on term limits for the Mayor. I am keeping an open mind and would be willing to revise my position based on public input. However, I expressed several times last night that I am concerned with the consequences of a 12 year term limit on the city counsel without a term limit on the Mayor. Our strong mayor system already affords quite a bit of power to the executive. I am concerned that the balance would tip too far in favor of an executive in situations where a long serving mayor significantly outserved all members of the city counsel.
Reminder: these are all straw votes. We have most of the pieces taken care of, but now need to take a look at how it holds together. Still lots of work to do.
As much as I respect the commissioners and the hard work they are doing, I hope some of their straw votes change. Mayoral term limits may be a mistake if they want their work to pay off. I agree with most of both Jeffrey and Mike’s comments and sincerely hope they consider what it may take to get the new charter passed during the final discussions. I would hate to have to scrap the good because it’s not perfect – it will never be perfect.
When it comes to term limits, philosophically I am on the fence. Term limits take power away from the voters, but the power of incumbency also takes power away from the voters–incumbents rarely get realistic challenges, so it’s rarely possible to “impose term limits at the ballot box”.
In the case of Newton, I was persuaded by the excellent research done by Anne Larner on elections history in Newton.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/76062
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/75784
Over the past 60 years, we have seen steadily increasing tenure on the City Council and steadily decreasing turnover in elections. We now average 15% turnover per election, which is about half of what I think would be ideal. In each election, it would be nice to have 2/3 institutional knowledge and 1/3 fresh ideas. The average tenure on the current City Council is 12 years and the median is 9.
Meanwhile, we have had term limits for School Committee members for 40+ years and they are viewed favorably–they seem to work well for Newton.
So I have come down in support of term limits on City Council. And I would not support term limits on the CC unless there were also term limits on the mayor, due to the risk of creating an imbalance of power. With 12-year limits on the CC, the average tenure would have to be 6 years or fewer. Matching that against a mayor who has been in office for 20 years would not be healthy.
I realize that some people think that with respect to mayoral term limits, “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it”, but we haven’t had CC term limits before. Limiting tenure there has direct implications on the office of the mayor.
Keep in mind that in all cases, the proposed limits are not lifetime limits, they are for consecutive years in office. Someone could serve 12 years, take 2 or more years off, and run and serve another 12 years.
@Rhanna, I don’t understand the following statement. Can you explain?
I don’t get the balance of power argument either. Presumably people would be coming and going from the City Council. Everybody wouldn’t be elected and term-limited at the same time as the mayor.
I also don’t have a clear sense as to what people think about term limits for the mayor. Many people have weighed in on the school committee and city council, so it’s good to open up the discussion on the mayor. People should keep in mind that V14 has a particular lens on local government that isn’t always in keeping with the larger population, so the conversations I look forward to will be in a variety of formats.
Unless you’ve attended all the meetings, you would not be aware that the Charter Commission has attempted to provide as many checks and balances between the mayor and the council, while still maintaining a strong mayoral form of government. So balance of power is an issue that comes up frequently. The goal is for the council to be able to hold its own (in a functional way) within a strong mayoral government.
@Jane, I think the Charter Commission should keep in mind balance of power, but I don’t understand how equivalent term limits between the mayor and the City Council play into that balance.
If the Charter Commission wants to ensure that power is given to and not taken away from the voters, then approve proportional voting. The minority is guaranteed a voice and the majority is guaranteed to maintain majority representation. Term limits serve neither purpose.
@Councilor Hess-Mahan: I appreciate the democratic benefits of proportional voting but as the former editor-in-chief and publisher of the Cambridge Chronicle, my head starts hurting just thinking about it. If folks think being asked to vote for 25 seats every two years overwhelms Newton voters, that’s nothing compared to that.
@Gail: We will just have to agree to disagree on the best path forward for those who disagree with the charter commission’s proposed changes to the city charter.
Then the mayor is less likely to have significantly more time in office (and therefore have accumulated more power) than at least some part of the city council. I’m not saying I agree with this or think it’s so. But in my mind, good government should include checks and balances on various branches of government and we should be thinking about how to establish them.
Thoughtful points by Brian and Rihanna.
Rihanna’s point in the ideal structure being 2/3 institutional knowledge, 1/3 new ideas feels about right. We’re not at that right now, and so the question is how to achieve that and whether term limits are part of the picture. Generally, it feels like term limits have more benefits than positives.
For those who oppose term limits, it’s be worth explaining whether they agree with the 1/3 new ideas proportion. If they think the current 15% is sufficient, and if not, other mechanisms for reducing a clear incumbency advantage.
Brian’s thoughts on balancing our strong Mayor position with term limits makes a lot of sense as well.
Gail, you are correct, that was a misstatement. The average tenure would not have to be 6 years or fewer, it would tend to be 6 years or fewer.
I’m not sure I understand your second question, but…a mayor who has been in office for 16 or 20 years has had that much time to build relationships with staff and build political clout with citizens. (Granted, that may be for positive reasons.) The strongest check on the power of the mayor is the city council. If the 13-member council is composed of people who have been in office for a range of 0 to 12 years (likely 6 or 7 of them have been in office 6 years or fewer), they have had considerably less time to learn the ropes and develop professional relationships and political clout. The council would be considerably weaker politically than the mayor and would not provide as strong a check as what we have today. In looking at other cities who have term limits (mostly not in New England), they generally have the same term limit for mayor as for city council.
But Greg, the minority candidates will be well known to the minority of voters who want to get them elected. And voters can cast as many or as few votes as they want, as long as they are rank ordered. No harder than a survey, really. And, let’s face it, Newton voters bullet all the time to give their candidate a better chance in the at large council races (where up to 4 candidates run for 2 seats). And, in fact, I would argue that anyone who is knowledgeable enough to rank vote 25 candidates deserves to get the chance!
I agree with Councilor Hess-Mahan. I don’t think it’s too much to ask of voters to have them rank candidates. A proportional system would be easier for voters to navigate than a system where they have to track separate at-large races in each ward and pure at large races. As Ted points out, most voters will just vote for the candidates they really care about. Sure it will require educating voters about the new system, but it would be worth it to ensure we still have minority representation on the council. I am guessing it would also mean elections would always be contested.
Prediction: The League of Women Voters will spend gobs of money and personpower to further the final vote of the Charter Commission. There will be a counter Charter change opposition that will fight the change equally well. The Charter will be defeated. Why? Because all the signatories to the Charter change petition ever agreed to was a smaller Council. A simple reduction from 24 to 16, 1/2 at large, 1/2 ward direct elected would pass. As far as term limits, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds” as Ralph Waldo Emerson observed…term limits for SC are fine and need not be applied to Councilors or Mayors. The CCommish is crawling too far out on a thin branch! Just sayin’
I think proportional voting is a great way to select Councilors. I would much prefer it to the way it is now. I don’t like the current way.
I would never vote for a charter that includes 1/2 ward and 1/2 at large Councilors. I think, if ward councilors are kept, there have to be a majority of them elected city wide.
Marti: The answer to the power in 1/2 and 1/2 ward and at-large councilors is to have the council leadership elected only from the at-large councilors, voted on by all 16!
I’m not entirely clear on proportional voting, but I believe a city could be even more divided by its results. I believe that coalitions of the weirdest sort can form with proportional voting. Isn’t Israel’s parliament formed via proportional voting? Governments fall. Not what we would want in Newton. Also, sometimes the majority lives under the tyrrany of the minority. Alice in Wonderland?
@Sallee, Israel’s proportional representation system, which allocates seats among parties according to the proportion of votes each party receives (and with a low 3.5% threshold) is very different than the non-partisan single transferable vote system used in Cambridge. The STV (or “choice voting”) system used in Cambridge is designed to ensure majority control while allowing minority representation.
It seems as though there may be a number of potential issues being raised by the Charter Commission, with them not really having a sense of how the community feels.
I think the Charter Commission should request that the City Council approve a number of non binding questions for our next election, to try to get a best sense of how the community stands on issues such as term limits for the Mayor, councilors, and school committee, as well as the elimination of the ward councilors; and any other controversial issues.
It would be a shame to have a change in charter shot down because the commission was just guessing incorrectness how people might feel.
While it isn’t a guarantee, it will be helpful information to put forward a proposal, and will cost the city almost nothing to accomplish it.
(assuming we can place local non binding questions, during a federal election)
@Sallee – 100% agree that $$$ will be spent. It happened for the override vote. Infrastructure used in presidential elections was brought and consultants were paid.
People like you and me will write letter to the TAB, but will be incapable of raising money for a counter campaign. The CC will raise money from developers, from Florida and California.
I am sorry to say, the CC will pass. Money wins, Grassroot looses!
PS – Dont ask me for some FEC link for override vote. I am not that sophisticated, but know it for fact it happened.
I’d add to Emily’s point by using a phrase from Benjamin Franklin: “By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”