While only advisory bodies, the councils are an excellent way to organize local voices, foster citizen engagement and provide a training ground of sorts for future city leaders.
Read the TAB’s full editorial here.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Great editorial. I agree with just about every word of it. Particularly, “Certainly, the Charter Commission would be wise to propose revising the language of Article 9 to more clearly define area boundaries. The commission’s draft charter should also clarify the process for creating councils, further establish them as strictly advisory bodies and streamline their functions, with some flexibility.”
And
“While there’s something to be said for reducing the council’s overall size, abolishing the ward councilors (elected only by each ward’s residents) would, in our opinion, overly centralize local government.”
Spot on!
I really hope CC retains Ward Councillors and NAC. I signed the petition to form CC, to reduce the # of councillors, but I will vote and fight against any elimination of ward representation and accountability.
Finally, I sincerely request CC members to not dig there heels on this board. It will just make it difficult for you to change your mind when it comes to packaging the final proposal. Just $0.02 without any judgement.
@Andy. You hit a ten strike for what you said about both area councils and ward city council members. I just want to add that I’m certain the Charter Commission made the decision to eliminate ward councilors in good faith for what they believe is best for Newton’s future. I just believe that a combination of ward councilors, strong area councils and strong neighborhood associations gives so much to the City that far outweighs any improvement in efficiency that a smaller council would provide.
I’m a BIG area council fan (and former area councilor) but I still think someone has to come up with a process that establishes area councils city wide.
It’s undemocratic for some residents to be represented by a government body while others aren’t, strictly because of their geography. And while I feel it would be a BIG loss to lose the ACs that we have (and as a Highlands resident benefit from) I think its inappropriate to put this in the charter without resolving this.
In fact, I’m not a lawyer, but I wonder if it’s unconstitutional?
Andy’s editorial is persuasive.
I have not really paid attention to the area council issue (yet). So, I don’t know the other side. I live in Chestnut Hill and I don’t think we have council. Are we prohibited from having a council? If not, what would the prevent us from starting our own council?
I believe that the area councils are doing a fantastic job of engaging more people in the political process. To provide everyone with an update, at our last meeting the Charter Commission took steps to include the Area Councils in our proposed charter.
However, as many have pointed out including members of the area councils, there are significant questions about how we allow (or force) expansion, how we set boundaries, what their exact role should be, etc. The straw votes the Commission has taken so far would give the City Council significant authority to answer these questions.
I strongly believe this is the right path to take. As Emily Norton has said, the councils are “a wonderful innovation”. In order to allow them to grow and adapt, and allow the city to adapt with them, as they become more widely established, the flexibility this proposed charter would provide is appropriate.
@Jeffrey Pontiff – No,Chestnut Hill does not have an Area Council but nothing would prevent the residents of Chestnut Hill from forming one if they so desired.
Excellent editorial by Andy Levin. Even aside from my quotes in it 🙂
Hooray, Andy!
Glad to see Andy support local accountability and oppose concentrating power in a small power elite. Nicely done.
Great piece. I noticed there’s no byline for the editorial. Was that Andy’s alone?
@KathyWinters
Whenever the piece is unsigned and labeled “Editorial” I have written it, but have also closely consulted with staff, our editorial board, to form a consensus of opinion. That was the case with the area councils piece.
Whenever you see my mug and “My View” label, it is just that. This doesn’t necessarily mean other staff disagree with the opinion. In the case of the “Yes to more charter schools” column a couple weeks ago, it did reflect a lack of consensus on Question 2.
Anyway, enough inside baseball. I hope the CC agrees with our sentiment. I expect a straw vote will be taken tonight.
I hate to be the broken record, odd-man out here, but I still think the fairness question for charter commissions needs to be addressed and I’d like to hear what everyone who is applauding Andy’s editorial thinks about that.
To repeat: It is undemocratic for some residents to be represented by a government body while others aren’t, strictly because of their geography. It might even be unconstitutional.
Newton Center, for example, tried to form an area council and for good or bad reasons it never got off the ground. That means the Newton Centre residents who wanted one were denied this form of government representation that citizens in other villages have.
And what about the residents who live in one of those corners of a city that really doesn’t fit into a area council’s geography? Where’s their voice in this officially sanctioned government structure?
So yes, yes Jeffrey Pontiff, the residents of Chestnut Hill could petition to form one and then go before the city council and be officially recognized.
But if your neighbors don’t want one and you do, you are out of luck.
All of this may be fine outside the realm of government. Anyone could form a neighborhood association, for example, without everyone needing a neighborhood association.
But our area councils are official government entities and folks once dumped tea in the Boston Harbor over that.
@Andy thank you for clarifying!
@Greg
I don’t think there is anything in Article 9 that prevents other villages from forming an area council. To the contrary, that is why the CC is concerned about the pressure on the Elections Commission. There certainly is cause to tighten the definitions of what an area council does and how it is to be established. My guess is the City Council would be handed this task by the Charter Commission. I’m obviously not an attorney either, but am not sure about your question of the system being unconstitutional. A couple things to consider: The area councils control no taxpayer funds and can’t make policy…. They study, advise, independently support events like Village Day, etc…
@Andy: Thanks for responding.
Yes our existing charter allows for other villages to form area councils but I do not think being allowed to form one negates the unfairness that some citizens are represented by them them and others aren’t.
For example, I am fortunate enough to be represented by the Highlands Area Council. Someone in, say, Nonantum, doesn’t have that same access to equal representation under this form of government ONLY because of their address. Why is that not discriminatory?
As for the argument that area councils control no taxpayer funds and can’t make policy, etc., then why make them official government bodies subject to open meeting laws, fundraising limitations, etc.? An effective area council can play a role in influencing all sorts of public policy. Why should Waban residents have that voice while Newton Corner residents don’t?
Greg’s fighting a worthy battle here as the premise of equal representation is a big deal. Of those area councils that attempted to form but failed, in the end, what prevented them from doing so?
As I’ve said before, if you think it’s unfair or undemocratic for some people to have access to ACs but not others, the answer isn’t to get rid of them – it’s to make sure that everyone has one. If they are useful, then let’s have our City Council or whatever City department is appropriate draw up boundaries defining who belongs with which potential AC and then start the process to initiate them.
I don’t understand this instinct some people have to get rid of anything that isn’t available to everyone, rather than working to ensure wider availability.
@MGWA: To be clear, I’m not suggesting getting rid of area councils. I heart my area council!
I am suggesting that we need a way to provide access to area councils to all residents and that now is the time to figure out how we do that because it belongs in the charter.
But absent a solution, yes, we should not allow some residents to have them while others don’t.
Well, Greg, you may have your way tonight. The CC is about to take a straw vote on a proposed draft up on their website that will erase the “government” concept from Area Council purpose. No longer will the AC’s purpose be “limited self-government…as legal entities of the city government.” CC’s Lipsitt and Kidwell didn’t like the AC’s to be elevated to the level of “government” at all, and the other six CC’s didn’t have the starch to speak up to recognize the importance of maintaining that concept as the fundamental birthright of AC’s. So, tonight they will likely change the AC purpose to a description of AC function (“to encourage citizen engagement and facilitate communication”). Without maintaining “official government status” the AC loses a compelling difference from neighborhood associations. I believe all area of the city should be encouraged to form AC’s, the carrot offered being that AC’s would be part of the government…non-funded, but recognized as legitimate through an official election process and working in open, transparent and accountable manner. That is not what neighborhood associations offer. In this era of distrust of our government institutions, it is absurd that non-elected groups can now be elevated to the status of elected volunteers who are willing to work in the light of day under OML for their constituencies. By the way, those neighborhood associations don’t have to reach out to the city through a designated liaison, they can approach city officials any time or way they choose. But, if the draft language being proposed today on the CC website for Article 9 is accepted in the straw vote, AC councilors will be constrained from reaching out in that manner.
@Salle: That is not me getting “my way.” Please reread my comments.
As I understand it, the quasi-governmental status of area councils was meant to provide a two-way benefit, giving residents of this neighborhood or that a more concentrated voice at City Hall, while also giving City Hall a limited number of groups to have to deal with about neighborhood issues. City Councilors may not be happy with the idea of doing away with area councils if that leaves them with a scrum of neighborhood associations, ad hoc interest groups, and exercised individuals to be forever negotiated with or fended off, as the case may be. If area councils are to remain an option, the city needs to draw reasonable area boundaries in advance and establish reasonable rules that apply to all. Although I came very late to the ultimately unsuccessful effort to form a Newton Centre area council a few years back, I was around long enough to experience the frustration of having the goal posts constantly moved by a constantly changing cast of characters on what was then the Board of Aldermen. Residents need to know in advance that whoever they are, and however politically connected they may or may not be, if they put in the effort and follow the rules, an area council will result.
Greg, your point is valid. The administration has someone in charge of volunteerism (sorry I can’t remember the title). It would be very easy for that person to organize some volunteers to go door to door and get the signatures to form Ac’s in the other 9 villages. There are roughly 50,000 registered voters and 13 villages which probably means roughly 4,000 voters each village. This means approximately 100 signatures from 8-10 volunteers (with extra signatures) and you have the start of an AC. It’s ridiculously easy, but no one wants to organize and do the leg work.
Also, Andy nice editorial!!
Amanda: If you don’t mind me asking, at the end of the day, what specifically caused the formation of the Newton Centre AC to fail?
Tom: For details, you would have to ask people more closely involved than I was. What was envisioned was an area council for people living within a half-mile radius or so of the village center, and this was the area within which signatures were gathered, basically within the boundaries of Ward 6. This took quite a long time. At the hearing I attended before the Board of Aldermen after the signatures were submitted, complaints were raised (for the first time, as I understand it) that this area was much too small, some people arguing that a Newton Centre area council would have to cover the entire 02459 zip code and then some, all the way to Oak Hill. That would have made the task overwhelming, with approval remaining uncertain, and wouldn’t have produced the kind of group the organizers had in mind in the first place, so the petition was withdrawn. It wasn’t a happy situation.
What does “wouldn’t have produced the kind of group the organizers had in mind in the first place” mean?
Marti & Tom,
The proposed boundaries for the Newton Centre NAC in no way reflected a 1/2-mile radius around the NC village centre. The boundaries carved out a district in the southeast corner of NC. If you draw a circle around the village center, 80% of the circle was not included in the NAC.
Opponents of the NAC formation argued that the organizers gerrymandered a district to capture a neighborhood of well-established anti-development advocates who wanted to form the NAC and then speak on behalf of all Newton Centre. The organizers argued that it was just that the signature collection effort for a bigger geography was too burdensome. In the end, the Board of Aldermen heard from so many residents who felt they should reasonably be included in a NC NAC the the BoA did not feel comfortable approving the petition.
Sorry, I meant to also direct that comment to Amanda.
To Greg’s point…the Attorney General has to approve the proposed charter as being consistent with state law, which of course has to be consistent with the US constitution. The AG approved the language on NACs in the charter 45 years ago, so unless something has changed, it seems that the constitution is ok with people having the right to form an NAC without them being forced to form one.
I feel strongly that NACs only work well if they are organically formed—that an NAC is formed when the residents petition the City Council. As it stands now, the 4 established NACs often have trouble filling all 9 seats. If a village is forced to form a NAC, filling seats could be a huge issue and the “representation” offered by the NAC would be meaningless.
In addition to its NACs, Newton has many active neighborhood associations (Nonantum, Chestnut Hill, Lower Falls to name a few) that are powerful advocates for their respective communities. Many of these groups have considered forming an NAC and rejected the idea for various reasons. I think they should be allowed to operate as they see fit. (A separate group could, of course, still form an NAC in any of these neighborhoods, but perhaps the need is filled already by the associations.)
Rhanna, thank you for the explanation. I thought that was the reason it was not formed.
Finally…last night the charter commission voted (6-3) to include an Article 9 that reaffirms the existence of NACs with advisory authority. The details of formation, elections, and boundaries are to be established via ordinance. The charter is so inflexible, and NACs are evolving. As new NACs have formed in recent years, issues have arisen that weren’t contemplated in the 1971 charter. We don’t want to repeat that mistake.
Sallee says “CC’s Lipsitt and Kidwell didn’t like the AC’s to be elevated to the level of “government” at all, and the other six CC’s didn’t have the starch to speak up to recognize the importance of maintaining that concept as the fundamental birthright of AC’s.”
Incorrect. All commissioners discussed the first part of Article 9. All had the “starch” to speak up. The language is in the draft discussed further last night.
Prospective language.
Bryan and Josh propose incorporating both:
“It is the purpose of this article to encourage citizen involvement in government at the neighborhood level and to facilitate communications between residents and city officials.”
“ The City Council may establish neighborhood area councils to advise the city council and mayor on neighborhood and city-wide issues.”
Bryan moves to accept Josh’s proposed statement. Chris seconds.
First sentence passes 5-2-1
Bryan makes motion to accept sentence two. Chris seconds.
The second sentence passes 4-3-1
The motion passes and both sentences are included.”
I’ll say again, I can’t speak for others. But the assumption, as I understood it, was that the area would grow by grass-roots effort as additional blocks petitioned in, and that residents who didn’t know or didn’t agree with the organizers would vote for different leaders once it came time to formalize the council or run for leadership positions themselves, and that would determine the direction the council would take. This may have been naive, but there was nothing sinister about it.
It seems to me that one important step would be for the City (whether by ordinance or other method) to establish boundaries for the ACs, preferably ASAP. That would avoid situations like the one in Newton Centre, and enable organizers to start out knowing who the potential constituents were.
@Marty Bowen: You didn’t catch what I was referring to. The current charter defines the purpose of AC’s as “It is the purpose of this article to encourage citizen involvement in government at the neighborhood level by
permitting limited self-government through the establishment of neighborhood area councils as legal entities of the city government.” It is the final seven words of that sentence to which I refer. For the last four decades AC’s have been legal entities of the city government. At last Wednesday’s CC meeting on Article 9 Rhanna and Brooke appeared upset (perhaps repulsed?) with the notion that AC’s should rise above other associations to the level of being “legal entities of city government” and so they asked to remove that concept. No one of the other six commissioners present stood up to argue strongly to retain it!
Sallee, I understood what you said. In the discussion concerning whether to include “legal entities of the city government,” Brooke and Rhanna broached the subject of leaving it out,” obviously the other commissioners agreed with them if they did not even bring up leaving it in.
mgwa, the draft article includes
“A. The city council shall establish guidelines for neighborhood area council boundaries and creation. The guidelines shall include a minimum and maximum number of voters to be represented by a neighborhood area council; provided, that at the time of the establishment of a neighborhood area council, the number of residents contained within the service area shall be no fewer than the average number of residents in a precinct, nor greater than the average number of residents in a ward.”
And if the revised charter doesn’t pass, the City Council should start action to establish those guidelines.
If the revised charter doesn’t pass, the City Council will not have the authority to establish changes in any part of the area council article because the authority will remain in the current charter.
The current charter states: “The city council may establish 1 or more neighborhood service areas to provide services or functions that the neighborhood area council is authorized to undertake.”
Although I am not an attorney, that sentence in our current charter seems to me to allow the City Council to mark the territory to be included in any future area council service area. Although the Charter goes on to allow creation by voter petition, it does not anywhere rule out creation of service areas by City Council! Any attorneys out there who are willing to speak to this?
@Sallee, I think that the clause you quote is part of the reason that the petition was withdrawn from the Newton Centre group. If I recall correctly, the law dept looked at the charter and determined that the city council had the authority to establish the AC and set the boundaries. So perhaps the good news is the charter commission is wordsmithing and not materially changing this part of the charter.
The following section( 9-3a) of the current charter states, “A petition may be submitted to the board of Aldermen requesting the establishment of a neighborhood service area to provide any service or services which the City is otherwise authorized by law to provide.” In 9-3c, the charter states, “the Board of Aldermen shall by resolution approve or disapprove the establishment of the requested neighborhood service area” Note the word “requested”. In reality, the four existing area councils were formed organically with activists collecting signatures from streets in an undefined area.
Rhanna who lives in Newton Centre gave a complete explanation of what happened in that instance in an earlier post in this thread.
“As it stands now, the 4 established NACs often have trouble filling all 9 seats.”
The Newtonville Area Council has never had trouble filling seats, and in fact has competitive elections.
Here’s Jonathan’s story from the meeting http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20161027/newton-charter-commission-votes-to-keep-neighborhood-area-councils