I am beyond disappointed to learn that the Charter Commission reversed its decision – again – on residency requirements for the four district council seats. Chris Steele changed his vote.
I think this will be a deal breaker for a lot of people, and I can’t imagine why Steele, Howard Haywood, Rhanna Kidwell, Anne Larner and Karen Manning are willing to risk that all the work they’ve done for the past 1 ½ years will be for naught. The Newton Citizens for Local Representation group must be rejoicing. Their job to defeat the new charter just got a lot easier.
Here’s the email I sent to the Charter Commission today stating why I thought residency requirements were essential:
“The recent decision to require residency within districts turned me into a definite yes vote for the proposed charter. Should the Commission revert back to the proposal that four at-large seats would have no residency requirement, I will most likely vote — and possibly campaign — against a new charter.
I am comfortable with giving up the ward councilor seats because I don’t think there’s a way to reduce the council size and retain those seats without restructuring the balance of power (between ward and at-large councilors). Yet, eliminating residency requirements for four seats could also restructure the balance of power. In the current council composition, the maximum number of councilors who could live in the same neighborhood is three. Without districts, the maximum number of councilors who could live in the same neighborhood is five. I am not comfortable with trading 3 of 24 (13 percent) for 5 of 12 (42 percent). Even two years is a long time to allow such a warped distribution of councilors to exist.
In addition, I am disheartened by the argument that no residency requirement would allow the “best people” to be elected. The Charter Commission’s goals do not – and should not – include improving the quality of candidates. Charter Commissioners’ opinions of elected officials or candidates (past or future) are irrelevant and they should not enter into the discussion.”
Thank you, Gail, for teeing this up in a new thread.
The decision to revert to the original model came down to whether we have enough time remaining to responsibly determine the districts. Defining of legislative boundaries is a hot topic across the nation these days. At a minimum, a responsible process would include establishing criteria for defining districts, selecting a district proposal, vetting that proposal, taking a straw vote on that proposal, holding a public hearing (with adequate advance notice), and then meeting to review the feedback and take a final vote. Our final proposal is due to the attorney general 3 weeks from today, and next week is school vacation. And finalizing the council proposal is not the only work the charter commission has left to do. This time frame was a concern for all of the commissioners, and 5 of us felt that the risks associated with rushing through the process outweighed the benefits.
None of the models are perfect, each has its strengths and weaknesses. The district model does not guarantee geographic dispersion of councilors. Any combination of existing wards into districts has points where 3 or 4 districts meet and a cluster of ward-based and district-based councilors could be elected from one part of town. Wards are just constructs—my own neighborhood sits in two different wards.
Newton has had only geographically restricted councilors for the last 120 years, so it is difficult for long-time Newton residents to grasp the concept of the unrestricted at-large representatives. They don’t represent the ward they live in. Last fall I spent time calling city clerks in cities with unrestricted at-large councilors. I asked them to tell me, anecdotally, whether the clustering of at-large councilors is in certain parts of town is an issue. They were uniformly baffled by the question. They all responded along the lines of, But they’re elected to represent the whole city, not their neighborhood, why would it matter where they live?
The risk that an individual councilor elected at-large without residency requirement might focus on his or her own neighborhood is mitigated by the fact that 7/8ths of the voters do not live in that neighborhood.
First, I’d like to thank everyone who has participated in this dialogue over the many months that we have been working on the charter and our recommendations. The debate has been very helpful, both in terms of knowing people’s opinions, as well as bringing new thoughts to the table that we would not otherwise have considered.
All who have been following our proceedings understand that I also preferred the district model – with the four additional Councilors to be elected in head to head races. I helped argue for this and voted for it last Fall, and I voted for it again on March 29.
Had the vote carried in the Fall, I have no doubt that we would have been able to put the due diligence and – more importantly – public vetting into place necessary to be able to bring this structure responsibly to the public.
However, the problem lies in the nature of the calendar we are held to. By state law, we are required to have our final report done and submitted by May 4.
That’s 22 days away.
In a situation where the charter includes the new concept of district voting, the Charter Commission needs to first determine whose responsibility it is to draw the districts. The choices are the Election Commission (who is appointed by the City Democratic Committee and Republican Committee, not fully representative of the voting profile of Newton, given our large unenrolled population), the City Council, or a Special Committee to be named later. Each of these has its advantages and disadvantages.
Secondly, we were strongly encouraged to provide some recommendation on the construction of temporary districts – those to be used for the first election following the adoption of the new charter.
The development of any electoral district, ward, or precinct is by its very nature a highly political task. It requires significant analysis of data, demographic patterns, voting patterns, and – of paramount importance – thorough input from the public.
As this Charter Commission has done from the beginning, we will spare no effort to make sure that we have as solid a Charter recommendation as we can. The issue is not whether we could schedule enough additional meetings to get the work done on our side to set up districts we are comfortable with amongst ourselves. Instead, the issue is whether we could produce a recommendation on districts, schedule and advertise a (and ideally more than one) public hearing, receive and incorporate feedback from the public, and complete further deliberation based upon that public feedback in order to have a sound recommendation for the configuration of the temporary districts.
With my vote on March 29, I was still hopeful that we could find a clear and compelling path to create truly representative districts in a thoughtful way. It became apparent in the data that we were able to find – particularly towards the beginning of this week – that was not going to be the case.
All of this having been said, and while the district model was my preferred alternative, by no means does this mean that I am not in favor of the pool of four at-large Councilors. I see many distinct advantages of the system over what we presently have, including better minority representation, issues representation, and a lower barrier to those who wish to run and serve our City. I think it will provide a very interesting new way for people across our City to express their preferences and to select their representation.
I am also very proud of and happy about the Charter recommendations, overall. I think that our efforts have resulted in a document that is stronger and more responsive to the residents of Newton than our current one is. I am excited about some of the changes, and quite frankly relieved about some of the repairs that we have done to items that were either contradictory, were not supported by current state law, or did not reflect the actual practice of our city.
I stand behind our work, and I am looking forward to the further dialogue we will have as we approach the November election.
The entire slate of commissioners does not provide a balanced representation of Newton’s interests. The group has a defined and narrow agenda for the city’s future. This alone does not bode well for our future stability. Who defines “the best candidates”? A contrived election structure will not produce good leadership. We’ve all read Animal Farm. I believe the work of the C.C. is flawed and should not be approved.
I will also repeat a comment I made on the last thread related to this topic…
All but 2 cities in Mass. (52 of 54) have some portion of their city council elected at-large with no residency requirement. It’s a popular structure for a reason. Three benefits:
1) You get to vote for the best people from across the whole city. With geographically linked seats, you can have 2 great candidates running in Ward A and 2 not-so-great candidates running in Ward B.
2) These at-large unrestricted seats are always challenged (our research showed the at-large pool is contested 97% of the time, and on average 70% of the seats are contested). One of my least favorite things about Newton’s government is the low number of contested elections. A councilor who never has an opponent is not held accountable. Anyone in the unrestricted pool will have to run for their seat every 2 years and be held accountable for their positions and their responsiveness.
3) The unrestricted at-large pool offers more opportunities for people to run for office. If you live in a ward with a councilor you like and support, you can still run for an unrestricted at-large seat (or, if you don’t think your ward’s councilor is great but you don’t want to challenge your neighbor in a 1:1 race, you can run for and unrestricted at-large seat).
As a resident, I want to make sure my neighborhood has a representative, and I want that representative to prioritize what is best for the city as a whole. I realize that person may rarely be challenged. I don’t feel any added benefit of having one more local person, from my “district”, also rarely challenged. Both my reps could be unresponsive and I never get to vote them out. I would prefer to choose from the best people across the whole city for councilors who will have to defend their seat every two years.
To paraphrase some commenters at our recent meetings: “I don’t feel better represented by someone because they live close to me, but that need is already taken care of by the councilor from the ward anyway. I feel better represented more contested elections and a diversity of choices. Just because someone lives close to me does not necessarily make them responsive or competent, and if they never get challenged I don’t get to vote them out.”
As for the idea of 5 councilors being elected from one ward…remember that every ward will have a councilor, so there will be no ward that doesn’t have a representative. If the unrestricted at-large all live in one ward, 7/8ths of voters don’t live in that ward. If those councilors seem to favor the ward they live in (that they are not elected to represent), it’s hard to imagine that 7/8ths of voters would have a hard time getting rid of them.
FYI, we also took a vote last night that I think will be attractive to several of those who comment here. We voted to include a recall election process for the Mayor, which will be finalized hopefully at our next meeting.
I believe this is important especially in light of some of the conversations that have happened around the recent national election. It really has crystallized for me the need to have a method of removing someone who may be acting against the public interest.
A couple of points:
Rhanna, while I agree that it would be better for the city to have more contested elections, I strongly object to this statement: “You get to vote for the best people from across the whole city. With geographically linked seats, you can have 2 great candidates running in Ward A and 2 not-so-great candidates running in Ward B.”
The Charter Commission should not be judging the quality of candidates. I can’t say that strongly enough.
2. Knowing that one of the Charter Commissioners changed his mind because there might not be enough time to make a change makes me lose confidence in the entire process.
3. I don’t buy the argument that because 52 of 54 cities do something, Newton should do it also. We should figure out what will work best for Newton now and in future years. What other communities do is informative, but it does not translate into the right model for Newton.
Gail, I agree 100% that the charter commission should not be determining the qualifications for candidates, so let me rephrase to be more clear.
I’m talking about the opinion of any Newton voter about who is most qualified. I might think the two candidates running for the ward A seat are both great. And you might think they’re both unqualified and that the two running for the Ward B seat both much better candidates, while I don’t care for the qualifications of the two ward B folks. Neither of us gets to vote for the two we think are best. That is the trade-off of ward-based seats. I think ward-based seats are extremely important for Newton, but I like the idea of supplementing those 8 seats with seats where I as a voter can choose to vote for the ones I think are most qualified, even if two of them live on the same street (since they don’t represent the neighborhood they live in).
There have been several comments in our last two meetings about how the charter commission’s legal timeline (governed by state law) is flawed. We all wish that the preliminary report and the final mandated public hearing had been held a month earlier.
I think I can safely say that all 9 charter commissioners have been very focused on what is best for Newton based on our city’s unique characteristics. One example…ward based seats being elected at-large is not unheard of but not common. I think Newton’s economic and geographic diversity simultaneously drive a need for ward-based seats (to ensure all parts of the city have a voice) and for all of those councilors to be elected at-large (to avoid parochialism or “us vs. them” mentality).
I pointed out that many cities have the unrestricted at-large seats on their city council to make the point that “it’s a popular structure for a reason.” But you are right, there are other popular council features that we did not adopt.
There are some benefits of unrestricted seats that offset the limitations of geographically restricted seats (and vice versa). Both have tradeoffs, so I like being able to balance with some of each.
This is becoming a Theatre of the Absurd. The whole idea of “ward at large” is preposterous, something Newton and (as far as I can find) no other city in the entire country uses. So arguing over whether the four “at large” seats should actually be “double ward at large” is also ridiculous.
There should be ward seats and at large seats, period. Ward residents alone should vote for whoever they want to represent them. (That could even apply even if that person doesn’t happen to technically live in the ward. We’ve seen people lose seats due to ward realignments. The 2020 census may force more of them.) Likewise, at large should be at large. If they all happen to come from one ward, so be it, so long as the wards actually have true representation (not ward-at-large).
Think about what this would look like in, say, Boston: They now have district seats which allow ethnically-distinct districts to elect someone who represents them, and the City Council is diverse as a result. If it were ward-at-large, then the “majority” forces could find someone who represents their interests but who technically lives inside each district. This would probably be viewed as a Voting Rights Act violation. Newton doesn’t have that kind of housing pattern so we aren’t subject to VRA, but the principle remains: You are best represented by who you elect, not someone who happens to live near you.
The charter should be voted down and the effort restarted later once some sanity prevails, not developers looking for a way to use at-large-only voting to ensure that door-knocking won’t substitute for costly media campaigning which they can control.
@Rhanna — “All but 2 cities in Mass. (52 of 54) have some portion of their city council elected at-large with no residency requirement. It’s a popular structure for a reason.”
Electing a portion of the city council at-large is a best practice. We should follow best practices. What you always leave out in making the argument above(and there is was nobody on the commission to call you on it) is the rest of the story.
As pointed out last night, 47 of the 56 municipalities that use (or will use) the city council form of government ALSO INCLUDE ward-elected representation and 83% of those have a MAJORITY of ward-elected councilors. Ward-councilors get more rather than less common as communities get smaller.
The norm is for majority ward-elected councilors to balance at-large seats. In fact the most typical city council in Mass is a 8 ward-elected, 5 at-large without residency model. A charter that took that conventional approach would be hard to defeat and you only have to edit a few words (“elected by the ward”) into your existing proposal. As you say “It is a popular structure for a reason”.
Consider that the even smaller (and presumably more homogeneous) 296 towns in Massachusetts are based on a representative town meeting; elected by precinct. This means that only 9 of the 352 communities in Massachusetts (2.6%) have governments that lack the diversity of opinion that comes ward/precinct level-elected representation and you propose that Newton joins the small exclusive club of cities with an all at-large council.
Cities around the country are being sued under the Voting Rights Act for the negative impacts of 100% at-large city councils, particularly in California, most recently in Santa Clara, due to the lopsided representation that can results (e.g. in Lowell).
Even if Newton’s demographics may not put it at risk for this, is this the progressive example that Newton wishes to set for the country?
Supporting data: http://www.newtondemocracy.org/updates/will-newton-join-the-2 (percent)
I would like to thank the Charter Commissioners for their work, which I know was well-intentioned, but as someone who cares deeply about good governance, this is a disappointing result. To say “sorry, we just didn’t have time to do things the right way” as an answer to why geographic diversity has been left out of the final equation is simply unacceptable, school vacation week or no school vacation week. The other response of “this is what other cities and towns do” is equally unacceptable. And let’s please stop dancing around the issue of economic inequality and representation in city government. Anyone who’s ever driven around the Newton knows that geographic diversity and economic diversity go hand in hand. And any time you consolidate voters into larger districts, money becomes more of a factor (eg. the average US Senate campaign costs 10X more than a US House campaign). With home prices rising, people with moderate incomes being forced out, if we have fewer seats that require more campaign money to win, I have a feeling I know who the “best people” under the new system would be.
Thank you Jack, those were some good numbers. I will clarify that among the Towns, many still have open town meeting, as they are small enough for that to work. I did once serve as a precinct TMM in Arlington, though, before moving to Newton, so I am familiar with that process.
One other variant which might combine the best of both worlds is what Cambridge uses, ranked-choice voting at large. That allows voters to give the #1 slot to the candidate that most closely meets their interests, regardless of geography. So you get all kinds of diversity quite naturally. It is somewhat harder to count the votes that way, but I hear there’s this newfangled thingie called a computer that could expedite the process.
Frankly this is one Cambridge export that I think Newton could use. Instead we get their obsessions with bicycles and difficult parking. Cambridge is flatter, younger, and more densely built-up than Newton, all of which favor bicycling.
OMG – So now we want to add a clause to recall the Mayor if we dont think he is working in our best interest? By whose standards? This city never ceases to amaze me. Absurd and Ludicrous.
Train Wreck. For heaven’s sake, everyone knew the timeline. It is not flawed, at all. Reality check: The timeline assumes that people will read it and pay attention to it, and plan ahead. (“I didn’t have time to do my homework in the year and a half I was given” seems a bit lame.)
Summary:
No major pushback topics: term limits, recall provision, and virtually everything else.
Major singular pushback topic: Ward-elected representation.
@Rhanna-
If you had kept the Ward elected seats, people would have likely had less of an issue with some true at large seats. But “you” had a mission to gut the ward system in favor of at large. The moment people started paying attention, it did not go over well. Most people really hate seeing their input and vote marginalized in favor of an obvious power consolidation/grab.
To reduce the size, and assure passage, all you need to do is go with the 8/8 and be done with it. Try it. Ask people. See how they feel. There’s still time!
As it is, however…. NO is the only sensible answer.
I feel bad for any member of the public who gave serious time and effort in attending & submitting testimony. The ridiculousness of the biased situation will long prevail, we can surely count on one permanency, long live the Women of the Golden Circle.
Harry – Not only am I not a member of the League of Women Voters, I’ve never so much as attended a meeting and have no intention of doing so in the future.
I agree with the comments offered by Charlie Shapiro. Let me just add as presently drafted this new Charter will go down to defeat.
I’m disappointed in the final proposal only in the elimination of ward elected councilors. As others have said, our wards are extremely diverse economically and for that reason require direct representation.
Commenters have repeatedly asked if the commissioners deliberated over the pros and cons of ward representation as it stands now in Newton. I asked the same for months after the first unanimous vote on the composition with no specific answers until, after studying the minutes and listening to the audio, I realized that those deliberations didn’t happen. I specifically asked that they discuss their merits in later deliberations. These commissioners began the council composition discussions each, for their own reasons, having already decided on a council of all at-large councilors. I don’t mean this in a conspiracy theory manner but as individuals who just happened to have experienced what they consider to be policy, new school or special permit decisions that were unavoidably extended because of a Ward Councilor. Personally I believe that is part of living in a democracy and more because of the large number of councilors rather than because of ward representation.
In the minutes of the 3/29/17 meeting, Brooke Lispitt is noted to have said, “[There is a] substantial amount of input we have from people who really prefer retaining the ward model. She stresses that the data [Rhanna] collected reflects disproportionate number of comments/emails in support of ward councilors.
We are naive not to consider this a potential problem for passing the charter we unanimously approved in the preliminary report. She has not heard anyone on the commission speak in favor of retaining ward councilors as they exist today, elected by ward only. She is not in favor of this either and does not doubt that no matter what we do, we’ll support all councilors being elected at-large.” That says it all.
I want to add that I have the utmost respect for each commissioner and sincerely appreciate the time and study that went into the final proposal. Also every email I sent to the commission was promptly answered by a member. I just happen to disagree with the outcome.
I go back to what Councilor Yates said at the initiation of the Charter Review process. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I listened to Monday’s debate on accessory apartments before the Council when it was rebroadcast on NEW TV the following morning. It was quite an emotional affair and I shared that emotion when I realized all the work that Ted Hess Mahan had put into this for more than a decade and being present after a sense to see him joyously steer something broadly acceptable to a lopsided favorable vote. But to me, the most telling moment of the debate came from Councilor Ciccone. In the most emotional speech of the night, he bemoaned the fact that many Newton residents are paying half or more of their annual income simply to pay their property taxes and that too many people in positions of authority seem oblivious to their plight.
I mention Jay’s talk because one of the beauty’s of a 24 member Council is the fact that at least one member will know some person or family that isn’t living what most of us on this blog think of as the “good life.” Collectively, they know a lot of these problems because they live among them, or at least in proximity to them. Now, a consultant or social worker could tell the Council exactly what Jay said, but there’s something very potent when it comes directly from a fellow Council member.
Again, it was a spirited debate. I think every Councilor spoke at least once; some two or more times just on amendments. Sure, it was longer than the deliberations of a 12 or 13 person would have been, but most of it was pure substance articulated from 24 distinct viewpoints and it seemed to me that everyone was listening politely and pretty closely to what each other Councilor was saying. In a million years, I’ll never understand why most Newton residents would want to ditch something this precious.
Bob – Because they have to go to work the next day. Because they didn’t have daycare for their kids. Because a disability prevented them from getting to city hall. People go to these hearings that last until 11-12:00 because they believe in a cause, then feel like they’ve been kicked in the stomach the entire next day. I’d suggest that there is a better way of doing city business.
When you tell me “all the work that Ted Hess Mahan had put into this for more than a decade” on an issue that should have been resolved a decade or two ago, I’m concerned that one of the reasons the process took so long is because it left out many cohorts: single parents, people whose work commitments don’t allow for these late night hearings, people who can’t get childcare for the evening, senior citizens who can’t manage sitting on those hard benches for many hours, people with disabilities who depend on services to get them to city hall. When these people are left out of the process for reasons out of their control, I don’t consider the process to be precious; I consider it the system to be very “broken”.
It’s a new age and we have to figure out to be more inclusive.
“We need to figure out how to be more inclusive.”
As for the outcome, when you serve on a commission or council, you win some and you lose some and every member of the commission has lost a few. It goes with the territory.
However, each member should have the courage to state why s/he voted as s/he did on Wednesday, and I don’t necessarily mean on V14. We’ve been under a tight line from the get-go, as that’s the timeline that state law sets out. We’ve covered entire articles with multiple sections in one evening. We’ve rewritten entire articles that are out of compliance with state law in several weeks time and made decisions on them at one meeting because that’s what was required of us. We all knew what we were getting into from the get-go.
We were particularly divided on two issues: the specifics of term limits and the composition of the council. On both issues, the votes were 5/4 and members clearly stated their beliefs. (Brooke – I can’t quite recall – where do you stand on term limits? 😉 ).
However, when it came to the composition of the council, there simply was no consensus in the community and that made this decision particularly difficult. That being said, to say that this decision rested on a tight timeline isn’t accurate. There were no roadblocks to accomplishing any decision that we voted on other than those that were self-imposed or made to appear insurmountable.
Rihanna’s selective use of benchmarking data feels dishonest.
Jack Prior’s comments on the prevalence of ward representation merit a direct response from Rihanna and others who have posted here from the commission.
The added voices from the charter commission are appreciated.
However, it remains clear that the role of ward councilors has never been properly reviewed. Indeed, given the opportunity to elaborate on ward councilors, nothing of value has been advanced by these added voices.
Also, I have to say that calling up city clerks and asking them whether their electoral system is suffering from at large induced problems is never going to yield any useful information. You need to look at the data! Not the clerks opinions!!!!
The charter commissioners seem to be blissfully unaware of the corrosive effects of at large elections on municipalities. They don’t even mention Lowell!
This talk about getting more competition into races is so unbalanced.
At large races are demonstrably much more expensive than ward races and favor power groups with citywide networks. They can marshal voters from 8 wards to dominate at large races. Money and networks! Not what we want to expand.
One might have looked at what it takes to bring challenge by independent candidates and you’d find that although they provide challenge, they are commonly outgunned by the established power groups. That is why ward votedelections are so critical. They cost 8-10 times less than at large races, enable candidates to walk the ward to engage voters and provide the best source of new ideas and new blood one could imagine.
Now the commissioners talk turns to the tight schedule and the vicissitudes of adjusting districts etc. These are problems they have visited on themselves!
This now begins to remind me of the Newton North process, which had tons of meetings, which did not illuminate or resolve a number of critical problems. Then we were out of time and the process was just rushed through. Jane will remember that!
This 5-4 split reminds of the supreme court – and it is never good when that happens.
Unanimous is what we want or close to it.
In any city or town a charter commission will get into trouble once it moves away from the natural voting boundaries. Framingham had 18 precincts and formed 9 districts. That was a natural and smooth process. Newton is built on 8 wards. The only way to preserve the strength of Newton’s neighborhoods is to start with 8 ward elected councilors and add at large councilors to that base.
The bottom line is that we seem to be now stuck with a charter commission which failed to properly address a key element of Newton government.
In British parlance, it is a real dog’s breakfast.
Here is a way out of this impasse on composition.
Simply don’t move forward with recommendations for which the charter commissioners don’t have unanimity or a very strong consensus.
[That may well also cause the term limits recommendation to be dropped.]
But, I don’t want to see all of the good pieces of work the commission has done come to nothing because of a few remaining knotty problems.
One of the important things in my mind is that the issue of composition has now been shown to be more challenging than the rest of all of the issues. That is not nothing!
So, why not make real forward progress, by recommending no action on composition, leaving the council as it is, move forward on all of the other positive improvements and provide for another review in 5 years, just as we did in Framingham.
Then over the next 5 years Newton can totally thrash out this issue of ward councilors and at large councilors and maybe even consider whether the school committee should be ward elected.
Plus after the 2020 census, ward/precinct boundaries could be redrawn in a manner informed by that debate.
Then, sound recommendations could be put forth by a successor charter commission whose work could be largely focused on resolving the knotty problems unearthed by the current charter commission.
This approach would guarantee a YES in November and Newton government could benefit from all of the positive and less controversial elements of the charter commission process.
@Paul, although I do think of myself as being a lot like a talented, world-famous pop star, my name is not Rihanna.
This thread is specifically about the attributes of the 4 councilors who will supplement the 8 at-large-by-ward councilors, so I only spoke to data related to those 4. Not being dishonest or selective, just sticking to the topic at hand. (I realize that it is not common practice on this blog to stick to the topic at hand. I’m just quirky that way.)
I appreciate Jack sharing the data related to councilors from wards. The charter commission looked at only the 20 largest cities in Mass. (excluding Boston). Population-wise, Newton is right in the middle of that group. 6 of the 20 have only at-large councilors, and for those 6, there is no residency requirement for any of the councilors. Of the cities with district-based reps, all but Worcester and Newton have more reps elected only from the district than elected at-large. The City of Everett, which falls just below our population cutoff, has 6 at-large-by-ward councilors and 5 at-large without residency requirement. To Gail’s point earlier, we looked at this information to educate ourselves about various compositions (we also looked at the best practices recommendations of the Model City Charter), not to adopt “what everyone else is doing.”
Page 5 shows the data we reviewed:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/74391
Newton has had 2/3 of the council accountable to all voters for the last 120 years. That feature has been retained in the proposed new charter. To flip to having 2/3 of our council elected by a single ward only would be a radical shift and could have a big impact on how the council functions. While “keep the ward councilors” is positioned as “retaining” a feature of our current council, 2/3 elected by a single ward is not a feature of our current council. Even going to a council of 16, with 50% elected by the ward only, would be a radical shift in my opinion.
The commission has heard feedback from many voters who want ward councilors, and we have heard feedback from many voters who want all councilors accountable to all voters. The latter group is not commensurately represented on this blog.
@Rhanna,
I’m confused about your statement that the proposed charter retains the 2/3 proportion. Isn’t 100 percent of the council in the proposed charter accountable to all voters?
One of the main reasons I like the district model is that it would retain the 2/3 proportion. Eight of 12 (2/3) would be elected by all voters, and four of 12 (1/3) would be accountable to district voters. I agree that we shouldn’t change the proportion to increase the percentage of councilors elected by a single ward, but I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want to retain the current proportions.
I want to thank Jane for explaining her process and how she arrived at her conclusions. Thank you also for continuously engaging on V14 and out and about.
Thank you to all commissioners who at least tried to offer some explanations. Some showed thoughtful consideration of the issues as they pertain to Newton and some did not.
At times I’ve been appalled at the accusations of impropriety directed at the commission from Newtonites but I guess that’s politics in the 21st century.
Because of accomplishing the needed changes to the Charter that Jane innumerates above and the reduction in the size of the city council, I wish the pros of electing one Councilor for each Ward, and an appropriate number elected by the entire city, had been seriously considered. I find that a fatal flaw in the deliberations.
What Marti said!
It would be a pity to see the charter commission recommendations founder because of lack of proper review and deliberation on one key recommendation.
But that looks likely.
All it takes is one fatal flaw.
I too would like to thank Jane for having the courage to shed light on her thought process as it relates to these issues. Rather than hide and make up excuses, she is stepping up to the plate. From my own perspective, I vigorously disagree with both her reasoning and conclusions. However, everyone is entitled to their opinion, which is what will make November’s vote so interesting.
@Jane: One of my biggest issues with Newton’s government is that it isn’t inclusive enough. In fact, simply with better mayoral leadership, I can enumerate many things that we could and should change today to significantly increase diversity and inclusivity throughout Newton’s government. I would love to go point-for-point with anyone on this as the disparities are concerning.
If part of your reasoning for moving to an “at large” voting scheme is that doing so will make Newton more inclusive, given that the opposite is actually almost always the case, you’d serve your side well by articulating how your proposed changes will accomplish that goal.
Related to that point, can you cite a single example, from the past few years and of a city of similar size as Newton, where a city enacted an “at-large” voting scheme which increased minority and/or lower-income representation within their local government? For your argument to have any credibility, you need to be able to cite at least one relevant example.
Furthermore, given the outstanding points laid out by Jack Prior, I’d like to ask for a third time: what type of analysis has the Charter Commission conducted in regard to how its proposal would affect minority and/or lower-income representation in Newton? If the Charter Commission did not do this, in my opinion, that is a fatal omission which requires an explanation.
@Rhanna: Did you or any other individuals on the Charter Commission take a closer look at the composition of the City Councils from the 20 largest Massachusetts cities that have exclusively at large representation? If not, let me do a quick breakdown for you.
Lowell: 100% white City Council despite 55% minority population
Fall River: 100% white City Council despite 21% minority population
Medford: 100% white City Council despite 17% minority population
Taunton: 100% white City Council despite 15% minority population
Haverhill: 100% white City Council despite 16% minority population
Cambridge: 78% white City Council despite 38% minority population
At large voting schemes have long been used to suppress minorities, whether socio-economic or racial. That’s a fact. Given the above information, how is it possible that the City of Newton’s Charter Commission is not even talking about this?
Folks, this is seriously concerning.
@Tom: what are the numbers for Newton’s current city council?
@Tom Davis: Those are alarming numbers but this information would be more useful if we knew the compositions of the other 14 cities. Do you have those numbers?
@Greg: I’m going to allow the Charter Commissioners to respond before engaging with you, which I look forward to.
@Gail, I was specifically referring to the % of councilors elected “at-large by ward”. The current and proposed charters both have 2/3.
The district proposal that has been under consideration had 4 councilors with district residency requirement, but elected at large. So with either model that has been recently debated, 100% of the council would answer to all voters.
“Answering to all voters” is a euphemism for “elected at large”, which means that the electorate is too large to reach via door to door campaigning, and too large to reach with a small budget. It favors costly campaigns using a lot of media. Of course that benefits the Tab, so I’d expect them to support it.
The Great and General Court of the Commonwealth has no at-large seats. The Congress of the United States has no at-large seats. Only a few officials (only one at the federal level) “answer to all voters”. While I could actually see benefits to electing some senators on a different basis, elections by state and district lead to more diversity than a single nationwide vote.
I’d still favor ranked choice or 8 by ward and 5 wide-open at large, full stop.
@Fred: I’ve presented these numbers before, but am happy to do so again:
Newton is 18.19 sq. miles. Massachusetts is 10,554 square miles. The U.S. is 3.797 million square miles. It’s daunting to think a member of the US House should represent all the people in a 3.797 million mile area or even a state rep. over 10,554 square miles. But less than twenty miles for all city councilors? That seems reasonable.
Plus, do you really want to hold up the U.S. Congress as the ideal model for legislating these days?
The value of at large councilors elected by the ward vs ward by ward was discussed at many charter commission meetings. Some of the factors for me that weighed in favor of electing the council at large, reinforced by residency requirements for 8 councilors, were as following:
– At Large Councilors are responsible to all city voters, meaning everyone in the city can support or oppose any councilor they like or don’t like.
– Officials elected at large with residency requirements are a feature that Newton voters are very familiar with, they currently elect 3/4 of their elected representatives this way.
– At Large contests are more likely to be contested than ward only elections historically in Newton.
– A review of OCPF data suggests that successful at large campaigns, even in competitive races, are frequently won at the same cost as a ward only race.
– 2/3 of our councilors are now elected at large. A reduced number of councilors, if 1 set of ward councilors were included, would change the balance in a way that I believe would be problematic.
– While ward only councilors are necessary to protect discrete minorities when they are geographically clustered, we do not have that phenomenon in Newton. While we do have significant ethnic minority populations, they are not geographically distributed.
– Input from the community was valuable in this determination, but there was no clear consensus with a number of public comments in favor of all at large and a roughly equivalent number in favor of ward only representation. My sense from my conversations in the community was equally split, with the greatest consensus around a reduction of the size of the council regardless of makeup.
@Tom, All 6 of the cities on your list have city councils composed of 100% at-large without any residency requirement. That is a city council model that has been under fire across the country in cities with significant minority populations. It just can’t be compared to a council that has a majority of councilors at-large with a residency requirement. The two models are apples and oranges.
I’ll add that the first five non-white elected officials from Newton that come to my mind were all elected at-large.
Rihanna, in Newton the diversity of interests isn’t racial — this isn’t Lowell or Boston. But Chestnut Hill and Waban are not Newtonville or Upper Falls.
The 2/3 at-large ratio is not sacred; most cities with district voting have a larger share by ward/district. I’d rather flip it around! The ward councilors do not all vote as a block against the at-large ones; some ward interests align with what the at-large councilors interests are, which may or may not actually be what’s best for the city. Electing some seats by ward, however, ensures that the local interests are best heard.
So, theoretically we could end up with all of our council members in places like Chestnut Hill or Waban and West Newton Hill. How do they understand the needs of someone like me living in the ethnically and economically diverse neighborhood of Auburndale/W. Newton? This will invite more classist legislation like the winter parking ban – people who don’t understand the plight of a “lower” income Newton resident.
The power concentrations that come from at large, with no residency requirement, are really obvious.
Lowell – Mayor and 5 of 9 councilors live in one small section of the city
Framingham – All 5 selectmen live in just 2 precincts out of 18; all school committee members live north of Rt 9 where only 40% of students live
etc
etc
Vast swaths of Lowell and Framingham are simply not well represented. And it is clearly connected to resident income.
[That is a key reason Framingham’s new charter has ward- elected reps as the dominant group in its government! It will solve a big problem relating to basic democracy!]
So, at large elections, with no residency requirement, discriminate against low income residents. We have significant low income areas in Newton. So why visit this plague on them? Never should it be something that Newton does.
Even when there is a residency requirement, there is discrimination, as the power elites are always able to cultivate candidates in the low income areas, who they can bend to their views. The power in Newton is concentrated in a few small locales but it is camouflaged by this means.
It is not an accident that Ward 5 has the only village with no parking meters and the 2 most modern elementary schools in the city. Angier was always at the top of the list due to its age and poor design, but Zervas was never on the top priority list until funds for ‘some kind of Zervas project’ came available through the operating override. Then the power elites grabbed all the money for Zervas, rather than doing small renovation there and building a new school in a low income area.
Any independent who has taken on the power elites in election campaigns knows that the power does not come from north of the pike or south of Rt 9.
We already have the same at large downside as Lowell and Framingham, and many others. It’s just better disguised.
This attack on the virtue of ward councilors is an attack on grass roots democracy across Massachusetts. Town meeting, from which we all came, was had absolutely no at large races except moderator!
And I would love to see the OPCF data which Bryan Barash refers to when he claims that the cost of ward races is comparable to the cost of at large races. At large races need to effectively reach 8 times the number of voters. The data I have looked at suggest that it is way more costly to win a race at large than at ward level. Bryan’s argument is simply not legitimate!
Let’s get the big money and big networks out of local non-partisan races by strengthening the ward based, ward voter democratic grass roots of Newton.
We should be reducing the influence of at large voting on Newton, not increasing it!
@Mary- Yes. That’s exactly what it means.
@Rhanna- By your logic, we really don’t need both Ruth and Kay since they not elected by the whole state and they’re making decisions affecting the whole state. Extend that out to we probably don’t need either of them…or a State Senator either.
…and then there’s congress. Oh my.
It’s just ludicrous at this point.
Vote NO this fall.
Geoff – In 2015, other than the Ward 2 at-large race, the two candidates who spent the most amount of money were the Ward 2 and 7 ward councilors.
@Greg. The square mileage of a constituency is meaningless. Alaska and Montana must have some huge state-rep districts too, some probably bigger than Massachusetts. It’s the diversity of interests that matters.
@Jane. The most money is spent on the most contested races. A hotly contested at-large seat would be costlier than a contested ward seat.
No, Congress isn’t anywhere near perfect, but it could be worse if it had no representatives from New England states, all outvoted by Texas, or if Texas selected its pet New Englanders (LePage, Uncle Mel, etc.). Again, some countries address such interests via ranked-choice or proportionate-representation slate voting, so smaller interests all over the country are heard even if they don’t have a majority somewhere. I think that’s even better than constituency voting, but our charter commission didn’t seem to even consider it. What, too expensive to buy new vote-tabulating software?
Rhanna: “Even going to a council of 16, with 50% elected by the ward only, would be a radical shift in my opinion.”
Gail: “I agree that we shouldn’t change the proportion to increase the percentage of councilors elected by a single ward.”
Bryan: “2/3 of our councilors are now elected at large. A reduced number of councilors, if 1 set of ward councilors were included, would change the balance in a way that I believe would be problematic.”
It appears some people are really afraid of giving ward councilors more power, even though as Jack Prior pointed out, legislative bodies more weighted toward ward/district representatives is more common in Massachusetts (”47 of the 56 municipalities that use (or will use) the city council form of government ALSO INCLUDE ward-elected representation and 83% of those have a MAJORITY of ward-elected councilors.”)
If the Charter Commission were proposing to downsize the Council by moving to 8 ward and 8 at-large, I think it would sail through. But they claim that would be “radical” and “problematic.” Wonder what they are afraid of?
@Emily:
I think there should be ward representation but I also think we should keep the same power balance that currently exists. That’s why cutting the board in half by reducing half the at-large councilors and half the ward councilors (districts) works for me. I’ve never liked that someone elected with 700 votes can hold a leadership position and I wouldn’t want to increase those instances.
I don’t care what’s common in Massachusetts. I care about coming up with a model that is better than our current one. Creating four super at-large seats is not an improvement. But neither is a council where half the members would only answer to 700 voters.
Emily – I’ve actively reached well beyond my silo of like-minded people, and simply haven’t heard support for a 16 member council.
I’m am not “afraid” of giving support to ward councilors. I just want to be able to hold councilors, like you, accountable for votes taken that aren’t in the best interest of the city and, in my particular case, the school system.
You’ve been very clear – you are “beholden” to the voters of ward 2, but you make decisions that affect every ward in the city. As yet, I have not heard an explanation from you as to how you can serve the best interest of the entire city, while being beholden to the 700 people who vote for you.
I’m all in favor of being able to vote for the “best” candidates who best reflect my viewpoints. But they lose! I have gone to the “Meet the Candidate” nights at friends’ houses in which they speak to people and do some fundraising. But these are often “regular” folks who can’t match the attendance or funds of the better-connected folks in wealthier sections of the city. One example is the time I went to a friend’s fundraiser and the next night her opponent had their fundraiser on West Newton Hill. Guess who raised the most money? Guess who won? Guess who usually wins once the well-connected and elite and correct party-affiliation group decides who will win? Not always the “best” candidate, not always the person who truly cares about every citizen of this city, rich or poor. Not always the candidate who can see beyond their own fishbowl and realize that not everyone is like them with the same advantages. I can’t thank Gail Spector enough for posting this thread because it is sad and pitiful that it has come to this. I have no wish to speak about the economic divide in this city because I LIKE to think we’re all equal yet I’m also aware of certain life realities, and sad that this charter proposal is making me bring up social realities that I find unfair and disheartening. But we DON’T have to perpetuate them, we don’t have to sharpen these divides, we don’t. It’s very unfair to potentially concentrate the power INTO ONLY A FEW PARTS OF THE CITY. For me, it’s always, always about social justice, followed by economic justice and this flies against it. It leaves those among us who have less on many different levels with a diminished voice and power, and a less-direct line to those who do. I steadfastly refuse to believe this is what we want.
Wondering if Jane, Bryan and Rhanna acknowledge that richer parts of the city have been treated more favorably than less well-off parts of the city historically.
If so, has this been taken into account? How so?
The rationales provided seem very theoretical and not linked to the actual reality of Newton politics.
Tom – It’s often difficult to respond to your comments because you take one statement I make and draw an unrelated conclusion. In my opinion, councilors should be held accountable for their votes on all issues, not just those that relate to their ward. At the end of the day, we’re one city. That was the basis of my decision to support at-large councilors. It didn’t relate to my support for creating a more diverse community. This is in no way meant to shut down the conversation – I’m just trying to connect the dots.
At this point, I want to address the issue of villages that are part of a larger city because this is why I support at-large councilors. Thirty six years ago I chose to move to a city, not a village. Every town and city I’ve ever lived in has had unique sections that are the equivalent of villages with unique names, whether you call them “squares” as they do in Somerville, or “corners” as some parts of Brookline are referred to. When I first moved to Newton, I didn’t even realize I lived in a village. I lived in Newton. Call me clueless, but I thought Newton Centre was the city center.
One of the great parts of serving on a citywide commission or committee is that you hear perspectives you’d never hear otherwise. What I’ve learned is that sometimes small issues fester and cause divisions that last for years – issues that in reality don’t amount to a pile of beans in my book, but speak to other more important concerns. Concerns that are uncomfortable to address.
As an example, it’s come as a shock to me how often people bring up that Waban doesn’t have parking meters and every other village center does. Like it or not, it’s noted as a prime example of the privilege one village has over all others. For me, it means nothing – I just keep a pile of quarters in my car, but for others it serves as just one reminder of the privilege that comes with wealth.
I’ve been told outright that I’m raising “old” issues or that I’m raising issues not talked about in polite company. Yet others want to know that their government is giving them a fair shake. As to how this relates to the charter, it’s fairly minor, but in my opinion every resident should have a say in every decision the city council makes and right now they do not.
But no matter what happens with the charter, it’s very clear to me that we have a lot of difficult, uncomfortable work to do in Newton. And ward councilors can’t do that work for us.
@Jane
In 2015, the ward councilor races for Ward 2 and Ward 7 were not contested, so your number don’t add up.
What matters is how much money it takes to win a real contest at the ward level compared to citywide and there is no evidence to support any parity, quite the contrary, citywide races take enormous amounts of resources to win: time, energy and money. Established citywide power groups have all three.
The playing field is very much leveled in ward races.
The established networks have an 8-1 advantage in citywide races. Just look at the resources Auchincloss poured into his at large Ward 2 race and he still came in behind Susan Albright!
@Jane: “I have not heard an explanation from you as to how you can serve the best interest of the entire city, while being beholden to the 700 people who vote for you.”
And I haven’t heard from you how my track record of voting demonstrates my lack of concern for the best interest of the entire city. Are you even familiar with anything I’ve done?
@Jane
You still have absolutely no evidence that ward councilors are biased against citywide interests. This whole argument that ward elected representatives are so focused on their neighborhood that they cannot be effective on citywide issues, is complete hocus pocus.
How about Cheryl Lappin, a ward councilor, and vice president of the council. I guess the council has no problem with that.
Or Scott Lennon, who spent most of his elected service as a ward councilor.
Or Lisle Baker, past president and ward councilor from ward 7.
The evidence points to the fact that ward councilors have actually been well proven to have a strong citywide perspective!
In fact from the evidence, we should increase the proportion of them on the council, which provides further support for a 16 person council: 8 at large and 8 ward elected.
@Jane-
What exactly is the work to which you refer and why can’t Ward Councilors do it ?
Newton Ward Councilors do important City-wide work. This includes supporting funding for Newton schools, or shaping newton finances by appointing a Citizen Advisory Group. It also involves crafting land use and other ordinances to aid the quiet enjoyment of homeowning in Newton, or making Newton government more transparent with shows like Councilors at Work.
Newton Ward Councilors also do important local work with City-wide benefits. In Ward 7, this work has included acquiring the Newton Commonwealth Golf Course, the historic Durant-Kenrick Homestead, and the Waban Hill Reservoir, as well as helping redesign the Covenant Residences affordable housing project on Commonwealth Avenue that won both neighborhood support and a national award. Ward Councilors also helps nearby constituents with problems ranging from street lights to potholes.
If you agree that Newton’s Ward Councilors do valuable work for you, then in November vote to keep them in our Charter.
@Jane
You’ve made some serious accusations about our Ward councilors, with NO evidence.
Please retract or provide evidence.
One thing for sure, based on the evidence available for at large seats with no residency requirement: they will become captives of the power elites.
Just as big money decides the candidates in state and federal primaries, so the big money in Newton will ‘select’ the candidates for these expensive at large positions.
The power elites will very soon have automatic control of 4 out of 12 on the council. They may appear accountable to the voters, but they will not be.
This is a huge shift of power, and a certainty to happen.
How come the charter commission seems to be so unaware of what happens to communities with at large no residency voting? There is so much data on this issue. None apparently visible to the charter commission.
We have had links before on this, and Framingham, Lowell and Ferguson have been cited.
Here is another one which shows how this pernicious, Jim Crow era process is used to suppress the Latino and African American vote across the country:
https://thinkprogress.org/cities-are-quietly-reviving-a-jim-crow-era-trick-to-suppress-latino-votes-18406074bd0e
In Newton, it is not the Latino vote or the African American vote. It is the lower income voters in the city who are about to be oppressed and suppressed.
It is a horror that the Chris Steele swing vote is ‘diligently’ and ‘thoughtfully’ setting fire to Newton democratic representation.
@Gail-
I never had an issue with a Ward-Elected rep holding a leadership position. Look at the 2 most recent. Lennon (when he was ‘ward’) and Baker. The leadership positions have no super vote in committee. They are still just one committee vote. These people (and committee chairs) step up and take the extra time to organize and make everything actually function.
It’s the Council members themselves who elect their own leadership. If they thought for even a moment that the elected leader(s) of the Council was tilting things to their own ward, they’d kick ’em out of leadership in a heartbeat.
Meanwhile, back at the main topic…… 8 ward-elected and 8 at large from a ward might is a good solid reasonable way to go IF the main point is to reduce the size. But it’s now clear that within a certain elite group, that was never the real goal.
Left, right, and in-between, eliminating Ward reps appears to be THE one thing that makes the Commission’s proposal totally unacceptable. Look at this truly amazingly diverse list of concerned activists who don’t always agree on things…..but certainly agree on this. http://www.newtondemocracy.org/who-is-voting-no.html
Unless the Commission fixes this problem with their proposal, Vote NO and do no harm. (and add your name to the list – this is the ultimate grass roots effort to fight back against an ill-conceived proposal that will result in permanently diminishing your voting power. It absolutely makes a difference!)
I think that too much of Newton’s time is spent on seeing the glass as half-empty. For some reason people are viewing ward councilors as only doing “bad” things for the city. I believe that all councilors, ward and at-large, make good and bad votes…it is all in the eyes of the beholder. For me charter reform is an opportunity to support the ward councilors who do great things for the entire city and who I cannot currently support through my ballot. This is an opportunity for All of Newton to vote for any and all councilors which cannot happen today.
@Jane – I see your argument in terms of accountability but I’m not sure it’s a problem given the overall structure of the council. Using Emily as an example, she’s one of eight ward councilors and one of 24 including at-large. Even if she did want to put her ward’s interest above the city she would need some level of support from the other ward (who have no shared accountability) and at-large councilors to do that. The incentive to consider the city’s interest is the ward councilors ultimately need wider support in the council to get anything done, they have to balance the ward’s interests with the city’s or they’ll be ineffective in getting anything passed. Taken as a whole it’s not a problem for Emily to focus on her ward because she has to work with seven other ward councilors doing the same along with the at-large councilors who are accountable to the city.
Having said that, I do think the current council structure is far from perfect. It should not have taken 14 years to get the accessory apartment ordinance passed and I have to wonder if it’s going to take as long to get the zoning redesign passed (or longer). I don’t think an all at-large council is the solution, I have a feeling that would just lead to a majority of the council concentrated within 2-3 villages. The district residency requirement was a step in the right direction and it was disappointing to see it dropped so quickly. I think Gail has the right idea in cutting the overall council size but keeping the ratio of ward to at-large councilors. We already have issues with certain areas of the city being under represented, not sure why we would want to make that worse by removing the only remaining check against that with the ward councilors.
Here is another way to view the changes the charter commission is proposing.
The current council has 2/3 at large with ward residency and 1/3 ward elected.
The new council will have 2/3 at large with ward residency and 1/3 at large with no residency.
So this is transparently a shift of 1/3 the power in the council from local residents to the power elites.
It is blatantly obvious that this is huge blow to neighborhoods and a fatal blow to independent thinking, grass roots democracy in Newton.
@ Gail
The 700 vote thing sounds good as a sound bite, but in reality is a red herring.
At-large representatives get 4-5000 votes. 80-90% of the Newton electorate did not vote for the winning at-large councilor. That’s hardly representative either.
All positions are elected by very few people, because most aren’t voting.
@Rhanna
Didn’t respond yesterday. I take issue with you relying on benchmark data to justify some of your argument, when you’ve clearly ignored the data for other elements.
Saying that “it’s a popular structure for a reason” as part of your justification when you personally decided to ignore other popular elements is disingenuous at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.
This isn’t some silly debate class- justifying that you were using the data to justify a specific point when you’ve completely disregarded the other data is a ridiculous argument.
The benchmark data is either relevant or not.
@Jane
Don’t hide. You accused our ward councilors of acting against the best interests of the city.
That’s a serious charge.
No evidence.
Time to back it up or retract it.
@Geoff: I keep hearing terms like power elites. Can you name them? I am frankly baffled by this idea that there is some big bad boogieman out there who’s going to take over the city.
It is pretty easy to build a strawman and then knock it down. Lets raise the level of debate here and have a real conversation about the relative benefits of ward vs. at large councilors.
Bryan – While this may be true, it’s meaningless. “At Large contests are more likely to be contested than ward only elections historically in Newton.” The question is turnover. Are these at large contested elections mainly when a representative decides to retire or quit? When was the last time a seated candidate lost their office in a contested election in Newton? I believe it was my local Ward Rep – Mansfield losing to Blazer. Blazer did it by going door to door.
The other recent contest that an incumbent lost – was Geoff Epstein against Gail Glick. There is a reason Geoff is so passionate about this, he knows what it is like to go against an incumbent in a city-wide vote. It took him 3 tries. The amount of effort and money to run Citywide can only be discounted by those who have thousands of dollars to lose without consequence.
Money in politics – which directly impacts social economic diversity and turnover – is an important issue to me. I wanted to vote for a smaller city council, but I will not vote for this proposal.
I also find it ironic that Emily is being accused of using public money inappropriately by being a Ward Alderman publicly opposed to this change, but the issue of money in elections is considered inconsequential by the Charter Commission.
Gail – Why is this a problem? “But neither is a council where half the members would only answer to 700 voters.” Is there a Ward in Newton where all 700 voters are deplorables?
Can anyone point to specific situations where a “parochialism or “us vs. them” mentality” has run a muck in government?
@Lucia,
I’m fairly certain that I didn’t say that any councilor was elected with 700 votes from deplorable people. But they were probably elected by 700 people who care deeply about their own neighborhood. That’s fine with me, as long as those ward councilors don’t comprise a majority — or even half — of the council.
Ward seats are far more likely to facilitate NIMBYism than at-large seats. That’s how I saw the Austin Street project. Councilor Norton served her ward well by opposing the project and lobbying her colleagues to do the same. But it was a project that would bring a lot to the city as a whole. Again, I think it serves the city to have such representatives on the council. I just think they should be a smaller proportion than those elected by the whole city.
@Bryan Barash – I just searched google for “power elites”. Here’s what I got. I can’t identify them but they don’t look too scary to me.
@Lucia — The issue of money in politics is a crucial issue and one I care deeply about. Unfortunately, we just have a disagreement about whether it’s something that can be made better or worse by the charter. If you want to work on public financing of elections or ending citizen’s united, I’m right there with you. The fact that it took Geoff 3 tries doesn’t mean at large elections are bad, it means that the voters preferred the incumbent in two of his elections.
In response to your question, the last incumbent to lose re-election happened in the most recent election cycle, when Marcia Johnson lost to a newcomer running for the first time, Jake Auchincloss.
@Jerry — LOL!
I wonder along with Bryan who these powerful elite people are that are looming to take control of the city.
Honestly the several people I know involved in the Charter Commission (who I know through different channels) took on this task without preconceived notions and want to see our city government structure updated to serve Newton better. It is sad to see how they are being treated by some posters here as they put much effort in this process. To make it seem that they were out for their own objectives really downplays all they put into this task.
As a non Waban resident I find some of the comments very divisive . Angier was rebuilt because of the horrible conditions that existed there and the outdated facility. Zervas though it may have a physical address of Waban serves the Highlands, Upper Falls and a portion of Waban. It is not genuine to state that the reason this school was rebuilt was because it is located in “Waban”. The serious overcrowding of the schools in Newton Centre led to this project being put ahead of Cabot. Their was not enough capacity gained by Angier to accommodate that growth. Bowen and Mason-Rice have been the largest schools for the last 4 years with MR at @511 students and an expected 516 next year making it significantly larger than any other school. The additional capacity at Zervas is going to slowly alleviate that. I know many hoped for the 16th elementary school in Upper Falls. That efforts seemed to come in a bit late and I’m guessing that geographically it would need to displace more kids than adding the capacity where the current overcrowding is. As far as the parking meters I would think that businesses in other village centers would prefer having metered spots because otherwise there would be little turnover in parking spots and less parking for their customers.
@Lucia Dolan – All things considered, I like the idea of having ward councilors as being part of the mix. Here in our neighborhood we have a sterling example of a ward alderman in John Rice, so I do get the value of local representation.
As for a “specific situation where parochialism or us vs then mentality has run amuck” – no not “run amuck” but yes I can think of an example of where ward alderman by dint of their role have the effect of working against the city’s wider interest.
I think the biggest obstacle to re-writing the accessory apartment ordinance, was due to ward alderman Lyle Baker’s very capable representation of his Chestnut Hill constituency … and I would argue against the larger interests of the city. At various points in that process, he introduced various proposed amendments that would have struck down accessory apartments in wide swaths of the city. He either didn’t seem to have any idea of the impact on non-Chestnut Hill parts of the city or didn’t much care. Likewise, the shortcomings of the last 30 years of accessory apartment rules can be traced back to the same root.
Yes, in the end those rules did finally get changed. Yes, no ward alderman has veto power. I think it’s naive though to think that ward aldermen will never choose ward over city when push comes to shove. That’s what their constituents elected them to do.
I’m disappointed that the Charter Commission has dropped ward councilors. I don’t agree with that decision. Is it a “deal breaker” for me? I don’t think so, but it does worry me a bit.
Paul-I have no idea what you’re talking about. It was Emily who said that ward councilors are beholden to the voters of the ward.
@Newton Highlands Mom
The megasizing of Zervas condemned kids in poorer less powerful neighborhoods to be bused forever from the areas where there never will be built a neighborhood elementary school. Its mega expansion was a disservice to lower income neighborhoods. A smaller renovation plus a new school in the DPW yard area would have been a much fairer solution.
@Bryan Barash
It took me 2 runs to succeed. The first generally fails due to small money and small networks. I know this very well.
It took me 2 years to build out a network. Raising money was still a problem.
Some really great candidates for the charter commission failed to get elected because they did not have access to a sufficiently large network. That’s why the charter commission is so blind on this issue. The commissioners are so accustomed to their network connections that they don’t even know they are a key factor.
And now to power elites. You can call it power concentrations or groups of people who largely have more money and connections and time than other groups.
Whatever it is they exist. Lowell’s has its Belvidere district where the Mayor and 5 of its 9 city councilors live:
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/why-whites-control-lowell-city-government/
That is what I call a power elite. You can take that as a definition and proof of existence.
The very fact that you question the existence of these groups shows how big our problem is. You actually are quite connected to one of the power groups in Newton. It might be loose, it might be close, but it is there.
It is unbelievable that we have this dismissal of ‘power elites’ when they are a real factor in Newton. In this respect, the charter commission seems to live in a bubble, where the at large mechanism for concentrating power in a relatively few hands is scornfully dismissed.
Why won’t the charter commission recognize and address the negative effects of at large no-residency councilors. What do they think of Lowell or Ferguson or the myriad examples of the corrosive effect it has?
So casual a move it is, to take all of the voting power of the ward councilors and gift it to the powerful forces in the city.
This is a complete abdication of responsibility to protect voting equity across Newton and is really damaging to the lower income residents of Newton
@Marcia:
“For me charter reform is an opportunity to support the ward councilors who do great things for the entire city and who I cannot currently support through my ballot.
Not really going to happen.
A YES on the chart recommendation, eliminating the ward councilor positions, will also eliminate the entire current set of ward councilors.
All of them will be gone, as their networks are too small to compete with their at large buddies.
Take a look at the 24 councilors we have now and figure who will survive.
The idea that ward councilors can harm the city at large is laughable. In a representative democracy, minority and majority interests both have to be represented. Trade-offs are made. But let’s do some math. Assume a council of 8 elected (NOT at large) by ward and 5 at large. Now if one ward councilor had a truly off-beat position, then it would go down 12-1. Even if half the wards did something that an at-large councilor couldn’t support, it would go down 9-4. If most of the wards took a position, then it probably would represent enough to bring along the at-large councilors.
What we get instead is a system in which wards 1, 2 and 3 are, frankly, being sold to developers for the highest bid. The projects are already in the works. This has little impact in other wards. But at least the three wards have a chance of putting together a winning coalition. The charter commission’s job is to make the city safe for the developers. Mr. Korff et al are salivating at the chance to buy an all-at-large council. Zoning would be something for just the little guy to be bothered by..
BTW I admit to being wrong that no other city uses “ward at large”. The City of Everett (MA) adopted that in 2011 replacing a truly strange bicameral system. They have five at large and six ward-at-large. And in a city that’s 53% anglo and 33% immigrant, the new city council is more like Lowell’s.
@Jane
Your words:
“But no matter what happens with the charter, it’s very clear to me that we have a lot of difficult, uncomfortable work to do in Newton. And ward councilors can’t do that work for us.”
The clear implication is that ward councilors aren’t looking out for the interests of the city, but just his/her Ward.
So you’ve made a serious accusation, unless you have some alternative rationale for YOUR words.
Bryan – to me Auchincloss’s campaign exemplifies the money in politics issue. He raised $6,800 to run in 2014, most of that money coming from outside Newton ($6,100).
Your campaign records show you raised $3,360 to run for the Charter Commission with $2,245 from outside Newton. Looking over your finance records it seems money came from you – $500 loan, family members, local representatives and Democratic party members – all of which, I believe supports the ‘money is a problem in politics thesis.’ If a candidate is not supported by a party and does not have financially flush family and friends, running citywide is a huge challenge. This limits the amount of diversity in our local government.
If you need to raise thousands of dollars to run a campaign for a contested seat, politics becomes a rich person’s game.
The inclusion of Auchincloss raises to 4 the number of seats held by a incumbent overturned in the 17 years I’ve lived in Newton. (I believe the Christine Samuelson seat was a Ward seat?) Considering we have 24 aldermen/councilors + 8 school committee members and elections every 2 years, to me 4 seems like staggeringly low turnover.
Jerry – Did Lyle Baker single-handedly stop accessory apartment legislation for 10+ years? The majority of the other aldermen/women must have been working with him. I’m pretty sure one vote could not stop legislation in Newton.
Running for office is about building a network, raising some money from the community/your family/friends, knocking on doors / talking to voters, and going to community events. I find it hard to understand why someone would want a candidate who has not built networks, gone to events in the community, or made enough of an effort to talk to voters around the city to represent their interests on the city council.
As Scott Lennon said in his campaign kickoff speech, while other people my age were going out with friends to the hottest new bar, I’ve spent a big chunk of my adult life at community events in places like Post 440 and the Women’s Workshop. I’ve met thousands of residents at their homes, at events, and at farmers markets and tried to understand their concerns and their values.
If that makes me “power elite” and you would prefer to be represented by someone who just rolled out of bed and decided to run for office, then didn’t put in the work to get to know the voters, I think we just have a very different opinion of how a good government should work.
One last thing — I do not apologize for being an active Democrat. Democratic values built the middle class and are the reason this country is so prosperous, something we’ve gone away from unfortunately at the national level. Thankfully, this city overwhelmingly does support progressive Democrats. I am proud to be part of the Democratic party and hope that the Newton Democratic City Committee continues to do what it exists for: electing Democrats at every level of government.
@Geoffrey
All of them will be gone, as their networks are too small to compete with their at large buddies.
If I were a ward councilor…this statement would disturb me. I think that you are under estimating people and their capabilities. I would hope that no ward councilor who is opposing charter reform is doing so simply because s/he does not believe that s/he can be elected city-wide. So if charter reform passes, I hope all incumbents who want to remain on the council whether they are at-large or ward will run. As for who wins…neither you nor I can predict the future. If you can, can you please predict that my next raise will be worth $1M.
BTW…are you still a Newton voter, as I thought you moved.
Just a quick note for Jerry – I am honored to be credited with so much influence; I just wish it were true. Councilor Hess-Mahan explained on another Village 14 post some of the concerns I and others (like Ward 4 at Large Councilor Gentile) raised about the proposed revisions to accessory apartments. These were city-wide in scope, not just limited to my Ward, though the change in the ordinance is of special concern to many of my constituents and others experiencing some of the difficulties of student housing in their neighborhoods. The amendments I proposed and were adopted, some of which were important technical improvements accepted without opposition, included assuring accessory apartments did not become tear down incentives, as well as that separate structures retain special permits to minimize impacts on neighbors and avoid effectively creating by right rear or side lot subdivision of single family lots. There is much history here that goes back to the original 1989 proposal, which I supported, which made accessory apartments available as of right as well as by special permit. Anyone interested is welcome to call me at home at 617-566-3848, and I will be glad to explain more than a simple post can do. Finally, while we did not agree on the merits of this issue, I am sorry to see Councilor Hess-Mahan retire. He is a principled and able colleague, and I will miss him.
@Bryan Barash: I challenge you to start a new thread where our community can debate the merits of your claim that “One last thing — I do not apologize for being an active Democrat. Democratic values built the middle class and are the reason this country is so prosperous, something we’ve gone away from unfortunately at the national level.”
It sounds like you believe your own hype and spin. I’ve done thorough research on issues specific to Newton that should be addressed by supposed progressive democrats, yet are wholly ignored by people such as yourself. For example, you serve on the Fair Housing Committee, correct? What advocacy have you taken to combat the Mayor’s apparent violations of the FHA? Furthermore, what is your position on the lack of diversity that is immediately apparent in Newton’s local governance? Whether we’re talking about direct appointments by the Mayor or promotions within our police and fire department, or anything in between, how specifically have you raised any such issues as a supposed progressive democrat and what actions have you taken in your various official roles within Newton’s government? If you haven’t, perhaps you yourself are afraid of the power elite? Please do enlighten me as I could be missing pertinent information.
I’ve got a bunch of similar specific points, the merits of which I look forward to us debating publicly. I could go on and on, but let’s take this one step at a time. I also look forward to discussing the role of outside money and its influence on elections. Given that you claim to be a progressive democrat, I figured you’d agree with me that you should not need a fancy last name and deep family pockets or a political establishment behind you to win a contested election in this city these days.
You yourself said today that you’d like to elevate this debate. Let’s bring it to the next level. If you are unclear of the best format for us all to debate these issues, please let me know as I have a few different ideas that would work equally well.
@Marcia
I did move but I am still a substantial Newton tax payer and have experience with the Framingham charter process which is very relevant to this discussion.
My goodness, Paul! What I meant was that we can’t expect that work to land on the shoulders of 8 ward councilors. It’s work that we as a community have to do together.
Wow. I just don’t know what to say.
Bryan – I apologize, I did not mean to offend you. You work well with the system we have. I just would rather we keep a low barrier to entry in local politics – both in time and money – like we have with the Ward councilors. I think it brings a diversity of opinions and backgrounds, which, to me, is important.
@Bryan
Anyone who has actually run as an independent in the city knows that they are up against a established political powers for whom electoral races are prime opportunities to maintain or expand their power.
Think of Margaret Albright v. Andrea Steenstrup, or Emily Norton v. Eve Tapper, or Geoff Epstein v. Gail Glick, or Bill Brandel v. Christine Samuelson.
Andrea, Eve, Gail and Samuelson were supported by the ‘power elite’ political circles so with established networks they had a great advantage. That was only over come by immense effort by Albright/Norton/Epstein/Brandel.
More money has to be expended and a great deal more shoe leather plus ingenuity and on occasion, capitalization on opponent’s mistakes.
If you don’t plan like you are really up against it, you lose.
An individual coming in from outside of the system has a big battle ahead of them and that reduces the pool of challenger candidates: money + networks matters.
So whatever Newton does, it does not want to make it harder for independent thinking people, with fresh ideas and energy, to serve.
When you trade the voting power of ward councilors for the voting power of at large councilors who can live anywhere in the city, you are giving a boost the entrenched powers who run the city. That is never wise.
Ask any independent who has run for office in Newton. Gather some data and you’ll find that there is a substantial power elite in the city whose influence is substantial and in electoral races can never be underestimated.
Better yet, pick an established incumbent in your ward and run against them and you’ll learn a great deal about how the political establishment works in Newton.
Learning this lesson is what helped me to win in Ward 1 and also put me in a position to help Margaret Albright win in Ward 2
Also, on the topic of power elites in action, see the power group centered around Sokoloff/Gifford who are supporting Brenda Noel to unseat Dick Blazar in Ward 6.
Dick has been way too independent and upset one of the power elite groups.
We need councilors like Dick!!
This power elite group is now activating itsnetwork and has accumulated $4350 from just 21 donors in mostly just 2 weeks of money gathering. That is the money being marshaled!!
https://www.ocpf.us/Filers/Index?q=16595#filer-data
Don’t tell me there are not power elites in Newton!!
It may come as a surprise that some people vote for candidates who support positions they believe in. Dick Blazer has voted against just about every issue that’s important to me-the Zervas project and the Orr project to name two. I may be wrong but I doubt he’d oppose anything that provided funding for the repair and renovation of schools in ward 6.
I don’t dislike the guy-he’s a perfectly pleasant man. I merely want the right to vote against him and I can’t.
Geoff dedicated years to serving this city. His service, experience, and researched thought process has earned himself the right to chime in. His contribution to the discussion should be respected. (I happen to agree with him in this case, but even if I didn’t, I would not be so petty and small to belittle his contribution). Shame on anyone who does that.
Lucia – Thanks for the interesting information about the money that comes from Outside Newton to the campaigns of Councilors. The thing I find even more interesting is 5 people giving $500.00 campaign Donations each to a councilor that is running Unopposed – by people from a specific group with a specific agenda. Yes we know they are Legal campaign donations but nonetheless it looks suspicious.
@Jane
I guess you never got used to town meeting structures where you can only vote for the meeting members in your precinct!
Locally elected reps fuel most of MA local government and it works out pretty well.
I like the fact that Dick voted against the mega expansion of Zervas and the Orr project. I would have taken the same position for the sake of the schools and the schools . Newton continues to build the wrong schools in the wrong places and expand residential developments which will flood the schools with more kids.
Dick is simply defending the schools from really bad planning which is always being backed by the power elites!!!! I can never figure out why the power elites get it wrong so often.
Those power elites brought us Newton North and back to back middle schools (Brown/Oak Hill) and mega sized elementary schools which now need more busing, as the schools are not walkable.
We have had bad planning for way too long in the city.
You would get a real headache in Framingham where 9 members of the council of 11 will be elected by just their district (ward). On the ballot, each voter will get to weigh in on 3 councilors: their district councilor and 2 at large councilors.
I think that there is real faith in the common sense of each district. We work together.
If you think that your district is the only one with any sense, I can see why you would like to have everyone at large so you can weigh in but your weight is diluted by a factor of 8 for at large councilors, so this weighing in is really an illusion.
We are all in this together and I am very happy to trust that the voters in the next district (ward) to mine are pretty sensible and if each district elects their own reps, things will work out fine.
If Newton voters trusted each ward to have the common sense to elect sound ward councilors, Newton would benefit greatly.
Imagine making a switch to 8 ward councilors plus, say, 3 elected at large with no residency for a council of 11. That would be viable.
I still think that 8 ward councilors + 8 at large councilors with a ward residency requirement is the most natural next step for Newton to take.
Gail – Ward voting may support NIMBYism, but at least voter are clear on what their representative supports. 1 Councilor in a Ward based election system would not be able to stop or pass any item on their own, they’d have to build a coalition with the other Ward reps.
You never said any voters were deplorable, but you seem to have a fear of 700 voters making bad voting choices. I don’t think our Ward councilors have been any better or worse than our At Large (Alison Leary, Dick Blazer, John Rice, etc.) Is there any data to support it one way or the other?
@Gail: One small problem with your theory: My predecessor, Steve Linsky, supported the Austin Street project.
@Emily: It wasn’t a theory. It was an example.
@Bryan – With all due respect, I see you were elected to CC because of power elites. Can you please educate me of your grassroot work in Newton besides your involvement in NewtonDems circle?
I went through your website, and did not find any.
@Gail / Jane – I just dont get it why does getting elected only by a ward de-legitimize (not your word) a councilor. The ward residents also paid/will pay for Zervas. Also a big Zervas in particular did not have full fledged support from the neighborhood (there was a thread). Just because few decide it was in best interest of the city, does not make it so. Obviously, they convinced majority and thats how democracy works. We should NOT short circuit debates, because some thing it is right for the everyone.
@Gail: If you reread your own post, you offered up my position on the Austin Street project as an example of how a ward councilor votes for something that is what her ward wants, but is bad for the City. The implication is that ward councilors do what is best for their ward even if it’s not what is best for the city. One could think of that as your THEORY. And in response I pointed out that ward councilor Steve Linksy supported the Austin Street project, which contradicts your theory, so I conclude that your theory is flawed.
In reality, Steve and I just had different opinions on the merits of the Austin Street project. Neither of us were voting in a way that we thought would be bad for the City.
I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what I’ve done that was so damaging to the City. Was it my leadership on the Welcoming City ordinance? My leadership on accessory apartments? My leadership on a leaf blower restriction? My leadership to ban plastic bags? My leadership to change the name from “alderman” to “councilor” in order to modernize our sexist terminology? My leadership to speed our transition to rely more on clean energy rather than fossil fuels? Or when I voted against the budget in order to draw attention to our $1B and growing unfunded pension and retiree health care obligations? Or how about when I supported the medical marijuana facility on Washington Street even though many in my ward opposed it? Or when I supported trying to site the Cabot School gymnasium in a different location in order preserve the historic view of the school, even when many Cabot School parents opposed doing that? I’m not seeing the obvious pattern of my voting in ways that harm the rest of the city while putting a finger in the wind and slavishly following someone’s conception of NIMBYism, but I’d be delighted if someone could point that out to me.
Maybe someone, even the CC, could an analysis of the effectiveness of our councilors.
That would help show if there is some measurable difference between ward and at large reps on that score.
Certainly in the leadership area, ward councilors have been astoundingly effective in getting broad councilor support.
I’m going to bring up a new argument in this thread – ward residency elected at large requires voters to judge contest in which they may have little to no knowledge and clutters the ballot.
Every year I have 17 races in front of me, 8 for the school committee, 8 ward-at-large, and 1 true ward. This is absurd. I heard “smaller council” and thought “less races” … the current proposal reduces these 17 to 16. No real improvement.
8 true ward & 4 at large would reduce this to 1 ward, 1 pick 4 at large, and 8 school.
As for at-large councillors with no residency requirement, it puts them in a position where they have city-wide recognition and support so there are more natural challengers for a mayoral race. Also, with four of them it’s possible to form a slate to challenge; if there’s an issue that unites with 3-4 challengers the costs and work of a race are distributed making it more do-able.
Ideally I’d prefer ward by ward for both the school committee and city councillors, with some percent at-large if answering to everyone is important to others in city
@Anne Actually today you have 17 positions on the council for whom you can vote, there are two at-large for each ward, and 1 for your ward for a total of 17. With the new charter it would be 12 for the council as all are at-large. The important difference is that with the new charter you can vote for all 12 and currently you can vote for 16 at-large, and one ward.
The other 7 ward councilors are not available to you for a vote. To Emily’s point, she focuses much of her work on issues that have city-wide impact, e.g. plastic bags, leaf blowers etc. however only 1/8 of us can vote for or against her on these issues. To her point, the majority of her work is “city” work and we all should be able to vote for/against her and her efforts otherwise she is not accountable to the city-wide voting population. There is very little that ward councilors do, except special permits [for development] , specifically for their ward that is then voted on by the entire city council…hence has/has not a city-wide impac t. Yet, for 7 members of the current council we cannot vote to suppot/not support. If I am wrong, I ask Emily or her other ward colleagues to explain how.
I think the Charter Commission views elimination of Ward councilors as expedient. If they eliminated 8 at large councilors then they couldn’t easily protect their councilors of choice as all 8 wards could trigger 8 run off elections which they may view as too uncertain. However this tactic does not create good stable long term government. I say keep the ward councilors and eliminate 8 at large councilors. Trust the voters to chose the best candidates.
Emily – Did it ever occur to you that maybe there are those who merely have a difference of opinion about how the city council should be structured, just as you had a difference of opinion with Steve Linsky about Austin St.?
You have yet to explain why you believe that ward councilors are “beholden to the voters of the ward” (your words, not mine. I don’t consider that leadership. I don’t consider it leadership when someone expresses an opinion and you raise the decibel of the conversation as you often do. An example is no longer just that – you raise it to a “theory”.
At a point in time when we’d all benefit from being more measured in the tone of language used, you frequently ratchet it up. I don’t consider that leadership.
@Jane-
“Did it ever occur to you” ? That’s quite the tone, there. Seems insulting. But maybe it just reads poorly.
On the other hand, I personally find it very difficult to keep a measured tone when we’re witnessing the attempted demolition of a system of locally-representative government that has helped build Newton into the fantastic city we have right now.
I have zero desire to see 5 out of 12 Councilors be from the same Ward (or be beholden to the same special interest). All they would have to do is get 2 or 3 others to sign onto whatever they’re proposing and – presto – they get what they want with no opportunity for any pushback or balance. That equals…bad.
It’s truly amazing that it’s even being proposed to start with. But voters can shut it down.
Vote NO and hang onto your chance to have a say in what happens in your own neighborhood.
@Neil: So again, lets get rid of the strawman. Who do you mean when you say power elite? It’s easy to create a boogeyman, but people in Newton are smart and I don’t think they’ll respond well to a fear-based argument.
I think that maybe it is being forgotten that each voter has 8 times the impact on their ward councilors than their at large councilors.
If you want to make a change, you have a much greater power to replace a ward councilor than an at large councilor. The rest of the city cannot force a ward councilor on you by outvoting you 8 to 1.
Plus this entire discussion lacks any input from these YES voter types on the really bad effects of at large no residency positions.
They refuse to acknowledge the documented problems. It’s pretty remarkable that they want to pretend there is no problem with visiting upon us a plague which is affecting cities and towns across the state and the nation. They are blind to Lowell. They are blind to Ferguson. …..
In Newton which prides itself on its great values, we are about to afflict the lower income areas of the city with deliberate, considered discrimination.
Maybe it should not be a surprise. After all the school system treats low income as a disability. Low income students are classified into SPED at twice the rate of the general population. 200 low income students are currently misclassified into SPED. They have been told they have a disability when they don’t. THAT IS A CRIME!
The gentlefolk who work together to run the city are quite blind to the less well off in the city. They simply don’t care. It’s all a game to them, as they happily exist in their comfortable bubble.
@Bryan
Power elites or powerful, financially well off and well connected groups only exist outside of Newton?
It seems that is your view.
I’d say that is a view from inside the bubble. Simply wrong.
And its not fear mongering to acknowledge the fact that powerful, organized voter groups have significant influences in Newton and other municipalities.
Why is it so hard for CC folks to come to grips with reality?
Here’s a question for you Bryan.
Have you studied the at large non-resident voting outcomes in Lowell? If not, why not? If so, why is that not relevant to the CC recommendations?
@Jane wrote: “You have yet to explain why you believe that ward councilors are “beholden to the voters of the ward””
Ward councilors are “beholden to the voters of the ward” because only the voters of the ward are allowed to vote for them. Please let me know if you’d like me to clarify further.
@Marcia
I’m not talking about the percent I directly elect, I’m talking about the number of races I have to research and vote in.
Current: 1 ward councillor race (choose 1) 8 at-large-by-ward councilor races (choose 2) and 8 at-large-by-ward school races (choose 1) – 17 races to elect 25 people who are supposed to represent me.
Proposed: 8 at-large-by-ward councilor races (choose 1) 1 at-large race (choose 4) and 8 at-large-by-ward school races (choose 1) – 17 races to elect 20 people who are supposed to represent me.
I used to be very involved in politics. Now I’m a parent with a special-needs child. My election research is googling the last 3 weeks of the tab and making my best guess. My husband’s research is asking me who we’re voting for. It’s exhausting enough I’ve thought of just not voting (and I’ve voted in all but two primary elections since I turned 18 – one the county didn’t send my absentee ballot, and e other I was dead sick)
To me a smaller council = less choices I have to research and a clearer idea of who I should call. Am I/will I be represented by 17/24 of the current or 12/12 of the future council? All 8/8 of the school council. If I have a problem should I write my residency-restricted councilor or school rep or all of them? The current system is very strange, something that was reinforced as I was writing at-large-by-ward: there are no common words to describe this system of election because it’s just that rare.
As stated, my preferred would be: 8 ward councillors, so a voter sees 1 race (choose 1) with 3 or 4 or 5 at-large councillors (pick 3-4-5) selected using IRV vote allocation which the Hugo awards just switched to to prevent domination by a slate (if a slate is preferred by the majority of voters, it will still be elected); and something similar for the school committee. Say 4 by 2-ward district and 1, 2, or 3 at large.
In this case I need to research 1 ward councilman, 1 at-large race (which will probably have decent coverage in local media), 1 school councilor and 1 at large school race. With IRV I can bullet vote for my favourite candidate if ai only like one, or go with a slate if I’m looking to support/overturn the status quo on an issue. I now directly elect 4/11, 5/12, or 6/13 of the city council and 2/5, 3/6, or 4/7 of the school committee with just four races to decide on. 4 races for 6 to 10 representatives (or 8 to 12 if the school committee structure is the same as the council) seems much more do-able to me as a voter.
And with IRV and 4 at large councillors, it would be possible to win a seat by campaigning hard in 2-3 wards and getting a majority of the members there to “bullet vote” for you and only you … thus (I hope) negating some of the concern over power concentration.
When this process started I joked to my husband that the committee should have the MIT assains guild in to go over election/game theory with them (the assasins guild is the live roplaying society at MIT and builds games, including rules and mechanics from the ground up) . He replied that we should scrap the strong mayor system and resolve all zoning complaints by “two men enter, one man leaves” to which I said that the grannies of the town would gut the young developers any day of the week 😉
I don’t feel that this was examined enough by the committee, something that has only been reinforced by the last minute change and reversal of the change. But I think that – myself included – we’re all more politically informed and active that he average newton resident or presidential-elections-only voter. And, as a result of this, we need to step back and ask “is this clear to the voters?” “Does this make it easier to be an informed voter?”
I think right now the current proposal is a wash. I’ll probably vote for it because it doesn’t make my ballot any messier and fixes other things. But I might not. This isn’t the smaller council I was envisioning AT ALL.
Correction to previous post: rather than IRV (used in the Hugo elections) I prefer the multi-round nomination system proposed in section 3.8.8 when selecting a subset of a larger group.
As this would work in at-large elections assume each voter is given 24 “points” and can vote for up to 4 candidates. A, B, C, D, E, F, & G.
I vote for A, B, D & F.
Round 1: Each one is given 6 points for my vote (24/4=6), at the end of the round D had the least number of points (across all voters) and is eliminated.
Round 2: my ballot is now A, B, & F. Each one is given 8 points for my vote (24/3=8) so although one of my candidates was eliminated my overall voting power is undiminished. At the end of this round candidate A is eliminated.
Round 3: my ballot is now B & F, with 12 points for each. Candidate G is eliminated making the final winners B, C, E, & F.
Maybe I feel really strongly that candidate D is the only worthwhile one – if I voted just for D, then D would have gotten all of my 24 points in round 1 and might not have been eliminated. (Of course, if D was eliminated, I had no other candidates that I preferred, so my voting power is lost)
… but I’m a game theory geek.
This is an inverse of/see also Sequential Propotional Approval Votting
Emily –
Can you explain your use of the word “beholden” which is defined in various commonly used dictionaries as “indebted, in someone’s debt, obligated” “owing something”.
The voters get what they deserve..
I do agree with Anne that one of the biggest problem with the current system is that a fully contested local election will end up with a ballot that has far too many races (17) for a normal voter to be reasonably informed about. The proposed new charter reduces the size of the board but doesn’t significantly reduce the number of local races (16 vs 17) that voters are expected to educate themselves on.
@Jane: First you proclaim, as if you are Newton’s “best interest” czar, that Emily Norton maliciously acts against the best interest of the city that she loves. Please note that you cite zero evidence to support this claim, which has become a regrettable theme of the Charter Commission. Please note further that when Emily defends herself against such ridiculousness by clearly laying out her record of leadership, you fall back to one of the weakest arguments of all time – that the tone which Emily uses to combat the absurdity which we’re seeing here isn’t leadership. In other words, it appears that you believe you are entitled to attack Emily’s character without repercussion. As if that weren’t enough, when Emily successfully defends her position on the merits, rather than respond with substance, you again avoid any responsibility of arguing the merits by circling back to Emily’s use of the word “beholden.” The depth of argumentative logic that we’re seeing throughout this debate is what I’d expect to find on a middle school playground.
Beholden is commonly defined as “owing thanks or having a duty to someone in return for help or a service.” Is it your position, Jane, that owing thanks to those who elected you to serve the community that you love is a bad thing? If so, why? Given that you have decided to attack her character, you have a duty to cite objective reasons as to how Emily acts against the best interest of Newton. In today’s day and age of special interests and power elites, I’d much rather that Emily feel beholden to those whom elected her to serve rather than to some small, homogeneous group with a specific, narrow and close-minded agenda.
That the Charter Commission has resorted to this level of discourse is quite frankly pathetic. The people of Newton – the real people of Newton – deserve so much better.
@Jerry, Anne
Newton voting could be much simpler. Just 5 races in each ward.
Just look at the recently adopted Framingham model.
Each district (ward) will have 9 districts with:
1 district school committee race
1 district councilor race
2 at large councilor races
for a council of 11 and a school committee of 9 + the mayor ex officio.
Just 4 races for each voter to get informed on and cast their vote. This allows the voter a much better chance to get properly educated on the candidates and that is a very big advantage. This approach is also strongly connected to the precinct based voting which underpins town meeting democracy across the Commonwealth. There are no at large races for town meeting except for the moderator.
Newton could have adopted a similar approach with ward based voting dominating, but that would have been a sizable step and strengthened the neighborhoods at the expense of the powerful, citywide organized voting blocs (power elites) who are advantaged by at large races which play to their financial and networking strengths.
Try this on for size:
1 ward school committee race
1 ward councilor race
3 at large councilor races
That would have worked quite well, for a council of 11 and just 5 races in each ward.
When the 2020 census is done, maybe another ward could have been added to bring the council to 12 and the school committee to 9. None of these ward based models were considered by the charter commission in their rush to extinguish ward elected representation.
@Tom
It does seem from Jane’s tone that the charter commission was convened purely to eliminate Emily Norton!
Typo;
Replace:
“Each district (ward) will have 9 districts with:”
“Each of the 9 districts (wards) will have:”
I think that there is a very simple explanation for how the charter commission got into this problem with size and composition for the council.
From the outset, the charter commission intended to reduce the size of the council. There is broad support for this.
But they also did not want to increase the power of the ward councilors. They would take great heat from the powerful interests in the city for doing that.
The simple fact is that you cannot reduce the council size and retain the ward councilors, without increasing their power.
So from the outset, the charter commission had to eliminate the ward councilors.
That is why ward councilors were never considered, their value or effect never deliberated upon, nor their value as a source of leadership ever recognized.
They were toast from the start.
The basic question is one of grass roots democracy.
That is a big question and one which has been side stepped by the charter commission.
The charter commission is in no position to make recommendations on council size or composition, when its deliberations have been so flawed from the start.
It would be best for no recommendations to be made on size or composition, and that area be identified as needing a much more comprehensive future review by the community.
That way we could all benefit from all of the other progress which has been made and not see all the effort come to naught with a NO vote in November.
If charter recommendations cannot be made with unanimous or near unanimous support, they should be shelved.
Jerry, Geoffrey,
Either of those would work fine for me. I just wanted to point out that at-large power concentration can be addressed though voting methods, not just residency requirements.
@Jane: I owe my election to the voters of Ward 2. That’s how the whole system works as I’m sure you know, so I don’t understand why you keep asking me.
Emily – I didn’t receive your mailer, or if I did I missed it. A number of people pointed that sentence out to me as a concern. It’s in your best interest to explain fully what you meant.
Tom – I’m a public school teacher.
It’s always a good reminder that no matter how many comments are on a V14 thread, a limited number of people participate or even read a particular one.
Snow removal? I skip it. Leaf blowers? Skip that too. Development? Same old, same old. Who’s running for office? I’m all in!
@Jane I’ve explained it as best I could. It’s a basic tenet of democracy. I am beholden to the voters of the ward because they elected me. So I try my best to represent their interests, so that they will want to keep voting for me.
Thank you, Emily. That’s a much clearer explanation.
A comment was made that Upper Falls residents seeking the restoration of a walkable school came late to the discussion. I disagree Upper Falls residents objected strongly to the loss of the school when Emerson and Hamilton were both closed in 1987. Many of us also objected to the loss of Hyde as well. The net result of the loss of these three schools that most children could walk to has saddled the city with a perpetual cost of burden of busing kids from the physically distant neighborhoods. School bonds eventually get paid off. School busing costs that are added by thoughtless re-districting never do.. Upper Falls residents have never forgotten this nor have residents of other villages from which children must be forever transported unless more enlightened future decisions are made. The example of three children from adjacent homes in Upper Falls going to three different elementary schools is well known in Upper Falls as is the devastating effects on neighborhood cohesiveness.
These short sighted decisions were a product of the lack of sensitivity to neighborhood concerns on the part of officials elected at large like the former school committee and the former mayor. The fact that the proposed charter would push this lack of insight and empathy further into the fabric of Newton government has led to oppose to the charter since the commission’s early but ill considered decisions.
Brian Yates is exactly right.
In addition, the idea that it would be sound strategy to add another new elementary school on the south side has been active since I got on the school committee in 2008. The DPW yard was suggested as a possible location, among others. The great advantage of that is that it puts added capacity where the students live, to their great benefit, and cuts busing costs as well. Plus it provides more capacity as a hedge against further growth in student numbers on the south side.
But we could only do that if we appreciated the great value of neighborhood schools and actually planned well, to locate new capacity where student growth is expected.
That’s part of valuing neighborhoods and planning accordingly.
And that approach to Newton has been eroding faster ever since mega-sizing Zervas got approved.
Bigger elementary schools mean more busing, less walking. More expensive, worse for our students.
The successful neighborhood school approach of many decades is being thrown out the window.
Eliminating the ward councilors is simply part of this same hugely detrimental trend.
Most people agree neighborhood schools, to which children can walk, provide a solid foundation for early education success. Almost every parent knows that a more community environment, with smaller student to teacher ratios and more personalized attention, is a preferred and more successful learning environment.
Hillary never said it takes a city to raise a child. She said ‘a village’. And she was right.
Let’s keep and enhance the community “village” approach.
Those who have a desire to morph the 13 villages into one large-density city might be more comfortable moving to a city which is already structured that way.
This ill-conceived proposal to eliminate direct Ward representation (and hence diminish the village structure) is terrible.
The right answer is to vote NO.
Geesh! Next are you going to tell us these guys oppose the new charter too?
@Geoffery
I agree with most of what you said; excepting Zervas. My understanding is that all schools will be targeted for 4 classes/grade or 20 x 4 x 6 = 480 as that allows for full-time specialists at each school, the library open 5 days a week, etc. As someone who has kids interacting with the specialists, I find great comfort in knowing even if it’s not a day or morning/afternoon he has “session” on that the specialist is in the building and his teacher can call them in/talk to them after school or during Tuesday afternoon if there is an issue.
Helping my kid also helps keep him from disrupting other kids, and having schools large enough for full-time specialists makes the spots more attractive and allows us to attract a higher quality of candidates.
Newton has three elementary schools with an enrollment range of 450-500, and five schools with a range of 400-450. We also have six schools with an enrollment range of 290-330; enlarging many of these smaller schools will allow Newton to meet our enrollment projections without the cost and disruption of assembling new sites.
I don’t see how to make the math work with 3 classes per grade – at 2 you could just have 1/2 time specialists, but…
Right now there are 16-23 classes at the schools I looked at (Burr, Zervas, Angier) and usually the following specialists:
Art (1)
PE (1)
Music (1)
Instrumental Music (1) – part time, the same name appears at multiple schools
Library (1) … although Angier has 1 librarian + 1 library assistant
Total: 4 (rounded down)
And then:
IT (1)
ELL (2)
Literacy (1)
Math (1)
Total: 5
And then the support to mainstream Special Ed:
Chair (0-1) (may be combined with another role)
Social Worker (1)
School Psychologist (1)
Learning Center (2)
Inclusion (1)
Occupational Therapist (1)
Speech Therapist (2)
Physical Therapist (1)
Total: 9 (rounded down)
Plus:
Principal (1)
Principal/School Admin (1)
Nurse (1)
Custodian (2)
Lunch Supervisor (1) – PT?
Total 5 (rounded down)
So to support 16 to 23 classrooms (With 1 teacher and perhaps an aide) we have 23 other staff. Staff is the biggest expense of our schools, and will remain so going forward. Like it or lump it, unless Newton is willing to pay (and has the political willl for overrides) sizing the school to the staff makes sense.
…. But I agree that neighborhoods don’t have to like it. And if they don’t like it enough their councilor and school committee member should be accountable to them at the ballot box.
@Charlie
Oddly enough, we tried to live in the city. But cities – for some reason – are really desirable and houses and condo’s within the walk zone of the top schools in Boston had comparable pricing (and lack of availability) when we were looking 7-8 years ago. And don’t get me started on Brookline – all of the amenities of a city and great schools. We could only afford a studio- or one-bedroom condo for what our single family house cost in Newton.
Also, both Boston and Brookline have local representation. I think what all-at large is actually pushing us towards is a centrally-run small town (which I would never live in, Newton never was, and even if this happens – never will be)
@Anne
I have to respectfully disagree on the elementary school size issue.
In my time on the school committee, we visited many elementary schools and asked their principals what they considered the optimal size was. We got back in the vicinity of 425.
Jeff Young famously also polled principals and got a similar response.
For the longest time the school committee insisted on 450 as the absolute limit for elementary school size.
Once the 450 limit was relaxed, it was clear that the principal was overwhelmed and needed an assistant, and more buses were needed as the draw area of the school expanded – more recurring expenses. And, as schools scale up in size, they become more impersonal generally.
Given the history Newton has of operating elementary schools beyond their design size, and the above input from the principals, I firmly believe that 425 is optimal and 450 the absolute upper limit. I also believe that is not only academically and socially best for kids, but the most cost effective model.
With such design sizes there was never any problem with specialists, or any other resource, that could be tied to school size.
I recall that Lincoln Eliot wanted to move the pre-K classes out of their school to get their K-5 population nearer 400-425, as that would allow the specialist teachers to be full time!
So it made sense to increase Zervas to around 425, especially given that it had the smallest site of any elementary school in Newton. That could have been done, with the taking of the 3 Beacon St houses, with an expansion of the one level model, and with the bonus of no tree felling and expansion of associated park land. Win-win-win.
Such an expansion might have taken $10-15 million like the Carr renovation, leaving a great deal of money: $30-35 million to build another 425 elementary school in Upper Falls.
Proper supply of specialists is not tied to beyond 450 sizes.
But the Zervas project, having been funded by an operating override, without any discussion of what scale was best, proceeded headlong into mega territory.
That is why no-one should ever again vote for an operating override with capital projects in it. They should be separated out and voted on just as they are for MSBA projects or, as Wellesley did a number of years ago, when voters approved one of 3 possible designs.
One could go on. It all amounts to have good community input on where the money goes and the ward councilors are a pivotal part of that best practice.
Geoffrey,
One of your comments really had me perplexed. Regarding Zervas, you said that “it had the smallest site of any elementary school in Newton.” I’m no expert in the area, but the site seems quite large when compared to schools like Horace Mann, Ward, and Lincoln-Eliot. For example, some quick internet research shows that the Zervas site is appx 230,000ft2, while the site at Horace Mann is 69,000ft2. Care to clarify?
Or Cabot, 77,000ft2
Or Lincoln-Eliot, 43,000ft2
Or Angier, 86,000ft2
Or Underwood, 44,000ft2
I was referring to the total area available to the school for students – not just the building plot.
Zervas students, for sure had, the smallest play area of all schools, as all of the other elementary schools noted above have extensive playing fields or parks abutting them.
That was the calculus.
Now with the 3 Beacon St house lots turned into parking lots, the opportunity to expand the play area has been lost.
Bruce Henderson developed detailed information in this issue many years ago. Maybe he could comment and point us to that, or summarize that as well.
@Geoff
Thanks for that perspective. I have no particular love of four classes per grade, it was just my understanding that they’re needed to balance staff and specialists.
As for having the MSBA involved – as someone in the construction industry, with friends there – my understanding is that their standards govern things like no funding for auditoriums in elementary schools (hence the cafetorium), square footage per student, and cost per square foot (quality of finishes). So it’s entirely possible to build a “mega-school” as long as it is not oversized for the number of students.
I joked when I toured Angier and saw the curved soffits above the hallways – “bet the MSBA didn’t pay for that change order” (I have no idea if it was a change order, only that curved soffits are crazy expensive and time consuming and architects love them)
… So, while we’re advocating for ward councilors, can we also have ward school committee members 😉
Hello,
It is not my intent to step into the ward vs. at-large voting conversation but I do want to add some color to the comments of Brian, Geoff and Charlie. I can see arguments for both positions – tonight I simply want to discourage folks from drawing faulty conclusions from the facts at hand.
I agree with Brian’s assertion that the Upper Falls neighborhood fought hard to keep Emerson open. This is backed by the blow-by-blow written account of former Newton School Committee member and former Lexington Superintendent Paul Ash’s in his PhD dissertation on the Newton closings. Even though City residents voted in favor of closing Emerson by a 2:1 margin, the neighbors fought a pitched battle to save Emerson and to this day many residents of Upper Falls advocate to reopen an elementary school there.
In the 2015 municipal election I was an at-large SC candidate and a strong proponent of enlarging Zervas over building a 16th school in Upper Falls. My position evolved from 2009 when I favored a 16th school, and my reasoning is fairly well captured in the op-ed that John Rice and I co-wrote (Anne just linked to it, thank you!) Ultimately, we became convinced that the best decision for the City and our schools overall was to spend our resources by working with the 15 current elementary school sites.
But how did Ward 5 feel about my “Citywide” attention? The other Ward 5 SC candidate in that election was a focused advocate for a 16th school in Upper Falls. I squeaked by in Emerson’s Ward 5-1 with a winning percentage of 51.3%. But in all of Ward 5 my winning percentage was 72%, or 4 points higher than the 68% of the vote I received across Newton.
We can bring our own interpretations to this race, but one cannot conclude from this data that my big-picture focus came at the expense of ward support, or that it was out of step with Ward voters. And I differ from Brian’s suggestion that the vote to close reflected a lack of insight or empathy by at-large elected officials – from my perspective it reflected a thoughtful and resigned acknowledgment, captured well by Spock in The Wrath of Khan when he said that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”. When resources are finite we must make choices whether we are elected by ward or at-large.
To Charlie’s comment about neighborhood schools and low class sizes, larger Newton schools absolutely don’t mean larger class sizes. On the contrary, we have been more successful in in our larger schools at: keeping class sizes down overall; and keeping the percentage of classes with high enrollments as low as possible.
My old friend and colleague Geoff and I have differed about Zervas in many spirited exchanges on this blog so no need to repeat, and besides Zervas isn’t really the point of this thread. But Zervas is being used, inaccurately I believe, to make points about ward only vs. at-large representation, and that’s why I’m chiming in.
Here’s a final example: To the implication that “bad” decisions like an expanded Zervas prove the value of ward-only representatives: Ward 5 Alderman John Rice was one of the strongest supporters of an expanded Zervas and no 16th elementary school in Upper Falls. One of the strongest opponents? Ward 5 At-Large Alderman Brian Yates. These are two limited data points but they remind us to be careful in the conclusions that we draw.
Randy, I think the numbers you’re citing for school site size are the parcel sizes from the City assessor’s database. These numbers don’t have much relation to usable space for a school because, for instance, a very large portion of the Zervas parcel is conservation/unavailable/swamp land (which can be seen when you click on the aerial-photo view in the assessor’s database).
Unlike Zervas, many of the other schools are adjacent to open park space that is used for school activities. As a result, Zervas was (and probably will continue to be) the only Newton elementary school without access to a baseball diamond either on-site or in an adjacent park. I’m not sure, but as I recall, the old Zervas had less available green space per student than any other school, and I expect that that record will hold with the new school.
(You’re in good company, though! The consultants hired by the City to assess size and condition of all school properties in 2007 copied site sizes from the parcel database.)
And we now return you to our ongoing charter-reform discussion…
@Anne
Yes! We should have ward elected school committee members. That would greatly improve the Newton school committee. But the oh so wise charter commission never thought to consider that. It would shift a great deal of control of the school committee to local neighborhoods and away from the organized, well financed and networked power groups in the city – the power elites!
Provided the recount on 4/24 affirms the YES vote on the new Framingham charter, we will have school committee members elected by district (ward). It is a shift from the prior at large approach which had 100% of the school committee members living north of Rt 9 where just 40% of the students reside.
In fact, because we are hopefully shifting to the new district (ward) based election scheme, I am now contemplating a run for District 6 school committee member.
At least 5 of 9 new school committee members will come from districts which have never had a resident school committee member. It is wonderful. Finally, the light of democracy will shine on these neglected areas of Framingham!
Geoff,
I let my brother (Framingham resident) know to be on the lookout for you! I tried to talk him into running for one of the new legislative seats as his town meeting seat is about to be dissolved, but he didn’t consider it to be an even trade. 🙂
With the new GASB standards of best practice transparent fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer citizen comes the morality infusion of honest leadership. These standards were never considered in the 1971 charter revision with the SC membership set to ‘at-large’ term limitation, the trade-off financial balancing for cityside funding.
The wealth based golden circle of the Garden City, those that have get more – those that don’t get bupkis.
oh, the fun time of an open executive seat!
Steve Siegel misunderstands my point. The lack of empathy and insight into `that
I saw in the 1987 decisions to close Emerson and Hamilton due in part to all the officials making the decision being elected at large is not reflected in the later decisions heavily affected by these colossal mistakes of the past. Mr. Spock sacrificed his life because of the situation that the Enterprise faced now because of past actions; the quote is irrelevant.
Maybe the Steve Siegel of 2009 would have voted differently in 1987 than the School Committee member of 1987 and avoided the consequences of the bad decision of that year.
I can’t speak for Councilor John Rice, who is a wonderful example of a Ward Councilor and a great example of why the Charter should not pass., but I think he was trying to work within the constraints imposed by past bad decisions including the necessity to bus (or drive) hundreds of students from distant locations.
New circumstances like the construction of 850 units proposed by Northland on Needham Streets should lead to new decisions like a walkable school on the site to reduce the amount of traffic into Upper Falls and from Upper Falls to outside school sites. As Mr. Spock said on another occasion, “there are always possibilities”. I hope all school committee members now and in the future will keep their minds open to possibilities that might avoid repeating or worsening the mistakes of the past.
Now that the Charter Commission has set in stone it’s proposal, it seems like a good time to inform voters to the great extent possible.
I have resubmitted a post to the “yes” side’s facebook page which provides a link to the http://www.newtondemocracy.org website to help inform and allow for balance. Note: There was no argument promoting or slamming one side or another. Only a link to the additional information.
My original post was deleted by the moderators of the page.
Personally I will be voting NO on the anti-democratic proposal. I also believe that the argument for NOT getting rid of Ward representation is so strong, it might be why the “yes” side is so worried about voters being fully informed.
If the “yes” side is confident in its argument, there should be no hesitation to help voters learn as much as possible and make a fully informed decision.
Reminds me of the 08 override where the ‘yes’ was so blinded, even to allow discussion in the PTSO presentations at Day of ‘no’ fiscal responsibility. Yours truly was shunned from presenting accountable numbers. oh my.
There also seems to be big money behind the yes side. There is polling going on right now apparently in an attempt to find acceptable language with which to sell it through.
There seems to be a ton of special interest and development money riding on this, and
an attempted power consolidation effort favoring special interests is very embarrassing for our city.
Vote NO this fall, and keep your full voting power.
ain’t over till its over, no fat lady singing, city of mass size diversity..
Charlie – If you can vote for every councilor seat, then you have full voting power. Right now, I can’t vote for close to a third of the seats on the council so I don’t have full voting power.
Each campaign will spend money to make its case. As I’m sure you’re aware, a mailer was sent to many homes in Newton in February. Given the early date, it’s safe to assume it won’t be the only one sent out to residents. Mailers are very costly and that money is coming from somewhere.
@ Charlie – What I have found because it is Public knowledge on the Mass Political Contributions website – http://www.ocpf.us is that Special Interest Groups seem to already be giving HUGE money ie $500.00 contributions to Ward Councilor even though they are running Unopposed. Yes it is Legal however really 500.00 Contributions all from Special Interest groups to one ward Councilor interesting to say the least. 2- 500.00 donations from the same development company and then another 4 or 5 – 500.00 contributions from special interest groups. So not sure how this will change with a No vote. The special interest money is already being given to Ward Councilors. Maybe that is why some of the Ward Councilors are running at large so that they can keep on getting their piece of the $500.00 Pies.
I am just surprised @Jane is condoning special interest money in Newton elections.
I am a NO supporter, but I dont want to see special interest or even Money from outside Newton to be used in the NO campaigns.
Why bring that filth in here. Can we all see what that has done to politics in DC or in Boston.
@ Neil P – The filth is already in Newton – check out who has donated to your Councilors especially some of the Ward Councilors on – http://www.ocpf.us
Lots of $500.00 donations for a Ward Councilor – Yes it is Legal but oh so suspicious.
Doubt if a Yes or No Vote will change that!
@Jane- Why should you be able to vote for a local Ward Councilor? The view of Newton solely as one big city, marginalizes and devalues the entire village structure.
I like the village structure. I value it.
The reason there are BOTH at large and ward elected positions is to provide balance.
See, that way everyone has some village/ward representation AND some at large representation.
The system works nicely as is.
The idea of reducing the size of the Council is reasonable, but not at the expense of true local representation.
The proposal on the table consolidates power, empowers special interests, and reduces local voter input…and that’s just anti-democratic and bad.
Vote NO to power consolidation.
Vote NO this fall.
The ward councilor from another part of the city is able to vote on an issue that affects my ward, yet I can’t vote against him/her. Therefore that councilor can’t be held accountable for that vote by 7/8 of the city, most specifically by the ward affected by that particular vote. I believe every voter should have the right to hold all councilors accountable for their votes.
Neal -I do not support special interest funding. I’m writing on an iPhone this weekend and I may not have been clear or you may have misinterpreted something I wrote.
@Jane
Those sound like clearly held, strong beliefs.
Can you point us to anything before the election for the Commission where you similarly stated this?
I spoke about the of accountability throughout the campaign.
Just to clarify Jane:
You said that all voters should have the ability to vote for all City Councilors during the campaign?
Or just a general sense of accountability?
Good questions Paul. I don’t believe Jane or any of the sitting charter commission candidates communicated during the campaign their interest in eliminating ward councilors.
Emily-As I’ve stated numerous times, during the campaign in which I spoke to hundreds of people about any issue of concern at many events, venues and while canvassing, two people spoke to me about ward councilors. Two.
@ Emily, the charter commission is not proposing to eliminate ward councilors. Every ward will have a councilor, and therefore a voice on the city council.
Since 1897, 2/3 of Newton’s city council has been made up of ward councilors elected citywide. The charter commission proposed to retain this feature–2/3 of the proposed city council will be ward councilors elected citywide.
Under the proposed charter, it’s 100% at large, and residency requirements are a poor cover. You represent who votes for you. That’s how you get elected.
That’s not how it works at the state or federal level. We vote for one person to represent us, and who we vote for in Massachusetts is not the same as who they vote for in Alabama. Even though both make laws for the whole country! And on Beacon Hill, we vote for one senator and one representative. Now were our founding fathers stupid to let constituents vote, rather than have everyone vote for a resident elsewhere? Jane, during the campaign for charter commission, there was plenty of talk about a smaller council. But nobody campaigned on all-at-large council, even with cover of residency requirements (which are fundamentally meaningless). I don’t think anyone expected it. That’s why nobody asked about it. It was a well-kept secret.
@Rhanna, the charter commission is recommending elimination of the position of ward councilor. What you are referring to is “at-large” councilor, with a residency requirement, which we already have 16 of.
@Jane: Your response further makes Emily’s point. The reason that you heard from so few people about ward councilors during the campaign is twofold: 1) You nor anyone else ran on a platform of eliminating ward councilors and 2) therefore, the most logical assumption to be made by those engaged in the Charter Commission process was that the elimination of them was not part of the debate. In other words, why would the very, very, very, very small percentage of people engaged in the campaign proactively foresee such extreme action by the eventual Charter Commission? That’s especially the case given the fact that ward councilors are an integral reason as to why Newton has evolved into the strong city that it is.
Tom – I asked people what their priorities were and most people said cutting down the size of the city council. Other people wanted the issue of how vacancies are filled to be updated. Many people were unclear as to which issues are resolved by charter and which should be dealt with by ordinance, so many conversations dealt with clarifying the difference.
I made two points during the campaign:
1. Our current charter is seriously out of date and that a number of articles were no longer applicable because state law had changed and state law trumps the local charter. This is true and will only become more of a problem if we continue to work with such a dated document. The Financial Procedures section in the proposal provides the kind of security and oversight necessary in this day and age.
2. The current council is too large and needs to be downsized
The need for ward representatives was unanimously agreed upon by the 9 charter commissioners, because of Newton’s economic and geographic diversity. No commissioners wanted a city council with no representatives from the wards, which is what Lowell and 5 other cities in our peer group have.
Every ward will have a city councilor who is familiar with the people, the neighborhoods, the local city resources such as parks / fire stations, local traffic and pedestrian issues, local businesses business owners. The ward-based councilor can ensure that local issues get addressed by the council or other city agencies.
Local representation was a high priority for the charter commission, which is why 2/3 of the proposed city council is representatives from the wards.
@Jane
During the campaign, why did you hide that you were against ward-only representatives?
Doesn’t seem honest.
Yes, Okay, I admit it, when asked to sign the petition at the Farmer’s Market, I answered that I would like a reduction in the number of members of the city council when the league rep said that was a driving force for having the commission.
As I’ve posted before, my bad: I should have asked the league representative if that meant specifically eliminating the ward-specific counselors. I didn’t because I did not dream that the SPECIFIC elimination of direct representation would be on the table given the amount of at-large councilors that already existed. Again, silly me for assuming.
” Every ward will have a councilor, and therefore a voice on the city council.”
Not to be obtuse, but how so, if ward residency is not required? AND, if myself in ward 3 become consolidated with Ward 4 and 5 for example, how does that widening pool of people allow me to have the same degree of representation from my ward councilor that I now have? I have to assume that if one person becomes responsible for the concerns of more people all at once, then the ability to be heard by them diminishes mathematically in the space of the reality we live in.
Paul – Where did you get that? I said I was for downsizing the council and open to all options.
As I’ve said in recent weeks if there had been a consensus in the city around the composition of the council, I’d have been happy to go along with it. But there wasn’t. Just because a resident doesn’t state his/her opinion on V14 or in the Tab doesn’t mean that opinion doesn’t matter. It mattered to me. I listened to everyone with whom I spoke and actively sought out people with differing opinions to inform my thinking.
@Jane
You’ve been very clear that you believe in “one city” not villages, and its clearly a long-held view.
You were not open to keeping ward-only representatives. Please stop suggesting otherwise.
@Rhanna, if “local representation was a high priority for the charter commission”, you would have maintained the “local representation” we already have, ie our ward councilors. Instead you are moving to a system
increasingly disavowed by communities across the country, ie at-large only. Boston has 9 district councilors, 4 at-large councilors. Framingham which just voted to become a City, chose to have 9 district councilors and 2 at-large councilors. Framingham even made their School Committee all district-elected as well.
What you are proposing will make it easier for councilors to disregard the view of the constituents in their ward, simply because the city is so large, one can tick off the ward but still be supported by voters in other wards. You are also making it harder for moderate income candidates who work for a living, and empowering the wealthy and connected, who are more likely to have the time and funds to run citywide.
The constant statements of “keeping an open mind” are entirely disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Frankly, its insulting.
The was zero indication from any candidate, at any time, that a primary focus would be on eliminating Ward-elected representation. But in the first few meetings, the group-think took hold and there was not even the slightest desire by the Commissioners to ask voters if a smaller council was worth losing their most accountable elected office.
What’s truly stunning is today’s overwhelming vote by the Newton LWV to support this ill-conceived proposal. It flies in the face of what the LWV actually stands for and I’m very concerned that special interests and those favoring power consolidation have been able to permeate an organization which historically has protected voters rights. It’s a pretty sad day that the LWV votes to enhance the power of special interests at the expense of voter input.
That being said, the fight is on and the more voters learn, the better chance to bury this bad idea.
A packed hall for the Mayoral debate this morning applauded Councilor Amy Sangiolo when she spoke up against the Commission’s proposal. She gained quite a few votes in that room.
It was very encouraging to see that when voters are informed, they know the right answer.
In this case, the right answer is NO.
Every community I’ve ever lived in has had villages, squares, corners, etc. In each of these communities, I’ve frequented and appreciated each unique section and as a Newton resident, I travel to and buy locally in each village in Newton.
However, I’m also aware that small businesses can’t survive when their customer base is village residents. Keys Drug in Auburndale continues because people from all over the city value the customer service and personal attention the owners provide for their customers. The same goes for Steamers and Antoine’s in Nonantum, Bread and Chocolate in the Highlands, Brewers Coalition and Karoun in N’ville, the Dumpling House in Four Corners, Comella’s in West Newton, Waban Hardware in Waban, Joe’s Barber Shop in N’ville, Sol Azteca in Newton Centre, The Local in West Newton, the West Newton Cinema, L’Aroma in West Newton, and of course Cabot’s Ice Cream, and many other.
Without a citywide clientele, these businesses are doomed and the villages turn into “Nails and Banks”; then they die. On the other hand, if residents throughout the city value what each village has to offer with their business, then they thrive.
@Rhanna- “Ward representative” the way you phrased it is highly misleading. It could accidentally lead people to think its actual ward representation. It is not.
I propose we use clearer terminology:
“Ward-Elected” = From a Ward and elected by that Ward. (most accountable type of rep)
“Ward At large” = From a Ward and elected by the whole city.
“City-wide At-Large” = From ANYwhere in the city and elected by the whole city. (aka: train wreck which favors wealthy areas)
We should take great pains to educate voters…not confuse them.
@Jane- Those businesses genuinely appreciate your patronage. Please keep shopping!
It’s also pretty safe to say that the residents who live AROUND those businesses would prefer to be able to have a greater degree of input into neighborhood self determination than someone who is just stopping by… to shop.
@Jane: I have not heard of anyone proposing a prohibition on shoppers from outside a business’s ward.
Emily and Charlie – You miss my point. I consider all sections of the city as part of my home, not just a place to do chores or have a meal. .It comes down to this: I believe that every voter has the right to vote for or against anyone running for an officee that affects a part of their city.
We had two self-selected groups weigh in on the proposal today, with very different results. I suspect it will come down to those – perhaps as high as 90% of the city – who never show up at any meeting, but are consistent voters.
Reps in Wisconsin vote on things that have an impact on my life and I can’t vote for them. Would love to, but not practical.
I too consider every single inch of Newton as my home but I’m realistic enough to know that my concerns in my own little part of the garden are not the same concerns of someone nine square miles away in Newton Center. They have a right to elect someone more specific in their area as do I for my neck of the woods. And there is a difference between shopping, buying, selling, trading, living next to, playing at the ball field with, sitting at the movies, generally feeling like it’s home…and being able to vote for every last person running for office. I’ve never thought of politicians and the ruling process as part of the fabric of village life to point of including them in the experience of living and shopping in Newton. In other words, apples and oranges for me.
We disagree and that’s fine. I want to be able to vote for all the people who make decisions about my neighborhood and you’d like to have a designated individual representing yours.
@Jane
“I believe that every voter has the right to vote for or against anyone running for an officee that affects a part of their city.”
You should have said this clearly when you ran for the Commission.
You deliberately hid this view from the electorate, and it was extremely dishonest to do so.
I live in ward 6, but I can (and frequently do) walk to wards 2, 3, 5, and 7. Anything in those wards that impacts traffic, safety, bike and pedestrian issues, economic development, etc., will have an impact on my daily life. I would like for those wards to be represented by a dedicated councilor, and I would like to be able to vote for the councilor from those wards who can make decisions affecting my daily life.
Wards are just constructs. They don’t align with villages or neighborhood. My own Newton Centre neighborhood is split, part in Ward 2 and part in Ward 6. Imagine, under a model where the 8 ward councilors are elected by the ward only… an issue going on in Newton Centre, and some of my neighborhood would unable to vote for the councilor who is the primary advocate on that issue. That’s not my idea of democracy.
@Rhanna
Like with Jane, those sound like long-standing, strongly held beliefs. Nothing wrong with them. But you should have been honest with voters BEFORE you were elected to the commission.
If you can point us to anywhere where you were transparent of your views, let us know, and I’ll stand corrected. But in lieu of that evidence, this seems to be another case of a Commission member not being honest with the Newton community from the get-go.
I’ve pretty much stayed out of this endless thread. As far as I can see it has long outlived its usefulness.
Yes, there are two views on the wisdom of eliminating/keeping the ward councilors. Good cases can be made on either side of the issue. Both of those cases were clearly and articulately made about 100 comments back.
The last 100 comments have mostly been endlessly recycling the same points over and over again – redundant, repetitive, and harmless.
Now Paul wants to add something new – a nasty and personal attack on one of the individuals involved. If that’s the only thing left to add to this conversation it sounds like there’s nothing left to say …. other than a food fight.
Jerry is one of those people I have the utmost respect for…so to address an email to him that has even the slightest whiff of disagreeing with him makes for a lousy task.
My concern from the beginning is the group-think, starting with the push from the League of Women Voters and extending to the NDCC and their favored candidates. While both groups and any other had the right to promote candidates of their choice, I wish they had not. I firmly believe we ended up with nine well-meaning, sincere individuals who collectively all thought the same way. In other words, they were all ducks who quaked like a duck. (No insult here, I like ducks). They may say they had robust discussions and gathered as much info as they could but I submit they went into this process highly predisposed to an end result. I saw no evidence that their was a bear or eagle among them, someone willing to take on those in their group more experienced with framing a debate to achieve the ends they individually wanted. I don’t think I’m feeding into a paranoid conspiracy theory when I say that one or two ducks molded the debate and the rest fell in line behind. I saw no evidence that there was a pushback. Instead there was an immediate, no-holds-barred rush to this particular issue and vote and it was unanimous and that only completes the circle of the duck walk for me.
@Mark Marderosian – Your comments have been thoughtful, impassioned, and pertinent to the issue. I was taking exception to Paul hurling personal insults and accusations.
If Commission members held personal strong views on the composition of the council, not sharing them before the election and instead stating they were going to be open-minded in this process IS being dishonest.
That is true.
It might be uncomfortable having that pointed out, but it IS reality.
And it deserves to be discussed. Not shut down.
I agree 100 percent with Jerry. Paul has made the unfortunate decision to turn an important debate that will (pass or fail) impact our community for decades into a food fight. Folks, it’s great that so many people care about this. But we have six months until the election. Let’s stick to the merits of this proposed charter.
A few thoughts from someone who continues to waver on this issue:
1. Rhanna wrote: “Since 1897, 2/3 of Newton’s city council has been made up of ward councilors elected citywide. The charter commission proposed to retain this feature–2/3 of the proposed city council will be ward councilors elected citywide.”
That argument does not work. I assume that if 2/3 of Newton’s city council has been made up on ward councilors elected citywide since 1897, then 1/3 of Newton’s city council has been made up of ward councilors elected by their own wards only since 1897. If it was important to the Charter Commission to retain this 2/3 balance, why wasn’t it important to retain the other 1/3 of the equation? You have better arguments; I suggest you use them instead.
2. Despite declaring a few weeks ago that I plan to vote no, I’m back to undecided, to some extent because I’m offended by many of the No side arguments on Village 14. The inability to see that candidates for Charter Commission may have known they wanted to reduce the size of the City Council without knowing how to do so leaves me questioning the logic of all the No side arguments (which I’ve only paid attention to on this blog). Yes, it’s possible that some people came in with preconceived ideas, but that is irrelevant. Others may have come in with the notion that the ward councilors were an essential part of the council but changed their minds.
3. Paul, hiding behind anonymity to call someone dishonest is the height of cowardice. You might not even live in Newton, for all we know. You don’t get to decide what is true.
4. I don’t understand why more Charter Commissioners don’t speak up here. This may be a small audience, but as many have pointed out, it is a guaranteed voting audience. Charter Commissioners should be supporting Jane, not leaving her to defend their decisions.
5. For me, and I hope for most voters, this decision is going to come down to: Is the proposed charter a better way to run our government than the current charter? I don’t know the answer yet, but I do know that protecting seats that are elected by 1/8 of the city is not going to be my priority. I really don’t like the super at-large seats. If I vote no, it’s going to be because of the damage that could be caused by those seats. But arguments questioning the integrity of nine people who have busted their butts for the last 18 months because of their passion for this city are more likely to sway me to vote yes than no.
This thread has degenerated in ways that are not helpful and long ago reached a length that makes it very difficult to read on many devices.
The conversation about the charter will continue but this thread is closed.