No great surprises here, but, still, Scott Lennon has now earned the endorsements from the Newton Police, Firefighters and Teachers’ unions.
Here’s the press release:
Newton Police Association endorses Scott Lennon for Mayor, joins teachers and firefighters in backing the financial manager
The Newton Police Association (NPA) announced Tuesday night that they were endorsing Scott Lennon for Mayor, marking the third public union and fourth union overall to back the current City Council President and financial manager. In April the Newton Fire Fighters Association became the first public union to endorse in the mayoral contest, joining the Carpenters Local 275 in endorsing Lennon. Earlier this month the Newton Teachers Association endorsed Lennon saying it was “unmistakable that Scott Lennon is the best candidate for Mayor of the City of Newton.”
“To be supported by our own city workers – teachers, firefighters, and now police officers – is such a humbling honor for me,” said Scott Lennon. “I have said from Day One that I intend to be Mayor for everyone in this city, and together with these public servants I think we can make Newton government financially sound, responsive, transparent and interactive with both residents and businesses.”
In a letter announcing their endorsement, NPA President John Panica told Lennon, “You have proven time and again that you not only understand the needs of the residents of this great city, but also that you will work tirelessly to make sure that those needs are met. The Newton Police Association can attest to the outstanding services you have provided this city, and we are proud to stand with you as you seek to be elected Mayor of the City of Newton.”
The Newton Police Association represents the rank-and-file officers of the Newton Police Department, who cited Lennon’s leadership and deep Newton roots in announcing their selection. Lennon has earned every union endorsement in this year’s mayoral campaign so far, having won the backing of the Carpenters Local 275 earlier this month. Just this week Lennon’s campaign announced they had held their 32nd house party and knocked well over 3,000 doors in the city of Newton.
Those interested in learning more about Scott Lennon’s campaign for Mayor can visit www.lennonformayor.com or visit his campaign headquarters at 341 Washington Street, Newton.
Great Endorsements. Congratulations Scott!
Congratulations again to the Lennon campaign. If union endorsements were votes, this race would be over… But I suspect we have a loooooong way to go.
What a pathetic race, none of the candidates differ on key issues. When Scott is asked about the Charter Commission he says he supports whatever they recommend. In spite of strong opposition to Ward Councilor elimination his response is that Ward representation will not be hurt by loss of the non at large councilor. Scott also supports dense housing development in village centers. Again there is broad disapproval on this issue. Who the heck wants a mayor(s) who openly disregards large portions of the electorate?
@Colleen – There is disagreement on some key issues. Amy Sangiolo is against the elimination of ward councilors: http://sangiolo.org/issue/ward-representation/
Colleen – While the charter vote will be an important part of the election season debate, the mayoral candidates have no say in the outcome of the vote, Whoever is elected mayor in November must be prepared to work with a council of 24 or 12 members.
Amy Sangiolo can be against the elimination of ward councilors all she likes, but she and all the candidates will need to be able to work cooperatively and effectively with what the voters decide. If she’s so adamant that the composition of the council remain as it’s currently configured, then I question her ability to work with the will of the people and to understand what issues she can control and what issues are out of her hands.
I’m hearing other candidates say that they support the charter proposal that happens to include much more than the composition of the council, and that they are prepared to work with the city council that the voters support.
@Jane – I don’t see Amy saying she won’t work with whatever council the voters decide on. It’s not unreasonable for a mayoral candidate and/or city councilor to have an opinion on the matter and advocate for it.
@Jane: I have never said I would not follow the will of the people. I am just out-front and passionate on my opinion about how important I believe having Ward only elected councilors are for truly representative government. Ensuring that our residents have a voice and a seat at the table in decisions that greatly impact them has been a hallmark of my entire service on the City Council. I work well with everyone – even those who I have been on opposite sides on because first and foremost, I respect everyone’s opinions and I listen with empathy, to all sides of an issue.
Great to have you on the side of local representation, Amy. Thank you. Power to the people!
Power to the people??? Wasn’t it the people who said clearly by a 2:1 margin (two different times) that the Councilors should be reduced?? Why didn’t the Councilors take care of that by home rule petition.? Why aren’t you advocating for that??? Really????? Thats a clear mandate on the issue, but none of you rattled your horns about that. Thats why we’re in this position, because of all of you. Had you originally cared about the power of the people we wouldn’t be talking about this.
Why wont any councilor on the no side say they will lead reducing the size of the councilors by home rule petition, if the charter vote loses? Let me guess, it’s really about saving your seats and not ward representation. It’s a red herring issue. Scott Lennon who was both ward councilor and at large councilor and has gotten the endorsement of all 3 unions says that the new charter wont lose any ward representation. Wow.
I don’t want to pick a fight with people I like. And I really like and respect both Amy Sangiolo and Emily Norton. But both of their comments kind of irked me a bit…
Amy wrote, “I never said I would not follow the will of the people.” Emily wrote, “Power to the people!” If memory serves me correct, both Amy and Emily helped block local implementation of the state ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana, by voting in favor of a moratorium on dispensaries. The result of the vote was that patients in Newton were denied access to their prescribed medication for years. That doesn’t seem like respect for the “will” or “power” of the people at all…
To be fair, [particularly to Amy, as she’s running for Mayor], my recollection is that both Scott Lennon and Ruthann Fuller also voted against the interests of medical marijuana patients in Newton. As an advocate for medical marijuana, and cannabis reform in general, I think it’s important that the three mayoral candidates acknowledge they made a mistake when they blocked patient access to prescribed medication. It shows strength, not weakness, to acknowledge ones’ mistakes.
@Tom: As I’ve been out talking to the people I find they’re not interested in getting rid of ward councilors.
…in fact, they’re shocked it’s even under consideration.
That’s why you’re seeing the “yes” side claim they’re “retaining ward representation” – because they know they need to put lipstick on their pig*.
*No disrespect to pigs, as pigs are awesome
So Emily, you’ve been “talking to the people” ? What 10-12 people??
How about the 15-20,000 people that voted in reducing the size of the board?? Why aren’t you advocating for them??
Like Mike, I like you and Amy (I think you two know that, so excuse me if I write abruptly).
Tom has a point.
Councilor Norton, if you walk up to a Newton voter and say: “Did you hear about this evil plan by the charter commission to undermine our democracy by eliminating me and all of our ward city councilors,” then yes I’m sure they’re shocked.
But if you say: “The charter commission recognized the benefits of a smaller city council and in order to do so, they decided the most democratic path was, in part, to eliminate our ward councilor seats,” then those who didn’t ask “What’s a ward councilor?” would probably say “oh, that makes sense.”
@Tom – I voted to reduce the CC size. However, I will vote NO because I never voted to eliminate Ward representation.
This reminds me of another such vote/poll – I was against Saddam Hussain and all he did and all he stood for. However, I never agreed to Bush taking us into a prolonged war in the Middle East and creating the current problem.
There is nothing like blank check from voters. It would be an insult to our intelligence to think so.
BTW – Last line was not directed towards you, but was a general observation.
@Mike: I do own the fact that I voted for a moratorium on implementation of the medical marijuana on dispensaries and I do apologize to all who depended and currently depend on access.
First, apologies to Scott for his endorsement post somehow becoming about the charter. I blame Jeffrey for outing himself as a remaining V14 swing voter.
@Tom — It IS about ward and village-level representation. There are 56 cities and towns in Massachusetts with city councils. Of those, over 20 have 7 or more Ward Councilors. Newton is not an outlier in the Ward Councilor department.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1mrXu3ieabiLKsmt2_pWgDAZwhUajuiQ-CA9uiJ3Lu2k/edit#gid=1975493858
Now, on the other hand, the average Massachusetts city has less than 5 Councilors at Large, while Newton has 16; over 3 times the norm.
What would the average citizen signing your petitions have expected the charter commission to adjust about our council based on the data above?
I’m on record before the final report advocating for the commission to choose the 8 Ward Councilor + 8 Councilor At-Large option or an 8 Ward Councilor + 5 named At-Large seats.
@MikeS — Can you remind us which ward houses Newton’s medical dispensary?
Neil,
I’ve been involved in local issues for a long time, been called every name in the book, so please don’t worry about offending me.
About your issue: I ran for Charter Commission and never heard this as an issue…BUT, the 9 people on this commission was elected by the people, because the people trusted them to look into the charter, do the research and make improvements. You elected them to do a job, they did it. This commission has been the most open and transparent commission we’ve ever seen, they’ve worked extremely hard, listened to anyone who wanted to speak about an issue and developed a well thought out document.
@Mike — Hey I found it. This must be Fake News though given the Ward Councilor who supported it being placed there.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/10/11/newton-panel-gives-nod-controversial-marijuana-dispensary-plan/PtLau1xgkXl2ydRYqoSFbK/story.html
Jack P- I guess we’ll never agree on this issue.
Since your so good with data, please tell me how many of those cities have 13 villages, a population of 90,000 citizens/roughly 50,000 voters, a thriving village 14, etc?
In other words, we’re unique. I don’t care what other less cities do. I care about what 9 people who care about this city who worked hard and was voted in by the public think. They know everything you said and I am sure they gave it weight when they made the decision to go in this direction.
@Tom — I appreciate your engagement and the work you did to put charter commission creation before the voters.
If Newton is unique, then many feel its better to keep our unique city council rather than adopt the flawed proposal on the ballot.
re: “The nine people elected by the commission were elected by the people” – Did Newton voters make informed decisions on the charter commission candidates and their views, or did the city-wide election with less than 4% of city residents voting hinge on a circulated slate of candidates? Re: your comment here: http://village14.com/2015/11/04/charter-commission-results/#axzz4iVvtSevp
@Greg: Actually, I go up to Newton voters and ask if they’ve heard about the Charter Commission’s recommendations. I tell them that the among the Charter Commission’s recommendations, is to reduce the size of the Council from 24 to 12 which includes elimination of the Ward only elected Councilors but still retain a residency requirement for the at-large Councilors. Many respond asking – what happens if the at-large Councilors don’t win the vote in their Ward? I say, if they have the majority of the votes city-wide, then they win. They respond, well who will represent that Ward’s concerns and be accountable to that Ward? And I respond, that’s why I’m against it.
This will be my last comment as I feel we’ve gotten way off topic (sorry Scott)
Jack P- Yes a slate of candidates won, but that’s how elections have been won and lost since the beginning of democracy. I don’t understand why that is an issue. You say that the electorate is uninformed, I say that is how every election was won and lost. I can say that on every campaign loss (lol).
That’s democracy whether we like it or not. It’s not perfect. Hopefully, with less people on the board the public might be more informed.
@Amy– Thank you for responding to my post in such a frank and honest way. Your response demonstrates the self-reflection and courage essential to genuine leadership. I am sincerely appreciative that you took the time to reply, and so impressed with your candor.
@Tom — Perhaps we are arriving at some consensus. The selection of all city councilors under the proposed charter would be highly influenced by the slate recommendations, special interest endorsements, and city-wide scale campaign finance. The premise is that Ward Councilor elections can defy those conventions.
To put the post back on topic, all the Mayoral candidates came together this weekend for the Newton Memorial Day parade. Here are photos of them along with all those who marched to remember: https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-kxwrJJ/
@Greg
There is no question that a generic statement on the CC’s actions will be met by many in Newton with the response you suggest.
But can we at least by transparent to the voters?
Something like “In reducing the CC, the commission felt that ward councilors have a tendency to look our for ward-specific interests to the detriment of the city as a whole. At-large councilors were felt to be better at looking out for the “general good” of the city. so their role was maintained. A residency requirement for most of the at-large representatives was added to ensure CC’s come from across the city.”
Isn’t that the crux of it? Can we be honest about it and let the voters decide?
Why is the commission standing behind misleading statements that the proposed charter will “preserve ward representation?”
Preserve?
Really? Preserve?
Its incomplete and ultimately dishonest.
We seriously can’t even agree on what’s transpired to let the voters decide? We’re doomed if that’s the case. Seriously.
Paul – The “Commission” consists of nine individuals who speak as that – individuals. I may present the same information with a different perspective, voice, and language than another member of the Commission.
This is where the Commission came together: we spent hundreds of hours looking at data, research, and listening to staff, elected officials, and residents, as well as input from people in other communities, about countless issues. In the end, we all agreed that the entire proposal moved Newton forward in the future.
In addition to the changes in the City Council, Finance, Planning, School Committee and other articles, the proposal updates the charter. The current charter as it’s presented on the city website is seriously outdated because much of it has been superseded by state law. Much of the charter you read on the website isn’t even accurate. The proposal provides for a periodic updating so that residents are not reading obsolete articles.
You may not like to hear this, but there simply wasn’t a consensus in the community about the composition of the city council. If there had been, I would have been more than happy to vote for it, as I don’t have a personal preference.
But let’s be clear – being the loudest voice in the room doesn’t mean that you represent a majority. In fact, the loudest voices often shut down those who have a firm opinion but don’t want to become embroiled in a contentious local controversy. It’s the responsibility of people elected to any position to seek out and listen to the input of all residents.
Amy – Do you talk with residents about your vision of the community? Do you remind them that your opposition to the charter will have no effect on your term in office if elected? Do you tell residents how you will work with a council that’s not in keeping with your vision?
What else do you talk about as a mayoral candidate? Or are you using your opposition to the charter as your foot in the door to the mayoral campaign?
@Mike wrote: “If memory serves me correct, both Amy and Emily helped block local implementation of the state ballot initiative that legalized medical marijuana, by voting in favor of a moratorium on dispensaries.”
Your memory doesn’t serve. I was elected after the vote on whether to impose a moratorium on marijuana dispensaries. I was a vocal supporter of the marijuana dispensary even though many of my constituents were opposed to it being located there.
@Tom wrote: “So you’ve been “talking to the people” ? What 10-12 people??
I actually communicate with many voters on a regular basis. They email, call or even text me. In addition I send out a newsletter to literally thousands of people once a month – and many of them respond.
@Greg wrote: “Councilor Norton, if you walk up to a Newton voter and say: “Did you hear about this evil plan by the charter commission to undermine our democracy by eliminating me and all of our ward city councilors,” then yes I’m sure they’re shocked.”
Don’t take my word for it – You are welcome to join me as I knock on doors about the charter commission. You can give people your view and I’ll give people mine, and you can judge for yourself how they respond.
@Jane
“Preserving ward representation” is not a fully accurate statement.
Preserving implies that the ward representation in place now will remain. That is not true.
I’d hope you would distance yourself from such a misleading statement.
If you win on the merits, so be it.
Its not about who’s the loudest voice. Its about who’s being honest.
Please distance yourself from such misleading language.
“If there had been, I would have been more than happy to vote for it, as I don’t have a personal preference.”
This is not true either. You’ve stated in multiple threads that you’re opposed to ward-only representation.
Please be honest Jane.
@Jane — re: “The current charter … is seriously outdated because much of it has been superseded by state law.”
If the goal was to update the charter comply with state law, why did the commission choose to propose a charter that specifies an even numbered council? This violates M.G.L. c.43B, §20 (c): “for the number of persons to serve as members of any multiple member body; provided, however, that all such multiple member bodies shall always consist of an odd number of members?” https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter43B/Section20
When you consider the definition of “multi-member body” in the context of the Open Meeting Law (M.G.L. c.30A, §§18-25) , the Voting Rights Act and the fact that every other city council in Massachusetts is odd-numbered, it is clear that this term is indented to apply to city councils as well as other city boards, and as such the proposed charter violates state law.
The Office of the Attorney General appears to have inadvertently overlooked this issue in assessing the commission’s preliminary report. I would request that the commission ask the Office of the Attorney General to reassess it, as only the commission or other elected officials have standing to do so.
@Jane: Yes – I do tell them about my vision for the City- about how I will have very little impact on the final results of the tally but I hope they listen to why I feel so strongly about this issue. As I have said, my entire service to this community has been about giving voices to those who don’t have a voice or feel they not being adequately represented, an opportunity to be heard. I was there for those who felt so strongly about the impact of the Newton North site plan. I was there for those who wanted to save branch libraries and helped to keep those community resources. I have been there for numerous residents across the City who felt they had no one to listen and get their issues heard. I will continue to be there for residents as Mayor. I have more years of service and experience advocating on behalf of the residents of this City than my opponents. I have stood up to developers and demanded more for the things I believe this City needs – whether it is more mitigation for the impacts these developments create or more affordable housing. I have stood up to two different Administrations when I felt they were not being open and transparent or providing the programs and services our residents deserve.
Mr. Prior has reminded me about something else I kept forgetting to mention but that I’ve been wondering about: Why an even number? I always thought that entities like this had to consist of an odd number of people (insert joke here) for a better chance that votes would result in ties less often among other reasons.
And, oh yeh, congrats Scott.
2/3 of 12 = 8. Clean, clear when the council needs to take a vote that requires a 2/3 majority. We have an even number now and it hasn’t caused problems for several reasons. The rule is that with a 12-12 vote the measure does not pass. Ties are unusual at best.
2/3 of 13 = 8.58. Unclear, fuzzy, opening up a can of worms in this city, in my opinion. The same was true of 11: 2/3 of 11 = 7.26.
This was a situation when you look at the data and research, then consider Newton as a community and the answer was clear to the majority of the commission – an unambiguous 2/3 = 8 was the preferred way to go.
“2/3 of 13 = 8.58. Unclear, fuzzy, opening up a can of worms in this city, in my opinion. ”
I can’t buy that logic. An odd number is easily dealt with. You need 2/3 or greater majority not “exactly 2/3” – so it’s pretty clear to me that means you need nine out of 13 to satisfy the requirement.
We teach kids how to deal with fractions in what . . . 3rd or fourth grade? Many situations require rounding up to the nearest whole number – no cans, no worms.
If the state says Newton should have an odd number of councilors, fuzzy math will not be an obstacle to implementing it.
I agree with Jack Prior that the Commission or another elected individual with proper standing should petition the A.G.’s office for a ruling. If one of the goals is to get the charter in line with M.G.L.’s let’s not pick and choose which ones we like and which we don’t. That’s where the cans and worms actually reside.
oops, forgot to mention – Congratulations Mr. Lennon!
Rich – I agree with your logic, but the city council has very few ties votes and a lot of measures that require a 2/3 majority. Those that require a 2/3 vote are typically very contentious and can end up in court. It made no sense to me to provide yet another source of contention when a 12-member council resulted in an unambiguous vote and was a compromise position to those residents who advocated for an 8-11 member council.
Amy – I know you have the ability to stand up to anyone and I admire that in you, as you well know. However, as mayor you need to have a vision for the entire city and I’m not hearing that yet. Standing up to power and being in a position of power are two entirely different positions that require differing skill sets. You need to be more explicit in your vision for the city as we move forward into the 21st cntury.
In my profession, I’m well known as someone who stands up for students and families who don’t have a voice. But you know what? I would have made a lousy principal or administrator.
@Jane: My vision is inclusive and takes on all viewpoints. Newton is at a crossroads. The next leader has the ability to make impactful change – change in the way we plan for the future – whether it is about how we educate our children, about how we conduct planning in this city – from development to road reconstruction, change in how we communicate and engage with our residents, how we can become better stewards of our community and our planet for now and for future generations. My vision includes better city planning with more focus on villages and neighborhoods and building community – thinking more comprehensively about what kind of city we want to be in every aspect – planning for our school buildings – designing our roads to be safe for all users – not just automobiles, creating a Housing Production Plan which commits the City to creating affordable housing opportunities each year – not just through development – but purchasing preservation restrictions and creating a housing trust fund that can be drawn on when opportunities to purchase existing homes arise. My vision includes environmental leadership- focusing on becoming a leader on environmental issues. In light of what is happening on the federal level with the dismantling of our environmental laws and regulations to protect the environment and address climate change, there is so much we can do as a city on a local level to make a global difference. Like becoming a Zero Waste Community – taking organics out of our waste stream, improving our recycling efforts – by working with businesses and condos to assist with their recycling needs, and composting, becoming a 100% Renewable Energy community – divesting from fossil fuels, moving our fleet to fuel efficient and electric vehicles, continue to use alternative clean energies to heat our municipal buildings, building in net zero energy building practices, and doing more in our schools and our community to create a culture that moves green initiatives forward. We’ve seen this past year, that City’s finances are tightening – the school budget without use of one-time funds would have been $2.5 million in deficit resulting in cuts to school librarians and other cuts to our educational program. We need to continue to look at ways to consolidate our administrative duties but also need to review our budgeting process. We must make sure that the outcomes our department heads use to formulate their budgets, accurately reflects the needs and desires of the community to which they serve. We must engage our community partners – businesses and non-profits and have them invest much more into our community. We must also create a sound economic development plan so we can bring more businesses to Newton rather than watch them go to our neighboring communities. My vision, Jane, moves Newton forward and builds a better Newton for all.
I do not wish to imply that I am unappreciative of the unselfish good work that the Charter Commission produced. They had a difficult task and there was zero chance that their recommendations would be universally applauded.
Human nature being what it is, people just naturally tend to focus on the areas of disagreement. On the whole, I believe the commission did an excellent and commendable job in what can at times feel like a thankless task. I don’t want to be in the thankless camp! Even their reasons for eliminating the Ward only councilors have some merit, I must admit.
As to the debate of odd / even, 11, 12, 13 or 16 etc, those options all have their particular good & bad points and I could certainly work with any of those configurations. I realize that getting 9 out of 13 votes is a might bit tougher than 8 out of 12. I meant to point out that this difference (needing to get 8 or nine votes) is more relevant than any thought that an even number is somehow preferential than an odd number because it isn’t cleanly divisible by 2/3 and that you don’t need to be smarter than a fifth grader to realize that.
@Jane — M.G.L. c.43B, §20 (c) requires that new charters specify odd numbered multi-member bodies. This is not an obscure requirement, but is spelled out clearly in “The path to a New Charter”: http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/dls-newsroom/ct/charting-a-route-for-charter-change.html . An odd-numbered council is also an bedrock assumption of the model city charter guidance used by the commission.
Did the charter commission chose to disregards the state statue when changed its initial 13-member proposal to ease special permit approvals or was it an oversight? I don’t think the state requirement is mentioned in the commission audio record — its seemed odd-numbering was just considered an unnecessary best practice.
The two-thirds vote requirement for special permit approval is a state law not specific to Newton ( M.G.L. c40A, §9 https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40A/Section9): “A special permit issued by a special permit granting authority shall require a two-thirds vote of boards with more than five members, a vote of at least four members of a five member board, and a unanimous vote of a three member board.” Note that it doesn’t specify the vote count for a four member board, as the assumption is that special permit granting boards will be odd-numbered.
No other city in Massachusetts has specified an even-numbered council when updating their charters (all current councils are odd-numbered except Newton’s), and all councils and boards that grant special permits live with the inconvenient math required by these state statues. Going around this would seem to raise potential issues going forward.
I am not a lawyer, but the above is my impression as a layman. It would be ideal if the commission or the city could request an updated assessment of the charter from the AG office to clarify.
Technical details, ah who’s paying attention? Distract and redirect marketing seems to be a favored strategy. Oh well, back to the drawing board for the WGC..
So the takeaway is that the proposed new charter is not legal according to Massachusetts law?
Relevant for our constituents to know before they vote?
@Emily Norton– It sucks to be blamed for something you had no part of [Newton’s medical marijuana moratorium]. Thank you for correcting me. I sincerely apologize for laying any of that blame on you.
The carnard that the City Council/Board of Aldermen is responsible for a delay in implementation of the state medical marijuanna law in Newton has surfaced again in this thread. The truth is that the then Board voted for a brief moratorium to enable compliance with all the other provisions of the law…. The Board acted expeditiously to lay the groundwork for the location of the clinic Garden Remedies on Washington Street between Newtonville and Newton Corner on a site that complied with the access requirements of the law. The fact that the clinic did not open immediately is either due to a problem of the clinic in obtaining medical marijuana (eventually they found a source in Fitchburg) or to the institutional problems at the state level or both Several of us attended the long delayed opening of the clinic reflecting our support. I don’t think any one from the state Department of Public Health attended. Maybe they were too embarassed.
City Councilor and former Alderman Brian Yates
@Paul — I’d want to stress that I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t interpret state statue legalese, so I should be more careful with conclusions to that effect.
Intuitively it just doesn’t make any sense to me that the state charter laws would differentiate between the city council and other multi-member bodies in a city government, or would see less fit to specify odd-member for important bodies school committee and council, particularly given the special permit example I cited above which assumes an odd-member body making those decisions.
Some city charters, including Newton’s proposed charter, do differentiate between the city council and school committee in “multi-member” definitions as they relate to the codified mandates they define subsequently in their own documents, but I don’t see that definition impacting how the state itself would define a multi-member body, for example in the context of OML:
M.G.L. c.30A, §§18-25:
http://www.mass.gov/ago/government-resources/open-meeting-law/open-meeting-law-mgl-c-30a-18-25.html#Definitions
“ Open meeting laws apply principally to public, collegial, deliberative bodies, that is, multi-member bodies that meet as a group for deliberation and decision making.”. “‘Public body’, a multiple-member board, commission, committee or subcommittee within the executive or legislative branch or within any county, district, city, region or town, however created, elected, appointed or otherwise constituted, established to serve a public purpose;” — If a city council is not a multi-member body, how is it kept in scope of OML?
You can also see an example use of the term in the Melrose City Charter definitions: “‘Full board of aldermen’, ‘Full multiple member body’, the entire authorized complement of the board of aldermen, school committee or OTHER multiple member body notwithstanding any vacancy which might exist.” Board of Aldermen is one type of multi-member body.
I will drop the commission an note to ask if they can formally resolve this question with the AG, as they have the legal standing to make this inquiry while citizens (nor the AG office itself) do not.
@Brian Yates– Medical marijuana passed in this state in November of 2012. Dispensary applicants were nearly a year into the process of state approval when the Newton BoA passed a moratorium in October 2013. That moratorium was still in place 14 months after the voter approved referendum, during a critical phase of the state approval process. State regulators were very clear, communities that welcomed medical marijuana dispensaries by January 1, 2014 would be the first to be approved. Having a moratorium in place at that time made Newton ineligible to host a dispensary. I concede, it was a complicated permitting process, and most local officials didn’t understand the nuances of the law. But I did send you [and the entire Board] an email prior to your vote, cautioning you that a moratorium would [at best] result in a long delay for state approval.
@Jack
You raise good questions.
I find it troubling that Jane so easily dismisses the legal nature of them, and other commission members are completely quiet on the issue.
Hey, undecided Newton voter here… who is the most progressive candidate who will keep Newton a “welcoming” city and not block access to NOW LEGAL marijuana?
Super negative points for anyone who voted against medical marijuana as it is so much safer than opioids.