The “Yes For a New Charter” folks released a strongly worded statement today saying the the City Council’s legislation to change the charter via a home rule petition “is meant to confuse the public and obstruct a years-long democratic process“.
They went on to say … “This last-minute and self-serving proposal by sitting councilors is ill-conceived, narrowly focused, and obstructionist. It is a the perfect example of why we need to approve the Charter Commission’s thoughtful proposal on November 7.”
Them is fighting words.
One good thing that might come out of the councillors’ announcement is some discussion of *other* aspects of the charter reform. I have to admit I don’t know anything about the new charter beyond the changes to the structure of the council. It seems to be the only thing debated here or in the Tab. Let’s hear more about the thoughtful proposal.
@Newtoner – here are some of the other proposed changes we wouldn’t get the benefit of if people vote the charter down and substitute the proposed Home Rule legislation.
Institution of term limits on the Mayor (12 years) and City Council (16 years). School Committee already has 8 year term limits.
Requires the mayor to present a 5-year forecast of the city’s financial condition, an annual inventory of the city’s capital assets, and an annual report on the city’s progress in executing the capital plan
Council would have to provide an annual independent audit of city finances
Each city body would be required to create and publish a policy for receiving public comment (saving the wait to give public comment – it would have to happen at a pre-set, pre-publicized time and we’d know when to come)
Retains neighborhood area councils, with the City Council to adopt ordinances regarding boundaries, election process, and functions for all area councils
Includes a clear and explicit conflict of interest statement clarifying that elected officials and members of boards and commission could not seek to unduly influence the official acts of any city employee
Institutes regular review of the City Charter via a charter review committee every 10 years and report to the city council
I know there are more. Anyone?
@Newtoner: That sounds like an excellent idea! For starters, the full report of the Commission is here, which highlights all of the major changes – http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/82558
Everything but the council changes would be lost if the city council’s alternate plan were approved. The TLDR (Too Long Didn’t Read) is:
– Changes City Council Size & Composition (12 members, 8 from the wards, 4 from anywhere)
– Adds term limits (12 years for mayor, 16 years for city council, school committee stays 8 years)
– Preserves strong Mayoral system
– Financial procedures updated to require best practices be followed, including a 5 year review of the city’s financial condition, an annual inventory of the city’s capital assets, and an annual report on the city’s progress in executing the capital improvement plan
– School Committee section updated to reflect changes in state law
– Requires each new Mayor to update the comprehensive plan so it stays consistent with the executive’s vision for Newton
– Modernizes initiative petition procedures
– Provides more flexibility to the city council in setting up area councils as they grow
– Clear and explicit prohibition on conflicts of interest for city employees
– require each city body to take public comment and create / publish a policy for receiving public comment
– A new requirement, which most modern charters have, that there is a charter review and recommendation every 10 years by an appointed board
If the CC has such good offering why poison those offering with the one thing that so many do not want? The CC made recommendation so heinous and so against local democracy that it is astounding they would think people wouldn’t care.
I noted elsewhere that getting the Charter Commission on the ballot was a lot of work. The League of Women Voters was everywhere in Newton getting signatures, letting people know all about the Commission’s duties and tasks, and encouraging all to vote for the referendum. Now? Not so much PR. Apparently those who fought to put the CC on the ballot have done such a bad job of informing voters that (to quote a CC member) most people don’t know what the CC is about – even people typically informed; she went on to say that most people asked think this is about Charter Schools!
The idea that the recommendation by the Board (which is mirroring the sentiment of many voters) is “obstruction” is inflammatory and incorrect and smells of political pouting (at best).
https://youtu.be/qS7nqwGt4-I
Lynne: The CC recommendations are heinous? Really? C’mon now. And blaming the League for a lack of PR is unfair as well. Volunteers all, and the election is 6 weeks away.
Janet: I feel bad for the baby. But not sure how that adds to the conversation. Perhaps you protest too much? Wah, indeed.
Everyone should take a deep breath.
Lynne LeBlanc – I think I’ll be voting Yes for the new Charter but my support is fairly lukewarm – i.e. I think it will be a workmanlike set of general improvements.
That said, I think calling the board recommendation “obstructionist” is stating the obvious. The council has had many, many years to act if they so chose. If the council introduced this legislation the day after the election I’d take it as a good faith effort. To introduce this legislation now, in the run-up to the Charter vote, is clearly intended to undermine and confuse the vote on the Charter Commission proposal. What else could it be?
It definitely rubs me the wrong way and just made me a much more definite Yes vote.
Jerry – it’s to provide the voter another option. That’s it. An option that retains local representation, facilitates newbies getting into politics (not forced to wage a city-wide campaign) keeps our Councilors from becomeing professional politicians by distributing the work over 2 Councilors per Ward, and offers equal respresentation (true representation) across all Wards. Think about it.
Councilor Kalis: I have great respect for the work you’ve done on the council and the integrity you’ve brought the job. (In fact, your name appears on the list of my 24-favorite sitting city councilors!)
I also appreciate that you’ve been willing to engage in this conversation today. But I’m surprised that you don’t seem to understand why so many of us here today (including Jerry and others who said they were undecided voters until today, as well as participants who rarely comment on Village 14) see this proposal as a ruse.
Maybe that’s not why you signed it. But given the timing, surely you can acknowledge why folks are deeply cynical?
David – Voters requested another option 18 years ago and the City Council did nothing. The Council knew this was coming for two years and could have taken this action and did nothing. Then 6 weeks before the vote, you decide to docket an item such as this and expect people to think that you’re just providing “another option”?
This is a campaign strategy, pure and simple. Saying it’s anything else is disingenuous at best. We are not naive – you can assume we’ve thought about it.
Speaking for the League, we had several meetings about the charter and observed (with notes posted on our website) almost every charter commission meeting, but took a break over the summer and have been working on candidates’ forums at the moment. But…we are planning two meetings on the charter in October and have a new NewTV program called “The League Presents…” Our first episode is a discussion with Rhanna and Brooke on the charter, and our second (for mid-October) will be with two other Charter Commission members to talk about some of the lesser-known parts of the proposal.
We are definitely advocating for a “yes” vote and working to support the campaign.
@David Kalis – As I said, proposing this the day after the election would be productive/useful/constructive. Proposing “another option” before the election is inherently obstructive and misleading.
Regardless of the Councils proposal, there are only two options on election day Yes or No. Should the voters choose No then great, by all means take the issue up on the Council after the election and see if you come up with a proposal that has more support. Putting that proposal on the table now, and trying to claim that the council is not trying to undermine the charter reveiew process sure seems disingenuous to me.
Lynn – That’s a complete misrepresentation of my comments.
Agree or disagree with the charter proposal, but let’s keep things in perspective here about what’s heinous. What’s happening in North Korea is heinous. To overplay our local political differences while people in other parts of the world are in dire straits isn’t where we should go as a community.
@Sue
Why does the LWV take an advocacy position on the charter but remain neutral on candidates? I thought the League’s role was enabling democracy, not weighing on the scale one way or the other.
@Jane
I find it problematic that you and many others are accusing our elected officials of being dishonest, with no evidence.
And remember: There IS evidence that you lied before YOUR election about your intent as a Charter Commission member.
Paul, it is offensive to accuse someone of lying while not using your full name. It is also offensive to claim to have evidence without providing it.
Greg, Paul’s post is an example of a post that should be removed. How does this slander promote V14?
I agree with much of what said on both sides. The CC did a good job engaging the public (especially Bryan, Jane, Rhanna). I think the CC did a horrible job addressing concerns regarding the loss of Ward representation. Initially, they seemed overconfident that they could squeeze this in and still have the Charter pass. I pleaded many times for a poll of what voters want. If my advice were taken to heart, I don’t think we would be in this situation.
The fact that the council is proposing a change this last in the game looks horrible. They have disregarded voters in the past. What is different this time?
@Jeffrey: You’re right, Paul’s comment should have been removed for violating our commenting policy. Unfortunately, I’m just seeing it now and I’m guessing it escaped the notice of my fellow V14 bloggers who also actively moderate comments. If we remove it now, a slew of comments that have followed in rebuttal would need to be removed as well so at this point I think its best to move on.
As a reminder to everyone, we created Village 14 as a place for conversation and debate about Newton issues. We want differing options. But we want people to feel they can participate safely here, which is why we created these commenting rules.
Also, this is not my blog. It’s a collaborative effort and the other thread starters can also moderate comments (and for the record, they’ve moderated me and I’m grateful for it) so don’t just reach out to me when you have concerns. Also know that we’re all volunteers here so we can’t and don’t read everything and certainly not at the time it gets posted.
P.S. For those who’ve asked, we’ve left up a remarkably immature link by a city councilor candidate that was reported by numerous people. In my view it should stay only so folks know what kind of person they’d be voting for.
And now back to the topic at hand:
Bravo to the Yes committee for this strong, clearly articulated statement explaining why this “last-minute and self-serving proposal by sitting councilors is ill-conceived, narrowly-focused, and obstructionist.”
@Jeffrey
I personally asked Jane on V14 when she was running for the Commission whether she had any specific ideas about things that should be changed in the charter. She responded no– that she was running to be a listener and help convene a community-involved process. In recent months, she has made clear that she had opposed the concept of ward-only representatives for a long time.
All of this is publicly available to everyone on this blog.
What do you call that?
I absolutely understand the cynicism and the critical response.
@Jane, you are correct, it should have come earlier. I wish we had organized earlier on this specific option, but we didn’t. In weighing whether to sign on or not at this late stage, I thought it better to provide the option than not. Was this the plan all along? No. At least not from this person’s standpoint.
@Greg, no, I don’t see it as a ruse (but I can see why others would think that)- I signed on because I believe in it.
@Paul – I think everyone is rightly questioning the timing and the motivations of this legislation. IMO, that’s fair.
@Paul: This might be far more than you want to know, but here goes: LWV has a two parts to its mission and both come from its founding in the women’s suffrage movement. We are all about expanding and defending the right to vote, but once women got the vote, the suffragists realized they needed to educate those new voters on the issues. And once they were educated, women wanted to advocate for their issues. So there is a bit of a bifurcation–registering voters and educating the electorate, as well as advocating on issues we find consensus on. We don’t advocate on everything, but do have a fair number of policies at the national, state and local levels developed using a specific League process that requires 1-2 years of study on a subject, as well as consensus from our members. Long ago, LWV decided to stay out of endorsing candidates–that allowed us to hold debates/forums with all candidates and question them on, and advocate for, issues that were important to League members. I’m happy to expand more on this, but I don’t think this is where the thread is going 😉
Paul – I never spoke to you on any occasion. Ever. I never spoke to anyone unless I knew their first and last name.
During the campaign, I was clearly in “listening mode” and heard a wide range of opinions about the size of the City Council. Very few people spoke about the composition of the Council. Over a 4 month period, 2 people advocated for retaining ward Councilors. Unless you are a sock puppet for Terry Malloy or one other resident I know, then we never spoke.
@Sue
Did not know that, very helpful, thanks. Interesting conversation about whether one mission (advocacy) can get in the way of the other mission (non-partisan election stuff), but agree its a topic for another day.
@Jane
It was dialogue with you on V14, just as we’re doing now.
Anyone can go back and read your postings and mine, and make their own determinations as to whether you were being honest. Its pretty clear. You weren’t honest.
Up until now, I had mixed feelings about retiring from the City Council. No more. This is a profoundly cynical ploy by a majority of my colleagues who oppose the charter amendment.
So interesting to see how crabby some people are about the City Council doing what most voters want.
Lynne LeBlanc’s comment includes:
“The idea that the recommendation by the Board (which is mirroring the sentiment of many voters)” What does many mean?
Previously she’s said few attended the meetings (she went to 2), which is true – 20 was a big turnout – and followed with
“the CC should have taken its cue from those who managed to attend more often than not.”
Talk about undemocratic. The charter commission was elected to do the work needed to determine the changes and updates necessary for the city of Newton – not tailor it to the special interests of the few.
I too was still on the fence but am now a definite YES vote for the charter after 14 members of the city council listened not to the majority but to a special interest group. I am very disappointed in each Councilor involved and will not vote for any of the councilors involved.
Emily Norton says the councilors made the legislation contingent on the charter being voted down because some of them did not want to appear to be disregarding voters if the charter passes. Instead it’s a ploy to encourage voting down the new charter – which is what most of them want anyway – by insisting this time the council will downsize itself and disregarding the many positive changes made to the charter.
Emily Norton, once again you use the word “majority” with no proof.
@Marti, voters voted not once but TWICE for this.
@Emily. Had the Council taken this action two years ago (before the Charter Commission got started) or had the Council expressed interest in it without docketing it, then I doubt that people would be as upset. It would simply add to the discussion.
The issue here isn’t the action, but the timing of that action. Coming now, right before the election, changes the very nature of the vote itself. It adds complications to an already complicated and intricate vote. It requires No voters to 1) accept the secondary change to the board that they may or may not agree with AND 2) trust that said change will actually happen. It doesn’t change the Yes vote at all, and has the added benefit of making a Yes vote the only sure answer.
A yes vote means we get a board that looks like what the Charter Commission proposed, along with term limits and a series of other changes. A No vote means… well… .it could mean two different things. It could mean we get the 8/8 board, or it could mean the board stays the same, with no other changes.
Chuck,
“A No vote means… well… .it could mean two different things. It could mean we get the 8/8 board, or it could mean the board stays the same, with no other changes.”
I think that’s the point. Either way the no voters keep ward-elected councilors.
Has anyone asked the mayor or the mayoral candidates if they would sign the 14 councilor’s legislation if it were to go forward?
@Chuck: *Some* people are upset. From what I can tell, it’s all people who were already voting yes. The residents who have been emailing me directly are saying “This is what I wanted, thank you.”
I am not one of the co-sponsors of the alternative plan to the proposed Charter because I continue to feel that a reduction in the number of Councilors will result in poorer service to the people of the city. This opinion is based on my decades of service to the City. I have seen nothing that indicates fewer checks and balances on an Executive would make the city better.
The Charter Commissioners have never explained what was broken in the city government and why it needed to be “fixed” in this way. Voters should judge the merits of the proposed Charter on its own and in my view vote no on the new Charter that would undo the qualities that have made the city one of the best places to live in the country (28th best according to the current Fortune magazine.) and not remedy the problems that have led to the closing of schools at village centers and closing of branch libraries.
The Charter will not make government or life in general better for residents of the City. Vote No.
Emily, are you letting those emailers know that the rest of the charter changes will be lost? When Braden Houston was talking about a compromise charter solution, most people thought it would still include the work the CC did on the rest of the charter.
Councilor Yates, your No vote will still mean that the board will become smaller. Does that make you comfortable?
@ Greg et all
With the help of a Village 14 thread, I became a firm NO a few weeks ago. When I heard news of the council’s proposal my first thought was – that is some creative, innovative problem-solving. I had some pride in my city for once. It never occurred to me that it could be a rouse – Maybe I’m not cynical enough. But, what does it matter? It gives me what I believe is fair. It’s what I want.
@Mike: it only gives you what you want if the council goes forward. Three of the 14 councilors who signed onto this might not be in office next year. The lead sponsor is on record saying she prefers 24, how do we know she won’t revert to that position after Election Day? Other councilors who want to stay at 24 will try and block it. The mayor could veto it too.
In other words this is a ruse because it offers no guarantees.
@Emily: It seems to me that you are an expert at presuming to know what voters want. Personally, I prefer to wait until they make their will known at the ballot box.
PS. You still haven’t explained your sudden change of heart on downsizing the council.
@ Mike Ciolino,
I don’t think most Newton voters are this naive. Let’s assume this docket item makes it through all the specified steps…the council holds the public hearings and the negative feedback is not overwhelming, so a majority votes it up, the Mayor signs it, both houses of the legislature approve it. It then must go to a citywide vote, just like the charter. I can assure you from the charter commission feedback that there would be ample opposition to a council with 50% of representatives accountable only to one ward. So we’re in for another long Yes/No campaign.
Have you asked any of the 14 co-docketers what role they plan to play in that Vote Yes campaign? Will they raise funds, canvas, organize events, blog in support? Many of these councilors were, until Monday, on the record as arguing that we need 24 councilors in Newton. I’m sure that right now they think 16 looks better than 12. But once they’ve convince voters to vote down the charter commission proposal, are they going to be as motivated to get voters to support 16? When the alternative is what they’ve been arguing for all along?
Greg – While this is your blog, no one expects you to monitor it closely. I heard somewhere that you have a real life in addition to your virtual one. However, I’d like to raise a blog issue because that’s not related to the topic at hand. Maybe there’s an easy solution.
In rare instances (thankfully), a poster will target a particular person over and over. In schools, we call it for what it is – bullying. The repeated nature of the behavior is part of the definition of bullying – it’s not a one-time incident. It’s particularly disconcerting when the perpetrator is anonymous and the target posts by her full name.
Thank you to Jeffrey Pontiff. Jeffrey and I live in very different places on the political spectrum, but we get along famously. Our conversations are lively, respectful, funny, and he makes me think. What he did here on this thread is what we explicitly teach students in the Newton Public Schools to do. He acted as an”ally” to the target when he witnessed a bullying incident.
I should have reported it right away, thought about it, but didn’t. I will the next time.
@Bryan: I would still prefer 24. There are more people to do the work, and it’s a bargain for the city at 10K per person. But it is clear to me in knocking on doors that most people prefer 8 ward, 8 at-large.
As Rhanna points out, a significant number of Councilors on that list have stated on the record that they oppose any reduction in the Council, so I wouldn’t assume this item is going anywhere at all after November 7th. It can turn into a No Action Necessary at the drop of a hat.
While I disagree with Lisle Baker and Brian Yates on the issue, I respect that they took a principled stand and didn’t include their names as co-docketers.
@Rhanna
You are seriously out of touch if you think the typical Newton voter has considered the scenario you just laid out. The neighbors I’ve spoken to are just starting to ask – ‘Hey, what is this Charter thing all about.”
I come to Village 14 because I know folks here are in the trenches – Political junkies and heavy users – And I realize I speak at my own peril. But don’t think for a second that the majority of residents has had the time to wrap their heads around this.
It may be painfully obvious to the village sharks that the board needs to be smaller – I know from my friends who interact with local government regularly that it’s difficult to get things done with a larger council. Generally, smaller saves resources. Yay.
I think you’re going to find that the typical Newton voter doesn’t care if the board is 12, 16 or 24. They DO care however about local representation by someone from their neighborhood, elected by their neighbors without interference from other wards.
From the very beginning of all this, I have felt that the ruse is a Charter Commission attempting to alter the power structure of our city to further a political agenda. – Not to say that what the board just proposed isn’t also a ruse. Wouldn’t be surprised if that was also true.
Mike – I’m still trying to figure out what my/our political agenda has been. I didn’t even know half the people on the commission before we began campaigning and had a very informal social relationship with the rest (no offense to any commissioners who thought we were close before the start of the campaign!).
Mike, you’ll have to explain to me what that agenda is/was too other than perhaps a commitment from nine individuals to serve their city through a long open process.
Sure, from all I’ve read over past 6-8 months, it looks like folks who were frustrated with Austin Street ran, and we’re elected to the CC intent on reducing the impact that the neighborhoods can have in blocking development they feel is good for city as a whole. Kudos to them. Well played. I just strongly believe that direct local representation is more important than anything else. It’s certainly possible I’ve come to the wrong conclusion, but I’ve put a lot of effort into understanding this issue. The CC did what they were elected to do and deserve our appreciation. Nothing wrong with having an agenda, I simply strongly disagree with many points of their proposal.
Dear Chuck,
I hope my no vote will be shared by the majority of voters who will realize they are best served by the current Charter in place since late in the 19th Century and with some modifications 25 years ago.
When the alternative comes before the Council, I will vote No on that as well because my decades on the Council have convinced that the needs of the people are best served by 24 Councilors just as they were served by 24 Aldermen. I have some serious concerns about the performance of the other branches of city government, but the 24 member council elected as it has been for decades is still the best way to meet the people’s needs. To answer your question directly, I will be very uncomfortable if the Council is reduced.
City Councilor and former Alderman Brian Yates
I find it highly dubious that councilors who have been vehemently opposed to any reduction in council size throughout this process suddenly have had a change of heart little more than a month from the charter vote. The proposed 8/8 spit is also a significant composition change as it would increase ward councilor makeup from 33% to 50% with little time to consider the impact that would have compared to the charter proposal.
While I’m not thrilled with the complete lack of ward elected councilors in the proposed charter, last minute shenanigans like this are pushing me more towards voting Yes.
@ Mike: just to clarify your last comment, there were 22 people who ran for charter commission, with a large variety of viewpoints expressed. The League did a Voters’ Guide specifically for this race, if you want to read it. The winners were mostly people who were more well-known: 2 former elected officials, 2 people who had run for office before, and a number of people who had been engaged in some sort of community work in a major way for some time. Many of the 22 candidates expressed a desire to keep an open mind (NO agenda)–and as someone who attended most of the meetings, I can say that the commission really worked at this. They visited and re-visited the issue of ward councilors at least three times and had intense discussions about a variety of options. They heard the feedback from people who were unhappy and kept going back to review the research and talk about them.
As a person who at one time was a member of the League, and attending the meetings formulating the 2 downsize referendum questions. Asking ‘why non-binding and not binding’ was given the answer: because they wanted a comprehensive in-depth overhaul of municipal government. To me, that didn’t make sense. If there is, what only, 25% of the registered electorate voting, indicating a lack of confidence in those elected – why would they want to make a more confusing strategic platform?
Logic v. emotion:
That in itself reveals motive, motive as a basis for strategic planning based upon prior voter ignorance. This time around technology (internet) enhances voter education, the ease of which has evolved and simplified for an informed choice. Well conceived with additional impact coming.
Municipal life in a busy citizenry requires spoon feeding change, one baby step at a time, engaging full comprehension based in logical choices, infusing trust in its’ leaders which should ultimately culminate in enhanced voter turnout.
KISS: reject the charter question and rebuild trust in the new breed of responsible city councilors.
@Chuck Tanowitz. I’ve known Brian Yates for almost half a century. Disclaimer. I’m also Treasurer of his reelection campaign, something I really didn’t want to do, but I’m coping pretty well with it. That said, I’ve seldom known Brian to not be “comfortable” with the votes he takes or the positions he holds, but they all come from weighing the options and drawing on the experience he’s accumulated over the years. Like all of us, he has his strengths and weaknesses, but there is one central fact about his life and values I can state with certainty. Brian is constitutionally incapable of saying or doing anything he believes would not be in Newton’s best interest or the overall interest of our City’s villages, the natural environment, or the ever expanding number of elderly, retired and working folks that are having an increasingly tough time making ends meet in today’s economy. His passion for all of these runs strong and deep.
@Sue Flicop – -“They visited and re-visited the issue of ward councilors at least three times”
The Charter Commission had excellent OML compliance. Please point to the minutes or audio (prior to the 11th hour district discussion) where the merits of Ward-elected Councilors were extensively discussed. It wasn’t even on Josh’s powerpoint menu of options when they revisited composition on 8/24. Multiple people spoke in favor of 8-8, yet in their one OML mistake I can find, those voices were not logged in their opinion tracker. I take Rhanna at her word here from her opening statement in one of the final public hearings. http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/we-had-100-percent-agreement-on-day-1
Mike – As any School Committee member and City Councilor will tell you, my driving concern is the rebuilding of the decrepit elementary school buildings that are an obstacle to every teacher/staff member trying to deliver a 21st-century education to our students.
Do I have an agenda as it relates to Newton? Yes, and it’s laser-focused on the schools and school facilities.
The charter commission never broke the OML.
YAWN!
Perhaps its just me, but I finding this constant re litigation of the charter commission process to be extremely tedious. My main recollection of the commission meetings I attended was thinking “It’s too bad more people aren’t attending or speaking up now because this is really important.”
HOWEVER, If anyone genuinely believes the Open Meeting Laws were broken, let’s get to the bottom of it. File a complaint with the Secretary of State and they can resolve it there, since it’s never going to be resolved by the circular conversations here.
Otherwise, it seems like we ought to move on to discussing the merits of the proposal before us, not to mention all the candidates on the ballot on Nov. 7
@Jack: By my quick review, the Charter Commission discussed the structure of the City Council in at least five meetings in 2016 alone: four were regular meetings and one was a roundtable discussion with current and former city councilors. Glancing at my notes, the topic was often ‘ward and at-large’ and how best to represent voters and increase participation. While there were some scenarios prepared, I don’t remember a strict adherence to those options–in fact, I remember the members going round and round with a lot of options til my head was spinning. The ones that were presented were meant to aid discussion. And at almost every meeting there were public comments where people gave their opinion about the ward v. at-large split.
@Greg — Sorry — I think I’m confusing you because I support the charter commission here. Speaking for myself, I think they complied with the spirit and letter of OML. I mean that sincerely and without sarcasm. Jane was a tireless enforcer of OML practices and Karen took on the Herculean task of transcribing hours of discussion. And as a bonus all meeting audio is available (albeit without a fast-forward button).
But given that, @Sue Flicop, I know they listened to testimony, but I was looking for the discussions between themselves on the pros and cons of ward-elected councilors when they were making decisions on composition. Just pick the best one to look back on.
Well Jack I do confuse easily!
But here’s what I still don’t understand. What difference does it make on Sept. 28, 2017 how little or how much time the commission spent deliberating the pros/cons of ward aldermen? The charter proposal is before us. Good people on both sides like or don’t like it and the ward issue is certainly being deliberated now.
So why does this question of how much or litte they deliberated keep coming up, over and over and over and over and over? What difference does it make today? Voters have only two choices, yes or no. Let’s stick to that.
@Greg
For the average voter, the process can be a very important data point. Not everyone has followed every step along the way.
Some may assume that each issue has been extensively deliberated and researched, and be inclined to trust the judgment of the Commission on that basis, rather than deeply explore the merits of the proposal itself. For those not sure if eliminating Ward Councilors is the right idea, understanding how little time the Commission spent on the topic (and how oddly they reached consensus right off the bat) may rightfully cause questions on whether the process was a good one and the Commission should be trusted.
Thanks Bill. It’s unfortunate that Paul feels he needs to resort to disparaging the commission rather than discussing how our city ought be governed for future generations.
Greg: I agree with you. The argument is not “how hard I worked on this.” The compelling point is “what is in the best interest of the City?”
Commissions come and go in Newton, and some leave a mark and others do not . Consider the CAG (no, not all of their ideas were adopted, but they did have a positive impact, and one of their members is currently running for Mayor). Or, “debt exclusions will never pass in Newton.” Change happens incrementally, and more often then not, the successful effort has built on previously failed efforts, which contribute mightily to the public’s interest and education regarding any given matter.
The Charter Commission’s job was not decide a new Charter for the City; it was to perform research and present their solution. If you are pushing your argument for change for the right reasons, take the high road and put some faith in the public and its elected representatives making the best call for this City. This is, after all, what this whole issue is all about.
@Greg
You could be consistently principled in your concerns!
This thread is literally about the YES committee disparaging our City Councilors. As are many of the comments in the thread.
A call for civil discourse on both sides? Nah.
FWIW– I didn’t disparage. Its a fact that the Committee spent little time on Ward-only representation, and Jack has quoted Rhanna saying as such.
On the substance– I’ve made the point, pretty consistently on a number of threads, that the Charter Commission has chosen a structure that is very out-of-step with best practices on local governance. And that the relevant research is against a fully at-large structure. So its pretty clear that I’ve been engaged in the substance. As I wrote before, pointing out flaws in the process has value too. Not everyone is going to read the Poli Sci literature on local governance structure, they are either going to believe the Committee did a good job or not. I think they did a very good job on many components. But on the piece of ward-only representation, its looks pretty clear that ideology rather than research and hard work drove the decision-making. And people should know that.
@Greg – “But here’s what I still don’t understand. What difference does it make on Sept. 28, 2017 how little or how much time the commission spent deliberating the pros/cons of ward aldermen? ”
First a little background. I got engaged “late” in the Austin St. process after a 12/25 6am photo of the lot (with the time stamp photoshopped off) offended my photographic sensibilities and several beloved Newtonville shop owners indicated the project combined with street overhaul could sink them.
After that divisive process was over, I resolved to try to get engaged earlier on things where I could, and to try to get to know our city councilors a bit more 3 dimensionally than the positions they took on that one vote before the upcoming election arrived.
I thought the charter commission process would just be an interesting civics experience. Living nearby, I tried to catch meetings when I could. It was jarring to me how quickly ward-elected councilors were taken off the table, and further jarring that they didn’t get anywhere near being back on the table when the April straw vote was reconsidered in August 2016 due to resident clamor for 8-8.
Representation is advocacy, and deliberation should involve bodies thinking out loud. There was a major point of view in this city with regard to local representation that was absolutely and entirely unrepresented in commission viewpoints and discussion. If you don’t agree, go out for a drive in the city today.
I grew to see and understand that the “agreement on day 1” could be a microcosm of what to expect on an an all-large council for some important issues. This is not the commission’s fault. It is a symptom of how they were elected and the special interest groups that quietly promoted them based on their expected views, or the expected views of their competitors, for the 3.6% of Newton residents they needed to vote for them to be elected. These same groups now lead Yes support.
Democracy involves thinking out loud. I don’t feel the commission’s thinking on 8-8 downsides came out until the written preliminary report and their 11th hour district debate. [But clearly I may be wrong @Sue Flicop; please point me to the most appropriate meeting where you felt the commission extensively debated the pros and cons of Ward-elected councilors.] It would,for example, be useful to understand the data and perspectives their choices were based on beyond everyone should vote for everyone. In some cases we’ve heard and continue to hear single-sided statistical data. Is that what they heard at the time? I feel like some statistical facts about city councils were not surfaced until I spent an fun evening googling the composition of every city council in the state.
Finally, circling back to getting to know our city councilors more 3 dimensionally, through this process and council meeting observations, I’ve come to better understand the councilors, their views, and their thought processes.
The councilors on the “No” side have a spectrum of views on council size and composition (not all for 24), but are in full agreement that status quo is highly preferable to the flaws of the CC proposal.
I personally see 8w-8alwr as addressing the vast majority of charter commission objectives and resident preferences (see March blog post and LTE) and admire the councilors that have responded to the clamor of “they will never downsize themselves” with a commitment in writing. Those that strongly prefer 24 over 16 didn’t co-sponsor the proposal.
To say that those that did are “obstructionist” is a bit absurd to me. Why the largely fresh group of councilors is being blamed for Charter Commissioner Lipsett (among others) arguing against then Alderman Lipof and Vance’s’ 8-8 proposal in 2006 is beyond me. On the other hand, activity from mid 2015 to June WOULD have been seen as subverting the charter commission process that was in progress. It has run its course and voters will vote it up or down on 11/7. If it is seen as better than both 8-8 and status quo it will win regardless.
As a voter, the ideal scenario is for an up/down vote on the CC proposal vs. status quo, and then, if voters reject it (as they should), an up/down ratification of 8-8 vs. status quo. The HR is irrelevant if voters see merit in 12 at large.
Despite the protests, I think the window opened up for this HR only after May when the charter proposal was locked and after enough of them engaged broadly on the issue, and with residents, to form an opinion.
This should not creating confusion. It’s a clear process. As Jane has said on the listserv, unfortunately the confusion for voters today is why “Charter Schools” are still on the ballot.
What has become clear today though, in the reaction to this proposal, is that some Yes supporters seem to be more against Ward-elected councilors than they are against a large council. If they want to obstruct the HR petition (conditioned on charter failure) that would reduce council size from being irreversibly submitted to the MA legislature before the election or before this cohort leaves office, then I think that that may say a lot about their objectives.
http://newtondemocracy.org
As an observer from the big charter questions’ neutral gate, and having been active in the political scene here for over 45 years, I am able to live with either outcome. This election has many attributes of previous elections, most recent of which, was the 2010 senatorial seat by the passing of Ted Kennedy. Honoring the loyalty to the Dem held seat, Coakley assumed transitional allegiance to a transfer incumbancy in philosophy. Scott Brown recognized that folley, and seized upon the opportunity to point out that its the peoples seat – leading to victory.
Similarly in concept of this municipal election, the groupspeak of the League vis-a-vis the Charter Commish slate, thinking the referendum questions on downsize would negotiate a weighted total overhaul of Newtons’ municipal chartering. Continuing on the mindset that the majority of voters are ignorant of detailed structuring of municipal corporation, and would continue in blind trust of the ‘democratically elected’ charter commission.
But this is like no other election in Newtons’ history – the internet being the major difference for communication and intelligence. The old standard format in principle and separation of class, race, gender, philosophy, religion are not within the sole hands of one particular group aka the commission.
Personally, I believed the League would have seen the councils’ alternate 8/8 plan coming, but perhaps, I am giving them too much credit.
They still have another play, but to date, and time is growing short, have not exercised.
Politics is dirty, not always based in logic, American Greed, or emotion. We’ll see…
stay tuned..
So to clarify…the League of Women Voters is NOT the Charter Commission. Yes, we collected signatures to establish the commission, but we didn’t support or oppose any candidates for it.
We have our own positions, many of which never made it into the proposal. The League supports a yes vote because our members felt that, on balance, this proposal was a step forward for the community.
No, we didn’t see the counter-proposal coming–why would we? We worked for and strongly believe in following the charter commission process as laid out by law and voted on by Newton residents.
After watching hundred of comments on this thread based on political, social, regional, keep-my-job-inal arguments, plus the generation of at least one 11th hour remedy, I have come to a personal decision, one that I bet a huge number of regular people who don’t read Village 14 will agree with:
I will choose the representation scheme that is simplest for the voter to choose.
Everything else is inside baseball.
And you know what? Newton will adapt. And we will be fine. And something won’t change: good leaders will still serve their constituents, and bad leaders still won’t. And, unfortunately, the people who know people will still be better off than the people who don’t.
The voters were asked if they wanted a smaller city council, but I posit, as an ignorant newcomer, that perhaps they were really saying they wanted a simpler system.
And that’s because most everyday people interact with government or politics only around election time (at most): they investigate the issues, select candidates and vote. Then, sometimes, they might need something. So they reach out and contact 311, or call whatever councillor they know best.
And that’s it.
And whether one representation system or another makes it easier for a particular candidate to get elected is completely irrelevant to them as they go about trying to live their lives. And for all the value placed on local representation and ward councillors, there are a heck of a lot of people out there who don’t know any councillor, even under the current ward system. And a complicated system makes that problem worse.
And since none of the options of the table offer demonstrably better outcomes – not from your eyes, you political junkie, but from the average person on the street – a simpler system is a better system.
Oh, proofreading:
I will choose the representation scheme that makes voting easiest.
basic simple referendum questions ‘should the Board downsize?’ has transmuted into a ‘trust us we know what’s best for our city’ overhaul. …primarily based in a boogey man fear throwing logic in the bath tub favoring subversive ignorance.
@Harry
What is this other play that you speak of?
Everyone should just calm down and take a deep breath. This doesn’t warrant “Trauma Central”. One way or another, this initiative would come into play only if the voters reject the Charter. I’ll be working to do my very small part to help that rejection process along while my friends and neighbors on the other side will be equally engaged. This doesn’t change my thinking and I suspect it doesn’t change their thinking either. Just one unscientific polling note. I’ve been seeding and sodding my lawn and planting shrubs over the past few weeks. Two neighbors and four people driving by have stopped to ask me where they could get a NO sign.
@Mike Ciolino. Harry speaks with wisdom in both tongues and parables. Be patient. His truth will be revealed to you in good order.
Bob Burke,
Over time you have added many great comments to this blog. The most recent is truly a memorable gem.