This fall every seat on Newton’s Board of Aldermen and the Newton School Committee will be up for reelection.
But in a city where incumbents are rarely challenged and rarely lose, this election cycle will be especially noteworthy because an unusually large number of incumbents have either decided not to seek reelection (Aldermen Greer Tan Swiston, Mitch Fischman and Steve Linsky plus School Committee member Geoff Epstein) or must leave their seats due to term limits (Claire Sokoloff and Jonathan Yeo on the School Committee).
In addition, there will soon need to be a special election to fill the seat the late Carleton Merrill first occupied in 1950.
That’s at least seven new board members even before any incumbents are challenged.
It’s a safe bet to say that filling these vacancies is very much on the agenda for a group of Newton insiders who for years have been devoting their time, energy and (when needed) money, recruiting and electing candidates of their political liking. (Let me add, there’s nothing wrong with this, that’s how democracies work.)
But here’s what I’m wondering: Where’s the next generation of Newton’s political leaders going to come from? Where’s the young upstarts?
Newton has a young, Energizer Bunny of a mayor, who let’s recall, upset a trio of “insiders” to get his job and has reinvigorated our city. Mayor Warren was born in 1970. Congressman Kennedy was born in 1980. Were any of the members on either of our elected boards born in the ’70s or ’80s?
If we want Newton to be a vibrant, ever-evolving, community we need new faces and new perspectives. I’m not saying throw out everyone else. Experience matters. Institutional memory matters. But let’s hope we will look back on 2013 as a year we began seeing a new generation of Newton leaders stepping up to serve and bringing new ideas and energy to our city.
Come on Greg you know the answer to this. With very few exceptions, the best people to lead this city are spending their time building their careers and raising their families. These are folks who like to “get things done.” There are precious few of them with the patience to spend their free time in a bureaucratic environment whose purpose is to prevent things from getting done. How many years (years!) ago were the deficiencies of the elementary schools and fire houses identified? How many years (years!) did it take to get a project built and tax revenue coming in from Chestnut Square? How much time is spent on what are at best second order issues like plastic bags and leaf blowers? Greg, the people who would do the best for the city are for the most part (and there are a few exceptions) precisely the ones whose heads would explode from the inanity of the job and from having to listen to all of the people out there who value endless deliberation over moving the city forward.
As for your energetic Mayor, it is pretty clear that his time here is intended for one and only one things: higher office. Sure he’s done plenty to benefit the city, but in the end its all for himself. He’s no better than David Cohen. Just disappointing in a different way.
What Greg said.
@ Eric,
What perfectly cynical logic. The implication behind your analysis is that most people who will run for office should be looked at with a wary eye because there is no way a sane, competent person could consider running for Alderman or School Committee a rewarding job.
I think public service is an honor that people should wear proudly, and that more people should jump into the fray. At the very least, the local electorate would have the chance to hear a variety of ideas regarding the City’s future.
What Paul said. Even where I might disagree with a particular alderman or school committee person, I give them great credit for taking on that task. It’s a considerable commitment of time and energy for very little compensation.
And I agree with the sentiment of the thread that Newton would be well served by having more up-and-comers running for office.
I stand firmly both by my statements Pauls as well as what I consider to be your excellently stated implication. I firmly believe that, with few exceptions, the best people, the ones most capable of getting things done are not and will never engage in a process designed to keep things from getting done. However, given the longevity of time people seem to spend in office, it would appear that the majority of Newtonians are quite happy with the status quo.
In truth Paul, we have had a rather good number of of contested elections over the years. By and large, the same old same old get put back into power and business proceeds as usual. Sure there is the occasional exception to the rule; someone like Bill Brandel say, but look how long he lasted. No, the people of Newton are quite clear about how they want their city run and seem more or less happy with those who have taken up the task. Would the city be served well, as Dan states, from more up-and-comers running? Sure. It would be really well served if they actually won in some majority. Trouble is, it ain’t going to happen any time soon.
You’re too cynical, Eric. Your comments are certainly not without basis, but your supposition too extreme. There are a lot of talented people who are willing to wade through the political crap for the opportunity to serve their community.
From my own personal experience running for mayor in 2005, what I found most enlightening, is that you don’t even have to win in order to make a difference. My candidacy alone brought about at least one major policy change, [NNHS]. The aggressive campaign I ran did not result in victory, but it did ultimately change people’s opinion of the incumbent and set the stage for his political demise.
Yes, running for office can be frustrating. Especially for people who are averse to countless committees and endless debates. But that’s just the nature of the beast. There will always be people who care enough about Newton that they are willing to make that sacrifice.
As the sage said, “Democracy can be stultifyingly boring, but it’s better than the alternatives”
Actually Emily, I had a history teach once who sang the praises of benevolent dictatorship.
Mike, I agree that there are a lot of talented people and in many cases I do appreciate their (and your) service. The question posed by Greg though was not about what we have but about what we could have. Newton is a city whose population includes not just talented, but exceptionally talented people; folks experienced at the highest levels of the industries and institutions that make Boston world class from law and higher ed to high tech, medical, venture capital, finance and others. These are people who could make a huge difference to the city. With few exceptions, I do not see them on the BOA or SC. (For goodness sake, how long did it take to get a civil engineer on the SC at a time when infrastructure was one of the major issues facing the school system?) I assert that the nature of the beast, as you put it so well, is a major contributor to these people sitting on the sidelines. Change the beast, get better results.
@Eric – Interestingly, I used to share your opinion of our elected officials. That is, until I ran, got elected, and began working with these people. What I’ve found is that they are smart, dedicated, “can-do” and “get things done” type of people. They dislike bureaucracy as much as the other guy and are forced to work within the system, and at times go around the system, to get things done. Do some like to deliberate? Sure. But, it’s because they believe passionately in improving our City. Don’t fault anyone for that. It’s not like the private sector. There, any good idea can be researched, developed, and implemented at the company’s whim. Within government, we are talking about decisions that impact people, families, our City – and the implications can be significant. Deliberation is a necessity.
Also, your elected officials, the one’s who aren’t people who “get things done” have day jobs, work as Aldermen, have families, and support the community by sponsoring and executing fundraisers, developing programs to help various causes, and work on campaigns to support our community. It’s a balancing act.
But, to your point of encouraging more action than less, think about getting involved in Charter reform. I strongly support this primarily for the reasons you outlined – the need to get things done. IMO, the City might be better served with Aldermen who are full time vs. part time. Think about it. With many Alderman, the job has to be their 3rd priority to family and their day job. It’s incredible that many can balance everything and still be effective to the extent they are. I’m not advocating this specific solution yet, but its one that I think should be discussed, along with the many implications it implies.
@David Kalis. This was an excellent and beautifully written analysis — based on facts and first hand observations, not opinions.
You know, Eric, that the high powered people who you lament aren’t running for elective office very often are folks who reach well beyond their chosen profession to contribute to the community in other ways, by serving on various boards, for profit and non-for-profit, and whose lives may be just too busy to deal with the messy and time consuming process of running for office. There’s so many different ways folks can make a contribution to our world than running for office.
And many of them do make an impact behind the scenes in the community they live in. Being an office holder is not the only way.
@Eric Miller –
There really is only one way to “change the beast” – people run for the office, get elected and work for change.
You say ‘For goodness sake, how long did it take to get a civil engineer on the SC at a time when infrastructure was one of the major issues facing the school system?”. It took until a very competent civil engineer ran and was elected.
What puzzles me about your comments is that you seem to simultaneously be dissatisfied with the status quo, discouraging anyone but the status quo from running, and wringing your hands that somehow the system needs to change.
How else do you imagine that we will “change the beast”?
David’s post was right on, but to add onto David’s post, if you’d like to get involved in Charter Reform, please see Rhanna Kidwell of the League Of Women’s Voters.
@Alderman Kalis– I’m a bit out-of-the-loop these days. Your mention of the possibility of “full time” aldermen was the first I’ve ever heard of that idea. Is this something that’s actually being considered and actively discussed? Because if it is, then I’d like to change my encouraging comments to Eric, and I’ll also need as much notice as possible, so I can start packing my bags. No offense intended to any of the aldermen, many of whom do work quite hard. But in my opinion, almost all overvalue their role. The best thing we can do to make local government more efficient and accountable is to reduce the size of the Board, not add to the bureaucracy by creating full time aldermen.
@Mike – No, it’s not being discussed, as far as I know. It’s simply an example. But within the framework of reducing the BOA significantly, ask yourself, could things operate more efficiently with 8 BOA members that are full time? I just pose it as an option, one of many that I believe should be discussed to achieve the ultimate goal of serving the City most effectively and efficiently.
@ David, do you know whether there are examples within MA of other communities having full time aldermen/city councilmen? While I know a lot of time goes in to being an alderman, it has not struck me as a full-time job.
@ Mike, IF this could constitute a full-time job, in what ways would replacing 24 part-time aldermen with 8 full-timers increase the bureaucracy? [BTW, if that kind of change in the charter were to occur, I’d hope it would be in tandem with instituting term limits on the position. In fact. I’d like to see that change anyway.]
Very thoughtful post, David.
@David– Thanks for responding.
@Dan– That was quite literally the first time I’ve ever heard the idea. Now that it’s been given a little context by coupling it with a 2/3 reduction in the Board, it may in fact be a good idea, and I’ll really have to think through the implications.
I think one implication is we’d have to be willing to pay aldermen a lot more.How many younger people could afford to run and serve otherwise, if that was their only job? Just really wealthy people living off interest and dividends. Or a spouse with a good job, I guess.
@ Julia, but that’s the point: it’s not a full time job. And if young adults don’t have the energy to master a full time job, plus this, how is it that older folks can?
Let me get this straight. The BOA refuses to take naming rights but is happy to ask for more taxes. While city hall seeks to stick its hands ever deeper into our pockets, at least we know that Newton’s “values” are being preserved. Yes, let’s have more deliberation on this. It is a subtle issue worthy of careful debate.
@Dan Fahey, not now, but under this idea that was thrown out that being an alderman could be a full-time job, with commensurate pay, then presumably we’d expect them to do it full-time, and not have a second job that would take away from that.