Programs and Services voted 4-2 last night to skip a special election to fill the position of Ward 1 alderman at-large, a vacancy caused by the death of Alderman Carleton Merrill last month. If passed by the full board, the vote would allow the BOA to request a home rule petition from the state legislature to forego the special election and wait until November to fill the seat.
Aldermen voting in favor of the home rule petition were Steven Linsky, Dick Blazar, Lisle Baker and Mitch Fischman. Aldermen Amy Sangiolo and John Rice voted against it. Alderman Hess-Mahan was absent but sent a note saying that he was opposed and that he “would like to see if we can piggyback the special election for Carleton’s seat onto another election.” The eighth seat on the committee, sadly and ironically, was held by Alderman Merrill.
Interim Elections Commissions Secretary Peter Koutoujian Sr. gave a host of reasons for not piggybacking the June 25 special election, most of them having to do with how difficult it would be for the Elections Department. It definitely is not as easy as sticking another name on the ballot. Not only does the state require a separate ballot, it requires a separate check-in process. Which means that if a Newton voter wants to cast a ballot in both the Senate and Ward 1 elections, he or she has to check in and receive the ballot for the Senate race, then check out, and then repeat the process for the Ward 1 race. It’s ridiculous but according to Koutoujian, the Secretary of State’s office insists. The good news is that we’d only need on ballot counting machine.
I can say a lot more on this and I will. Right now I’ll add one more thing. After hearing people moan and groan about how difficult elections are and reading that the interim secretary said that people were tired of elections, I was delighted to hear Alderman Sangiolo say,
“I think it’s great that we’re having five elections.”
But it’s a lot trickier than that. If there is a special election, it would be held in conjunction with the June 25 state election to fill the seat vacated by U.S. Senator John Kerry. And the city has to hold that election if the legislature doesn’t approve the home rule petition. So, the committee was planning for both contingencies. If the legislature doesn’t approve the home rule petition by a specific date*, the city has to hold a special election.
Personally, I hope the full board rejects this. One may question [and I do] that we are usually a 15 month standard on this, but that’s what our leaders in the past chose. If we don’t like what the charter says, change it. But “them’s the rules” right now and we should abide by them. The “voters are tired of elections” is vaguely insulting, and so lame as to suggest a different motivation.
Not sure what Steve Linsky was thinking on this one, but I am glad to see that John Rice and Amy Sangiolo still respect the process and rules that allow them to legitimately hold office. Yes, democracy can be a tad inconvenient at times, but nothing like tossing out the rules to undermine public trust. I do hope that the full board understands this.
Reading that the Election Commission thinks it will be too difficult for them to hold an election reminds me of a scene from the movie, “A League of Their Own”. The star player (played by Geena Davis) is thinking of quitting baseball; the coach (played by Tom Hanks) is not pleased with her position:
Dottie Hinson: Yeah. It is only a game, Jimmy. It’s only a game, and, and, I don’t need this.
Jimmy Dugan: Baseball is what gets inside you. It’s what lights you up, you can’t deny that.
Dottie Hinson: It just got too hard.
Jimmy Dugan: It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it. The hard… is what makes it great.
Baseball may only be a game in a movie; democracy is real life and voting is at the core.
I doubt the Founding Fathers said “Let’s try this democracy thing, and if it gets too difficult, we will try something else.”
Like others on this blog have said, if the Charter needs to be updated, then update it. Otherwise follow the existing rules. I am pretty sure the Founding Fathers did say that we are a country of rules and law. Home rule petition is a built-in escape valve (put there by lesser committed politicians) to avoid doing the right thing when it gets too difficult.
It is the city’s responsibility and job to hold the election. If some citizens choose not to vote for whatever reason, that is their constitutional right. If we have the wrong people in place making bad decisions, let’s get the right people in place.
I regret that I was unable to attend last night’s committee meeting, but since Gail mentioned it, I would like to explain my position on this issue.
I was sitting with a bunch of Newton pols at our monthly lunch today, at which Peter Harrington, a former alderman and state representative, explained why he and another alderman had proposed the charter provision requiring that if there is a vacancy within the first fifteen months of a term, “the Board of Aldermen shall forthwith call a special election to fill such vacancy.” (Emphasis added.) Previously, when a vacancy occurred, the other aldermen would get to choose a successor without any election whatsoever. In practice, the former charter provision was used to circumvent the democratic process by incumbents who wished to retire and then handpick their successors. An incumbent would run for re-election, often unopposed, and retire shortly afterwards after choosing a successor that their colleagues would agree to appoint. Though much of the deliberations took place behind closed doors, it was nevertheless apparently an open secret as to what was taking place. Potential candidates–not to mention the democratic process–would be thwarted by the fact that they chose not to run against a long-term incumbent who was perceived to be a sure winner.
Mr. Harrington told me that the charter was amended to require that a special election “shall” be called “forthwith” in order to end this practice. There was substantial debate on when the cutoff would be and after much deliberation, the Board of Aldermen arrived at fifteen months. Given this legislative history, I think it is incumbent upon the current Board of Aldermen to follow the rules, into which so much thought and effort were invested. As Gail noted, I would like to see us piggyback this onto another special election, if for no other reasons than that it would save money and in all likelihood increase the likely turnout (particularly if it is joined with a special election involving the U.S. Senate vacancy). If that is impracticable, however, I would be prepared to vote against this item on principle alone. I would very much like to avoid even the appearance that the Board of Aldermen and the Election Commission are seeking to get around the democratic process of election local leaders. Peter and I do not always agree on every issue, but I find his rationale for following the clear and unambiguous rules as provided in the charter to be compelling in this instance.
On the other hand, if the aldermen who support this item honestly believe we can get by with fewer aldermen, then we should all agree to reduce the size of the board permanently.
Great post, Ted!
First of all, the headline of this thread should read:
ALDERMANIC COMMITTEE SAYS “NO” TO DEMOCRACY
But if the aldermen are going to seek approval of a Home Rule Petition anyway, why not get it right? Send the Legislature a petition asking to reduce the Board to 8 members.
@Ted, I echo Mike’s comment – great post and thank you for passing along the great wisdom Peter Harrington shared with you.
I agree with the committee vote. The idea of holding an election for the sake of it doesn’t make sense to me. We have a seriously outdated charter and maybe this issue will prod some people into signing the petition for a charter review. But to spend $30,000 so that we can claim to be acting within the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, when the city has so many needs makes no sense to me. I remember the aldermanic shenanigans of the past, but in the age of the internet and the presence of various local blogs, it’s quite unlikely that anyone could get away with what happened 25 years ago in 2013.
$30,000 would provide an aide for an elementary classroom of 28 students. As far as I’m concerned, it comes down to priorities, not principles. We live in a democracy, folks. To contend that not holding this special election is a threat to democracy is a tough sell to a parent whose 6 year old is in a class of 28.
Jane – how is this against the “spirit” of the law? It seems to me that the spirit of the Charter is to ensure that a vacancy within a short period of time after an Alderman is elected shall be filled. It is always significant when the language is mandatory and unequivocal as it is in the charter with the inclusion of the word “shall”. Thus, it is not merely the intent but also the spirit of this law to ensure that the election “shall” be held.
I understand and genuinely appreciate your passion for the schools. I share your concerns very deeply but that said, if we are to measure every expenditure against what those funds could accomplish in the schools then there would be hardly any justification to spend any public funds upon any endeavor other than the schools. Yes, that sum could pay for an aide in the public schools. It could also pay to repair a crumbling street or sidewalk. Both are highly desirable and worthy but there is a distinction between expenditures for actions which are permissible and those which are mandatory. Under our present charter, the election is mandatory, and absent an act of the legislature there is no discretion.
There’s a big difference between leaving a seat vacant a short time and the practice backdoor appointments Ted is describing. I’m all for democracy and following the letter of the law, but do I feel the disenfranchisement of 1/16th of my city-wide representation for a couple of months amounts to a crisis? No, I’m with Jane, I’d rather keep a classroom aide. I often feel over-represented as it is.
@Adam – I feel another T shirt (or is it bumper sticker) slogan coming on …
STOP ALDERMANIC OVERREPRESENTATION
I don’t see why it would cost $30K if they piggy-backed it with one of the other upcoming elections.
Special election vs. teacher’s aide is a false dichotomy and I think everyone knows it. We have to hold extra elections for the override/debt exclusions, to fill the US Senate vacancy (twice), and some years we have to hold primaries in the local elections. So that argument is a load of horse hockey.
The real issue here is we have set up a system for conducting elections, the requirement for a special election in the circumstances is pellucid, and we are being told voters will be just too tired to vote. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is a BS argument as far as I am concerned.
Although I agreed with the outcome, because it meant we had a contested election, there is also no doubt in my mind the Election Commission and the city took a hit in the eyes of many because of the kerfuffle over the Ward 2 school committee ballot challenge last year. While I want to believe there are no ulterior motives, the fact that the BOA is being asked to circumvent the City Charter now without a far better reason than has been offered so far is going to make people suspicious. This is another potential black eye for Newton.
To anyone who feels “over-represented,” imagine how you might feel if you were applying for a special permit, which requires 16 votes, and you lose by one vote because the BOA is down one and a couple of aldermen are out sick or on vacation the night of the vote. You spend thousands of dollars on surveys, plans, legal fees etc. and because you cannot get that 16th vote, you don’t get to add a bedroom or a mudroom or whatever. Or imagine maybe you are a developer of a certain transit oriented development and you have spent millions of dollars on obtaining a special permit for a project that could bring $1.5 million in additional tax revenue to the city. Too bad for you, though, because the democratic process wasn’t worth the effort or the cost.
This is so important it deserves to appear twice…
24 (or 23) people voting on whether someone gets to add a bedroom? Yes, I feel over-represented. The vacancy will happen regardless, it just might be that a few more permits will be affected.
Ted,
Nice posts. This stinks like another charter movement we had 5 odd years ago:).
Here are my concerns. We have a new election commissioner. Not sure how old he is, but he’s probably in his seventies. I normally dont care about age, but he’s probably losing some of his energy, we have an election commission who is down to 2(?) other personnel and we have something like 5 more separate elections, not including the big local general election in November. I am concerned of overworked employees who are more than apt to make a mistake. Thats the last thing we need.
I understand it’s their job yada yada, but overworking the department is still a concern. I am also sure the Mayor will add staff as well, still….
OK, so it’s $30,000 of roads or sidewalks that won’t be repaired. You’re missing the point. We have one pot of money and we need to prioritize how we spend it.
The spirit of any election is to ensure that the will of the people is carried out and that people are well represented. Scott and Jay will do a fine job representing Ward 1 in the interim.
Newton voters expressed clearly and decisively – through the electoral process – that they believe we have too many aldermen. Yet the aldermen have yet to act on that vote, and now we’re supposed to get into a kerfuffle about democracy because one seat out of 24 will remain unfilled for 9 months? And the most important reason anyone can come up with for the necessity of having this election for a 24th aldermen is adding bedrooms and mudrooms?
Reduce the size of the BOA and you have my support for a special election.
@Jane: The most important reason for having the election is that the charter requires it. It does not matter who currently represents Ward 1. It doesn’t matter who may or may not run for the open seat. I’d be all for leaving the seat open if the board changes the affected provision in the charter at the same time. Let’s assume the aldermen aren’t going to decide in the next two weeks to reduce the size of the board. If filling this seat is so inconsequential, then the home rule petition should state that anytime there’s a vacancy it doesn’t have to be filled. Or maybe change 15 months to 12 months (although that could be a bit arbitrary). But again, they should not change the rules for this one particular instance because it is inconvenient. Democracy, as they say, is messy.
@Tom: If I understand correctly, you are suggesting we shouldn’t hold the election because the staff isn’t up to the task? What if that same argument could be made in November?
Jane, what Gail said. You are the one who is missing the point. Are you going to make the same lame argument if we have more than four people running for AAL in Ward 1 in November and have to have a preliminary election in September? I hope not. Because that could happen. I am with Amy Sangiolo: I would be literally thrilled if there was that much interest in a seat on the board so that we had to have another election.
As far as bedrooms and mudrooms, maybe it just comes down to whose ox is getting gored. People spend thousands of dollars to come to the board for a special permit to add on to their house to accommodate a larger family or for any number of other reasons that are important to them. Your comments are not very civic minded. Too bad you cannot be a little more sympathetic to some of your neighbors who just want improve the quality of their lives and stay in Newton.
As far as larger projects are concerned, I was elected to fill a vacancy on the board in 2003 and could not vote on a particularly controversial project because I was not on the board when the public hearing was held. It didn’t get 16 votes, the city was sued, and eventually, after protracted negotiations and a lot of hard feelings (and a lot of time, effort and money spent on litigation and negotiations), a settlement was reached and approved by the board granting a special permit. The folks who want to develop Riverside face the same problem. The petitioners are down one alderman already and it could well come down to whether they can get that 16th vote. Unfortunately, filling this vacancy will not help them unless we reopen the public hearing.
As far as I can see, that charter is pulled out whenever someone wants to justify a position and too often gathers quite a bit of dust. How many times have we heard of ordinances that really do affect the daily lives of residents ignored because no one cares? Hold your election, have 3% of the voters show up, and feel good about perserving the cornerstone of democracy. I really don’t care. The goofy part about it is I’ll be one of the 3% who vote.
“To anyone who feels “over-represented,” imagine how you might feel if you were applying for a special permit, which requires 16 votes, and you lose by one vote because the BOA is down one and a couple of aldermen are out sick or on vacation the night of the vote…”
Just have your well-connected attorney or development-friendly alderman reschedule the vote.
Jane: Using your logic we would never have elections. They cost $60-70K/ea. That could be spent elsewhere, no?
Bill, way to rock the snark. But a lot of people who just want a special permit so they can make a modest addition to their house cannot afford a “well-connected attorney.” And rescheduling may not help if they lack political connections and cannot find enough votes because a handful of neighbors oppose their project (maybe even for reasons totally unrelated to the project itself) and it happens to be an election year. You of all people should know it is not that easy to get re-elected when you tick enough people off while in office.
In any event, the bigger issue here is that we have a set of rules to govern by, and we all ought to be loathe to circumvent them unless there are truly compelling reasons to do so. Wanting to avoid a special election when we are going to have a minimum of five elections this year anyway is not compelling, IMHO.
Nope Gail I said:”Here are my concerns…”
Ted – there’s lots of good and important reasons for holding the election that the law requires, and you and Gail have articulated them nicely.
Your arguments about about the mud room or the big development project are a bit bogus though. If you’re the applicant, and there’s one fewer alderman involved it may help your case, it may hurt your case. Either way, I think its beside the point.
Ted, Ted, Ted. No snark. What is wrong with having a well-connected attorney or development-friendly alderman when going through Land Use in Newton?
My point is that people can change schedules if they need to. Further, as you might know, about 99.9% of land use permits pass on first call without incident. So, for anyone familiar with it, the argument doesn’t really persuade.
I had already stated above that the Board should follow the rules. Glad to see that you agree.
The problem is that people need to hire an attorney at all to build a mudroom, except in the most extreme cases of special permits. I don’t see why we should be celebrating a system of 24 aldermen putting people through the wringer like this. But I agree with Bill, that’s not the issue, for all the he reasons stated.
I was actually impressed by Gail’s original arguments and posted my own snark only because of Greg’s taunt But really, this is not as absolute as a federal election. There’s an escape clause, and the city may attempt to use it. That’s democracy in action, too. Perhaps there shouldn’t be an escape clause? I just don’t feel this is the slippery slope to tyranny, sorry.
So let’s change the permit rules. Let’s change the election rules. Let’s change the number of aldermen. But until then, let’s follow the current rules and let’s certainly not use being tired as a reason to not want to follow an existing rule.
I also have to say, Tom was on to something when he had the chutzpa to suggest that maybe our interim election department head is not up to the demands before him.
Ted – I appreciate your thoughtful comments.
No one has responded to my question, so I’ll rephrase it. Is there any reason this election couldn’t occur at the same time as one of the other upcoming special elections? If so, what would be the cost? I can’t imagine it would be $30K.
@mgwa: If the full board approves the home rule petition, the backup plan would be to hold this election simultaneously with the June 25 special election for U.S. Senate. That’s what would cost $30 – $35K. To hold an entirely separate election would cost about $85K. Some of the costs that Koutoujian listed were ballots, check-in monitors, postage, ballot containers (ballots must be separated for the different elections after polls close and kept in a safe place. The city only has 32 containers), and signs.
@Max: I don’t know this for a fact, but I expect that Ted has used pellucid in a sentence previously. I wouldn’t be surprised if a search of the Village 14 and TAB blogs proved me correct!
Ted, I’ll bet you waited your whole life to use “pellucid” in a sentence!
As a resident of Ward 1, I mourn Carleton Merrill’s passing, both as a friend and neighbor, and also as my representative at City Hall. But I also expect the City to follow the Charter’s requirement to hold an election to replace Carleton on the Board as soon as possible.
There is no excuse for the Election Commission to have thought otherwise, and even less excuse for Steven Linsky, Dick Blazar, Lisle Baker and Mitch Fischman to have supported them. With Linsky and Fischman having announced that they would be leaving the Board, and Blazar and Baker being Ward Aldermen somewhere else, we don’t even get to call them out on the ballot come November. Too bad.
Thanks, Gail.
Thanks, Ted, for the history lesson as supplied by Peter Harrington. And I must say I have a vague feeling that the impetus behind this ‘Voters are tired of elections” may harken back to the days before the rules were changed.
Show some spine, full Board, and do what’s right.
Bill – To presume that I meant that we should willy-nilly cancel elections to save money is ridiculous.
I think we should follow the charter. I think we should have followed the charter in 2011 too.
Can’t help but wonder this morning if the cardinals at the Vatican will be too “tired” to elect a new pope.
@Greg – they’ve had 7 years to rest up. And they managed to overcome their exhaustion in 1978, when they had two conclaves within a couple of months. I think they’ll be OK.