So Newton’s Elections Commission has decided it would be too expensive and difficult to hold a special election to fill the Board of Alderman vacancy created by the death of Alderman Carleton Merrill.
“The population — I don’t think they’ll want it,” Peter Koutoujian, Sr. [the interim executive secretary for the Elections Commission, told Wicked Local’s Chloe Gotsis.] “They’re tired of elections.”
Koutoujian added that canceling the special citywide election for alderman would save approximately $30,000 and “a lot of grief.”
Koutoujian and our three election commissioners are probably right: people are “tired” of elections. And this will be expensive and a hassle. Our remaining 23 aldermen will probably agree too and send the request off to Beacon Hill for approval.
Heck, under the circumstances, I think this makes sense too.
But it bothers me that I feel this way. Koutoujian’s quotes are, honest, yet unsettling. Nothing should be more important in a democracy than open elections. The rules we’ve created for elections shouldn’t be changed because people are “tired” of voting or because holding an election is expensive or causes “grief.”
If our election rules need to be changed, that’s what a charter review is for. Fiddling with the rules due to exhaustion, expense or even the reality that our city can manage just fine with 23 alderman are the wrong reasons for not doing this.
Sorry, but I’m going to drift slightly off-topic to make a quick point. There’s a lot of attention being focused right now on Charter reform, with the most frequently cited objective being to downsize the Board of Aldermen. As I’ve pointed out on a number of occasions that objective could be accomplished without opening the Pandora’s Box of Charter reform, through a vote of the Aldermen and Home Rule Petition sent to the Legislature. The exact same process being proposed to deal with the seat vacated by Carleton Merrill. It’s simple, it’s quick, and it is a lock to be approved on Beacon Hill. The trick of course, is getting enough aldermen to vote in favor of downsizing the Board. I would love to see the League of Women Voters signature raising effort, redirected toward a petition to downsize the Board, and get every candidate to go on-the-record publicly with their position on that issue before the November elections.
Why couldn’t this be piggy-backed onto one of the other upcoming special elections, such as the one for Senator? Wouldn’t that save the money but still get the seat filled?
Isn’t the larger issue then whether the home rule petition should be to “fix” the say in which we’ve decided to solve vacancies?
Why fix it for this one instance? The rule is either good or it’s not. It’s either OK to have a vacancy for a period of time or it’s not. What swas the magic of 15 months?
I can’t see anything right about this decision unless, as Dan points out, the home rule petition changes this section of the charter moving forward. We’re not going to hold this election because it will cause a “lot of grief”? And who are the Interim Elections Commissions secretary and the commissioners to decide that voters are “tired of elections”? New Yorkers voted after Sept. 11. Nobody decided they were too tired to vote. New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts residents voted after they were hit by Sandy and polling places had to be moved. But Newton residents are “tired” of elections? Pardon my language, but…bullshit.
This really angers me. I don’t care how much it costs. The Elections Commissions Secretary and the commissioners have no right deciding that democracy is inconvenient right now, and I certainly hope the Board of Aldermen can see that.
Even if the board doesn’t see it, I don’t expect this to pass the legislature. Legislators are not going to change rules on-the-fly for Newton. It sets a really bad precedent. Who are we to even ask? The city that built a $200 million high school doesn’t want to take on the expense of printing ballots for a special election? Did anybody think this through?
This is the first time in nearly a year that I have missed my job. I really wish I could write an editorial.
Well said Gail. Maybe instead of writing an editorial you should run for alderman.
Also, Chloe’s article doesn’t cover this but, under this proposal, when would the newly-elected person’s term begin? Would it be in January as is the case with everyone else we elect in a regularly scheduled municipal election? Or would it be right after the election, as with a special election?
Let’s say, hypothetically, it’s the second option and Scott Lennon is elected at-large and Jay Ciccone chooses not to run (or maybe he runs for the ward seat or he loses to someone else). Which candidate fills Merrill’s at-large seat in November: Lennon or the newly-elected second at large candidate?
Here’s what the charter says:
Great comments, Gail. It’s pretty remarkable that the new, interim head of the Elections Commission’s very first act is an attempt to circumvent an election. The Charter also details protocol in the event a mayor vacates office early. What might happen in that case if we don’t follow the rules now?
@Gail: Thanks for finding that. Glad to see that at least that’s covered. Very alderman-like of you.
In principle I can’t/don’t disagree with a single point that Gail made. In practice though I have a hard time whipping up any righteous indignation about it. I have a hard time imagining any practical detrimental effect if the city limps along with only 23 aldermen for the remainder of the term.
I know, its the principle of the matter, but …..
Jerry,
It’s not about principle, it’s about democracy. Municipal, state and federal governments should not apply spot zoning to elections. Furthermore, there might be someone who wants to run for that seat now, and our city and state government might decide to deny him or her that possibility. That is infringing on someone’s democratic rights.
If they want to change the charter altogether, fine. But to ignore it in this one case because it’s inconvenient — not only is it wrong, but it could open up all sorts of problems in the future.
NO SPOT ZONING FOR DEMOCRACY! – OK, now you’ve got me. I’m a sucker for a well turned phrase.
Seriously though, I guess you’re right. Cancelling an election because its inconvenient is a pretty bogus response from a body whose job it is to oversee elections.
@Gail — Send along a guest editorial. The TAB opinion page still welcomes you.
It’s a ridiculous expense to have an election in June for a seat that comes up for re-election in November. Plus, if there is a run off (more than 2 candidates for the seat) it will take two elections! Let this seat remain vacant until January 2014.
I take more issue that this request is being generated by the office of the Secretary (Interim) of the Elections Commission and not the Elections Commissioners themselves. Is this an example of the tail wagging the dog? Please correct me if I am wrong…
I wish Gail had been this attentive to the rules, as expressed in the plain and unambiguous language of our City Charter, when Jonathon Yeo wasn’t living in Ward 2 but argued his intent to live in Ward 2 was just as important as actually living there.
@Jeff: There’s a big difference between a decision that would keep a candidate off a ballot and a decision to cancel an election (because people are “tired”). When in doubt I’d want to err in favor of letting voters decide every time.
@Emily: You mean in my old spot on the left side of the op/ed page? I’d love to. Thanks.
Will you run the tag line: Gail Spector blogs at Village14.com?
I’m really glad that the city won’t hold this election. We don’t need 23 aldermen, forget 24. But more importantly, it shows a level of respect for Carleton Merrill – that he won’t be replaced quite with an election that no one will pay much attention to.
So Jane we should revise the election rules when we respect the person who died? I think we showed our resect to Alderman Merrill by electing him when he was alive.
@Gail — don’t get too pushy now.
What Jeff Seideman said. The outrage over election rules not being followed is touching but also hilarious.
Emily, Jeff, etc…
I much prefer not to rehash an old argument to which the Massachussetts Supreme Judicial Court concurred with the TAB’s position but I will remind you what the charter says about elibility requirements:
“A candidate for the office of school committeeman shall be a resident of the ward from which he seeks election as of the date that the election commission makes available blank forms for the nomination of candidates for office.”
The definition of resident was and is loose.
In the case of a vacancy, there is no ambiguity. I cannot believe that people think there should be an exception because of “respect” or because we have “enough aldermen.” Nobody suggested leaving Ted Mann’s seat open out of respect. And if we have enough aldermen, why don’t we just not fill the seat at all? In fact, let’s not fill Greer Swiston’s or Steve Linsky’s or Mitch Fischman’s seat. We have plenty of aldermen. Let’s just change the rules as we see fit.
I know this seems minute. But if the issue is that it’s silly to have an election so close to the November election, then the home rule petition should ask to change the charter. But I would suggest that somebody think through the law of unintended consequences before making that change too.
There are a lot of ways to show respect to a person who has died. One way of doing so is by taking some time to reflect on that individual who has generously donated his life to public service, especially when you have 23 other people to carry out aldermanic responsibilities.
This is a wise decision on the part of an election commissioner who’s been around for a while. He gets it.
@Jane – plus you make it sound like the politically correct thing to do… 😀
Greg:
When in doubt — or not in doubt — follow the rules as written. It’s easy to do, good for Democracy, and builds confidence in our government.
What’s politically correct about not holding an election? I’ve never cared for the way we replace one legislator with another so quickly when there are other people to do the work, and most often another election coming up in a short period of time. Not to mention, it’s a waste of money at a time when we are in need of resources.
And while I’m at it, I really hate it when people take one or two words out of a conversation and put them in quotes, repeat them over and over until they’ve completely lost the intent of the speaker.
@Jane:
Add this to the list of items to discuss as part of charter reform.
What was it Jerry said? Oh yeah…
I cant claim credit for that – that was Gail’s line. I’ll print the bumper stickers though.
Elections? Priceless.
“No spot zoning for democracy” t-shirts? Just $22.95
@Gail: I’ll make sure you get a cut of the proceeds.
I was responding to Janet’s comment, but I think you knew that. And my second comment was in another paragraph, indicating that I was moving on to another aspect of the topic, but I hope you know that as well, and not directly following my first sentence as you have block quoted it.
This has all become another one of your red meat tempests in a teapot, so see you later.