The League of Women Voters in Newton has collected and submitted 11,200 signatures in support of creating the first city Charter Commission since 1969, the Newton TAB reports.
LWVN President Sue Flicop said once the signatures are certified, the Board of Aldermen will vote on whether or not the creation of a Charter Commission will appear on the ballot.
If approved by the board, two simple questions will be on the ballot in November. Voters will be asked if they support the creation of a Charter Commission and they’ll be asked to vote for members of that panel.
Residents who would like to serve on the Charter Commission will need to submit 100 signatures in support of their candidacy by Sept. 22, after the charter signatures have been certified.
If there’s a Charter Commission do you believe sitting aldermen should be members?
No sitting Alderman should serve on the Charter Commission. Totally against!
It seems like it might be a direct conflict of interest for any sitting elected official (or candidate) to be a voting member of a charter commission. However, the wealth of knowledge and wisdom accrued by those in office could be very important as non-voting or advisory members.
I’m sure some would disagree, and I’d like to hear their rationale.
I would like there to be a representative of the BoA/CC on the commission, since I think they represent an important point of view. It is important, however, that the majority of the commission be non-BoA/CC.
I think it’s important for this project to be taken seriously, for the commission to be comprised of 100% citizens. The BOA all have their own separate agenda. However, I do think it’s important for members of the Board to be available in case of procedural/institutional questions.
I also believe there needs to be an intern/volunteer who helps out solely to the commission who will collect information from newton departments or info from other cities/towns.
@Tom: I don’t disagree with your overall view, although I do believe that aldermen technically are also “citizens.” Or am I confusing aldermen with corporations?
Interesting question. According to the late Florence Rubin, who was the chair, the last time Newton elected a Charter Commission, it included one Alderman and one School Committee member, as well as two State Representatives. For better or worse, elected officials have the best name recognition so they usually end up getting elected. One thing that deserves serious consideration is whether to have a provision in a new Charter requiring periodic review by an appointed Charter Review Committee.
Absolutely not! It a clear conflict of interest, with financial implications for the city and an individual alderman or school committee member.
The aldermen, the school committee, and the mayor should be available to provide input from their unique perspective without the implication of a conflict of interest. As a city member of the commission, their input would be suspect as being self serving. As advisors, they play an invaluable role in the process.
Ted, I would love to see a periodic review of the charter. Unfortunately, if I’m not mistaken, you’d have to override ch 43BMGL. Is this correct?
Greg, you drafted a question …Do you believe sitting aldermen should be sitting members of the charter commission?…. I am hoping elected officials stay away from this. To me, it would mean they don’t have enough time on their hands if they are looking to take on another huge project like this.
I also hope 3 more things for the commission. 1. That it’s 100% transparent. One thing I’d like to see the commission experiment with is to bring technology into the meetings. I’d like to see the meetings live videostreamed so that people can watch meetings live without leaving their homes and maybe even ask questions as the process is going. Maybe take the last 15-20 minutes of meetings for questions that came in from the public via email. 2. video(youtube) all the meetings (which includes audio tape). This will probably attract 2-3 people, but it’s a start…maybe it will catch on in other committee meetings, etc. 3. set up a blog to get as much public input as possible.
All very doable.
Sitting Aldermen would definitely be self-referential, even if not self-serving! There’s a Talmudic principle that a righteous or good person would apply to his or her behavioral choices. It is called “marat ayen”, which in Hebrew means “If it looks bad or wrong to the eyes, then it is bad or wrong!” So, sitting Aldermen who aspire to having high principles, would not serve on such a commission. Be there as a resource, yes. Sit, no!
Tom: I love your 3 suggestions!
I have not decided whether it would be good or bad for an elected official to also sit on the Charter Commission, but as I said, they tend to get elected in every community that does Charter reform because of their name recognition.
There really is not a conflict of interest here, and I am not aware of any case law or advisory opinion by the Ethics Commission to the contrary. As I understand it, the Charter Commission recommends changes which are put on the ballot, and then the voters decide, not the members of the Charter Commission. But if someone knows of a case or advisory opinion I have overlooked please let me know. I kind of doubt it, since elected officials have served on Charter Commissions in other communities.
Tom, the Division of Local Services webpage on Charter amendments that I linked to above specifically mentions Charter Review Committees to do periodic reviews, and a number of communities have them. For your convenience, I will reproduce the relevant excerpt here:
Thanks Ted.
Here’s a problem I have grappled with for awhile. Maybe you can help me. We have had Mayors who have ignored our city charter without any repercussions to them, what can be done to enforce the city charter?…..to make sure we abide by the charter?
Tom:
Step 1. Go to the polls on Election Day.
Step 2. Fill in the circle for the candidate of your choice.
I forgot one other suggestion. I’d like to see the commission have a website that contains the video tape of the meetings and the blog. I would also like to see all the research that the commission does from other cities/towns and any paperwork should be scanned into the web site. The paperwork will be mounds and mounds of paperwork and instead of making 9 copies of all the paperwork we can have it nicely scanned into the website and all 9 members of the commission will have access along with the general public.
Ted, so you’re saying the only repercussion is to vote him/her out of office? There has to be another way. Can’t we tie that to the charter commission we just talked about? there has to be another way.
(sorry for hogging the thread).
If we could contain the number of aldermen to one who can think outside the interests of his/her elected position, having such a person would be an asset to the Charter Commission. But the likelihood of that is slim.
Here’s a different point: Is the League actually going to get the signatures needed? According to a Facebook post from one of their members, on June 26, they still needed 400 signatures. Their fallout rate was very high because of a lot of duplicate signatures. So, they may have submitted 11,200 signatures, but do we know how many have been certified? I hope so! I believe they need somewhere around 8,350.
Gail,
Here’s the latest update from Rhanna Kidwell:
Just spoke with David Olson, and he has reviewed all 11,704 signatures that we’ve submitted so far. We need 141 more signatures to be finished. With our fallout rate right now at 36%, that means we need to collect at least 225 more signatures…that’s only 5 sheets!
Please let me know if you can commit to collecting this week! We need to get everything submitted this week–Monday is the deadline, and we can’t risk waiting to the weekend–if it were to rain, we’d be out of luck.
Thanks!
Rhanna
Tom,
Thanks and good luck!
Gail,
Thanks, but this has become all LWV for the past 4 years, I’m just on the update list. They’ve done an incredible job getting us this far.
Tom, the Charter is not self executing. Nor should it be. I was perhaps being glib, but there have been a number of lawsuits to enforce the Charter over the years (e.g., the board shall call an election “forthwith” to fill a vacancy). I am not sure which Charter violations you are talking about, but thanks to the Magna Carta, the US Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the right to petition your government and to commence a lawsuit to protect your rights is deeply ingrained in our government system.
If you haven’t signed the charter commission petition, signature collectors will be at the farmer’s market tomorrow at Cold Spring Park and the Fourth of July festivities at Albamarle Park. You may also run into people collecting signatures at the NF Library on Homer St. tomorrow morning.
If you signed the petition even years ago, your signature has been counted. The League of Women Voters is looking for people who have never signed the petition.
Hey, Tom, take some credit. You got the effort started.
A conflict of interest is of concern for an elected official who would be in the position to revise/rewrite the parameters and benefits of his/her position. In addition to a stipend, the aldermen receive health benefits from the city. If an Alderman were to serve on the commission, then that individual’s motivations for either him/herself, or for a colleague, would be called into question.
Perhaps a greater concern is the potential for a political conflict of interest. A number of our mayors and/or mayoral candidates have risen through the ranks of the BOA. For an alderman to serve on the charter commission that very well might outline the parameters of authority of the BOA and mayor in the coming years is a clear conflict of interest in a substantive (though legal) sense.
Finally, from what I gather, most of the present aldermen do not want to reduce the size of the BOA. We need people on this commission who do not enter the process with an end in mind.
Jane and Gail,
Thanks.
Well, Jane, what the hell would I know. I’m just a lawyer who graduated at the top of his class in law school.
You folks need to take a deep breath and use a little common sense when throwing around phrases like “conflict of interest .” There are of course very clear laws governing the conduct of both elected officials and government employees with regard to such things as bribes, nepotism, self-dealing, and so forth. I’m not even going to provide a link because you need to spend at least enough effort to find the applicable regulations for yourself. And we all know politicians the world over, even here in the Commonwealth, and perhaps our fair City of Newton, do not always meet the high standards we would all wish our government should follow. Legendary politicians such as Mayor Curley in Boston won election literally from a jail cell. Do you honestly believe that is what we have here in Newton? Really, just because someone is an elected official does not mean they lose all the rights of a citizen and should be barred from participating in something like a Charter Commission. Perhaps you are confusing Elected Official with Convicted Felon, but let me remind you, the way a person becomes an elected official is that a majority of voters voted for them in some election, rather than their having committed wire fraud or kidnapping. In fact, you yourself as a registered voter get to make those decisions every couple of years. So if there is a problem with who serves in elected office here in the Garden City, perhaps you ought to have a conversation with that person in the mirror.
OK, so Charter Commission. There is a document that lays out how it can happen, who can run, who can vote, and so forth. You may want to read up on that. Again, I’m not going to give you a link, go find it yourself if you really care. Should current elected officials be part of it? Again, how the hell do you think elected officials got to be elected officials? The Emperor or the Grand Poobah appointed them? Er, no, some folks called Citizens elected them, for whatever reason said Citizens thought were relevant.
Oops, just looked outside, and it is a full moon, so never mind, I have no further questions.
The problem with the idea of having “one or two” current elected officials sit on the charter commission to represent that point of view is…who will decide who the one or two are? If 5 run, 5 will likely get elected because each will attract a different 1/5 of voters, and then the commission will have a majority of already-elected officialss. We only get to elect 9 commissioners out of 85,000 citizens. Those who serve need to represent all and seek out all points of view, including but not overemphasizing the views of our 33 city-wide elected officials.
Many city charters forbid holding more than one elected office at once, for obvious reasons–conflict of interest, concentration of power. This is a change I would like to see in our charter. I can’t imagine how someone would have the time to serve in two elected offices at once…I would think voters would be concerned about how effective an Alderman/School Committee rep would be in their primary role while also putting in the significant time required to serve effectively on the charter commission.
Our current elected officials serve with honor and integrity, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for all the work they do on our behalf. But we need to look to other members of our community to lead this effort.
Yeah, y’know, HL Dewey hit the nail on the head. I am pretty sure voters get to decide who serves on the Charter Commission. And I am pretty sure the candidates will have to explain why they should serve.
Not for nothing, but current and former elected officials probably know more about the Charter, and what does or does not work, than most people in the city, except maybe members of the LWVN study committee. Wouldn’t you rather have someone knowledgeable serving on a Charter Commission than someone who does not even know what is in the Charter or why?
I think the potential conflicts here are more imagined than real (they are surely not violations of the ethics laws). What people really seem to be worried about is that an alderman might not vote to reduce the size of the board or that a school committee member might vote to eliminate term limits. But that would be true of every other member of the commission as well. And not letting certain citizens run just seems anti-democratic (small d) and un-American.
Give the electorate a little credit. If a a majority of voters do or do not want elected officials on the Charter Commission, that will determine who gets elected. Name recognition will help or hurt whichever candidates it helps or hurts.
Florence Rubin spoke to a group of members of the League several years ago. She reflected on her role with the Charter Commission. One piece of advice she left with us was the unintended consequences of those deliberations. Once the Charter is opened up to changes all the city rules of governance are subject to change. She believed this is a very risky situation. She actually was against going through the process again. For example the entire Charter could be wiped out and replaced by an entirely different set of rules.
Colleen, Voters have to approve any changes proposed by the commission, so it’s unlikely that any unreasonable changes would be adopted. This is a very well-tested process. According to the mass.gov website, 180 charter commissions have been elected in Massachusetts since the legislation was enacted in 1966, and 37 have been elected in the last 15 years.
(http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/dls-newsroom/ct/charting-a-route-for-charter-change.html)
It also worked extremely well for Newton 44 years ago. Before that time, we had a two-year term for mayor, no override of the mayor’s veto, and vacancies in the offices of Alderman and School Committe were filled by a vote of the BoA, not by special election. The last charter commission gave us a more stable executive branch, stronger checks and balances, and more power in the hands of voters.
I’m talking common sense, not legalities. The aldermen want the BOA to remain at its present size or at the very least, have strong opinions about how it should be configured. The size of the BOA will be one of the issues the commission will tackle. The people who serve on the commission should be open to solutions and not enter the process with the solution in mind. That’s common sense, HLD. I have great respect for the aldermen, their hard work, and their integrity, but the members of the commission should not have the perception or appearance of having a conflict of interest.
I’ve worked in the public sector for 43 years, so I know a little something about the very high standard that goes well beyond the legal definition of a conflict of interest. This very high standard is required in order to avoid even the perception of a conflict. I learned the hard way as a younger teacher how easily one’s behavior or spoken word, however innocent, may be misperceived when working in any capacity in the public arena. Now take that to a higher level, where the parameters of the BOA, mayor, and SC are being discussed and perhaps revised. It’s just common sense that the people on the commission should be able work independently of any specific sphere of influence.
There are many capable people in city who could serve on the commission, so it’s a bit curious why we wouldn’t welcome more civic engagement.
Yeah, Jane, I am still not buying it. About half of the aldermen want to reduce the size of the board (although we all probably want to be able to vote someone else off the island). The changes, if adopted by the voters, would not go into effect during the current term, so there is really no guarantee that any of the elected officials who might serve on the Charter Commission will be around in the future. And, as I said, the voters have a way of deciding for themselves who should be on a Charter Commission. Let’s trust them to do that, shall we?
One of the things about the “appearance” of a possible conflict is that it does not automatically disqualify someone from serving if s/he believes s/he can fairly and objectively decide the issue as to which a possible conflict appears (elected officials file these so-called 23(b)(3) statements to that effect all the time). But I am sure you know that from your vast experience with conflicts of interest.
One thing y’all should keep in mind is that once a Charter Commission starts reviewing the Charter, everything will be on the table. So, be careful what you wish for. Personally, I think the board should be reduced by about half, that we should have a city manager instead of a mayor, and a weak Mayor form of government where the Mayor is a member of the City Council elected by her colleagues (like Cambridge). Oh, and a chicken in every pot.
@Alderman Hess-Mahan: Just to be clear, when I asked if aldermen should be on the commission, I wasn’t proposing banning them (and unlike Tom, I actually consider you and your colleagues to be “citizens”), I was looking for a philosophical conversation, which we are having to degree here.
I also assume a Charter Commission is subject to the same open meeting laws as other bodies (as opposed to a secret cabal), so sitting electeds will be still able to share their expertise and wisdom, even if they’re not commissioners.
And yes it’s true that “current and former elected officials probably know more about the Charter, and what does or does not work, than most people in the city” that has pros and cons too. I offer zoning reform as Exhibit A, where it feels like a handful of your colleagues who have mastered the nuances of our zoning code are impeding reform more than helping.
Finally, a chicken in every pot would be lovely, but this is Newton, we expect vegetables to be provided as well.
Other than saying the aldermen can get elected because they have high name recognition, I see no rational reasons given here that indicate why an alderman should be on the commission.
The strong-Mayor form of governance, @THM, is an important reason why American cities have been more progressive and effectively governed than the states or Union over the past 15 years (see http://metrorevolution.org/ for a great analysis of this phenomenon).
I am in favor of a Charter Commission and I agree with several of THM’s points, but let’s not let your frustration with the administration undermine an important institutional feature of Newton’s governance.
The LWVN website has a transcript of John Stewart’s 2007 interview with Florence Rubin. She never says that the process was bad or risky or shouldn’t be repeated.
http://lwvnewton.org/2010/10/charter-study-florence-rubin-interview/
Jake,
You hire a progressive city manager you get a progressive city government.
My concern is that the process itself may favor the almost automatic inclusion of certain fundamental changes into whatever comes out of the Commission’s work and deliberations. That’s why I never signed onto the League’s earlier effort to get a charter commission off the ground. For example, the League was strongly in favor of reducing the size of the Board of Aldermen from 24 to 16 or even fewer members. And almost every comment I read from Charter proponents has placed reducing the size of the Board front and center. It always seems to be listed as the number one task they want to accomplish.
I think a very strong case can be made for leaving the Board at its current size. I won’t list these here, but will do in earnest if the Commission proposal goes forward. I don’t find the Board’s deliberations cumbersome or overbearing and I always enjoy hearing contrary viewpoints even when I don’t agree with their position on any given issue. The interesting thing here is that I may disagree with Alderman (City Councillor to be) X on one issue only to find I’m in agreement with that very same alderman on some subsequent issue.
Jake says:
I see what you did there. Actually, my support for a Weak Mayor/City Manager model of government goes way back to when some of my colleagues and I were meeting with the folks at the Division of Local Services to talk about Charter Reform almost ten years ago. We had tried several times to get the Board of Aldermen to reduce the size of the Board, and we consulted with DLS to learn about the process and different ways of achieving Charter Reform. A Charter Commission is just one way. DLS’s webpage on Charter Reform, which I linked to above, explains the different methods along with the pros and cons. So this is not my first rodeo on Charter Reform.
My experience both as a loca elected official and as an attorney dealing with various different municipalities in the work I do has given me some insight into how they work. For instance, I have been pushing for Newton to do performance management since I was first elected, based on what I learned from meeting with other elected and appointed municipal officials at the Rappaport Institute, at MMA conferences, and actually sitting in on the process in Somerville and elsewhere.
Cities like Cambridge, Worcester, and Saco, ME, where there are professional city managers who hire professional department heads and staff, do a very good job and are more insulated from political pressure and worries about re-election, which IMHO is a weakness in the Strong Mayor system. These cities run as well if not better than Newton in many ways. Of course, the quality of service will depend on the quality of the city manager, just like the quality of the Mayor. But, again, electoral politics cannot help but influence the actions of any elected official, Mayor, Alderman or School Committee member.
Greg, you are preaching to the converted on the glacial pace of zoning reform and how it can get/got derailed. The same could certainly happen to Charter reform too. But I still do not buy the whole conflict of interest argument. What others are all really talking about is whether they think an alderman could rise above his or her own political ambitions or interest and contribute in a positive way to the Charter Commission. I think they can. Others don’t. It’s fine with me if we disagree.
I believe that one member of the board could sit on commission. I wouldn’t want to see the commission stacked with BofA members.
I think a charter commission would be best served by people who go in with no agenda. For example, I’d vote for someone who is keeping an open mind over someone who is dead set for or against reducing the size of the board or imposing term limits or insert your favorite issue. The charter commission is going to have to research all these issues but if members go into it with preformed conclusions, what’s the point?
If the alderman don’t have a vested interest in the size and composition of the BOA, then why haven’t they taken action to address the issue in the 15 years since the nonbinding referendum that called for the downsizing of the Board passed 2-1?
If that vote hadn’t taken place or if the Board had addressed the issue in a serious way, then the situation might be different. As it now stands, having an alderman on the commission looks like one more action to defer addressing an issue that, at the very least, voters have said they would like to see dealt with.
I’ve been collecting signatures only during the very end of the process and I’ve found most people can’t tell you how many aldermen we have in the city and can name only a handful. I’ve also been asked several times why the Mayor doesn’t change the charter, which is an indication of something being wrong.
Squeaky clean is the way to go. It’s in the best interest of the city and, in fact, could be for individual aldermen as well. Most likely we have aldermen who want to run for mayor at some point. Why would any of them want to appear to influence the set up of the city government? I can imagine that being on the commission may seem to be a short term plus that ends up being long term major headache for a candidate. A candidate can say that s/he was able to “rise above” all s/he wants, but like it or not, perceptions and appearances influence voters.
Jane, non-binding referenda are just that–not binding. Besides, the referendum as I recall was not on the ballot in every precinct and asked only whether to reduce the size of the board, without direction as to how many ward or at-large. When several of us met with DLS staff, they recommended the Charter Commission route. The other possibilities include a home rule petition, but DLS and our legislators told us that in order to pass a home rule petition to reduce the size of the board, we would probably be required by the legislature to put the quesstion on the ballot as a binding referendum.
Our last effort at doing so, unfortunately, was not successful. We had only 10 firm votes and in order to get a majority, we would have had to reconcile different reductions (from 24 to 16, 13, or 12) and configurations (equal number of ward and at large, no ward, no at large, etc.). That is why a number of us, reluctantly or otherwise, decided it made more sense to go the Charter Commission route, in spite of the risk we might not get what we want.
I very much doubt anyone will get everything they want, unless they only want 1 or 2 things.
It’s interesting to see comments regarding the size of the Board of Alderman and that the consensus is always to reduce the size of the Board. Prior to joining the Board, I too shared that opinion, but in practice there would have to be many changes in the way the city does business to actually reduce the Board Members.
Members of the Board are involved in many committees and activities in this pseudo part time Board position. Part time is no less than 20 hours each week, but seldom that few. It appears to me that the city gets a lot of “bank for its bucks” when it comes to work hours performed and the cost of same.
In reducing the size of the Board the city would have to transfer duties and responsibilities to others, but to whom? The Mayor’s office is understaffed for its current workload so they could hardly assume more work, and volunteers, though many, cannot commit to the time needed.
Charter review is a great idea, but for much more than the size of the Board.
That’s “bang for the bucks.”
Amen, Gail! Certainly, anyone who would run will have certain biases, but to have a successful commission, we need to elect people who have an open mind, a spirit of collaboration, a willingness to listen, and an ability to keep the dialogue respectful.
@Rhanna or anyone else who would know this: I’m assuming (and hoping) that since the Commission has 9 members, members aren’t elected by ward but rather at-large regardless of ward. Which also means the top nine vote getters are elected, as opposed to the highest vote getter in Ward 1, Ward 2, etc.
Is that correct?
However, if not, I propose we elect one per ward and one to represent Village 14!
Greg,
That’s right, the commission is voted citywide. Every voter gets up to 9 votes to put their candidates on the commission.
Maybe the commission should redistrict our wards so that village 14 becomes the 9th ward.
(You never know……bwahahaha)
Everything Gail and Rhanna said so well.
I’m not a fan of non-binding referenda, but I do acknowledge that they can give insight into the sense of the electorate. If the outcome of a referendum is 2 to 1 in favor of the intent of an issue placed on the ballot, then that’s an indication that the city should at the very least address that issue thoughtfully and with a sense of purpose.
Sallee says:
I was thinking the exact same thing about members of the neighborhood area councils.
A point well taken, Ted. But if it’s the case for area councils, it’s all the more so for either SC members or aldermen.
@Ted: I agree. No person running for office in the City should run for the the Charter Commission. I’m sure former or retiring Alders, SC people, Area Councilors could serve with non-formerly elected citizens without having any self-serving biases!
Actually, Sallee, we don’t agree. I think it ought to be (and is) open to anyone who wants to run.
Reading the LWVN’s press release on the other thread about the Charter Commission, it is clearly apparent the League has quire an agenda itself. Should we prevent LWVN members from serving as well?*
*That was a rhetorical question. Of course we shouldn’t.
I’m sorry, but any elected official who decides to run proves the point that there are too many members of the BOC. Many of you, including councilor Hess-Mahan, over the years has complained about all the work that is involved in being a member of the Board of Councilors. While you are entitled to run, I think it speaks volumes as to you having too much work was well exaggerated.
Tom, I think what I have always maintained is that the Board of Aldermen does too much, and that zoning reform which would allow more by right construction and delegating special permit granting authority for some or all special permits would significantly lighten that load. While I chaired land use, I recall numerous occasions where we put homeowners through a prolonged special permit process to add as little as 20 square feet or less to their houses. We also spend an awful lot of time on various FAR and parking and use waivers that could just as easily and efficaciously be done administratively by professional staff in the planning and inspectional services department.
Indeed, I would say the above is all the more reason you need an alderman on the Charter Commission who understands what the board actually does, and what the possible and best solutions could be. I have not thrown my hat in the ring, but for the process to have credibility, in my opinion the Charter Commission needs to include elected officials–former and/or current–to participate. Because if the Charter Commission does not include members who are actually on the board and/or understand the “inside baseball,” it might very well reach some erroneous conclusions based on less than complete information.
Just my $0.02.
Ted, so you believe that anyone can run? Would it be appropriate for the Mayor to run? A Department head? The Chief of Police? Certainly anyone can choose to run (unless a Charter would forbid a certain class from running), but the real question would be: would it be wise?
Sallee says
The real answer is, that would be up to the voters.
@Ted: And, I trust the voters most of all!
BTW, the current Charter prohibits the Mayor from holding any other elected public office so that’s off the menu. That was inserted in the Charter because a former Mayor had simultaneously held office as a State Representative. But the rest could run, as long as they are Newton residents and registered voters.
Ted,
While I agree with most of what you say, elected officials are only a phone call away. If you can’t pick up the phone to call an elected official then you don’t deserve to be on the commission and if you are an elected official who refuses to take the call you don’t deserve to serve.
Ted, I’d have no problem with you on the committee, but there are other members of the BOC who I do have a problem. I’m just crossing my fingers.
No one is saying the aldermen and/or the school committee members shouldn’t be very involved in the CC process. I believe they should be closely involved and that the commission should and will actively seek their input. They have an invaluable role to play in communicating to the CC the various responsibilities that the aldermen presently assume. They just shouldn’t be in an official position to outline the scope of aldermanic or mayoral responsibilities, terms of office, authority, etc. if they are presently on the BOA or SC. The city charter clearly states that the mayor cannot assume another official role outside his/her responsibilities in the city.
It’s my personal opinion that being on the CC and running for office, especially mayor, could very well be the kiss of death for a candidate. During the fall of 2017, CC members will by definition have to defend the proposal for the new charter to the electorate. I don’t know how a candidate does that and at the same time outlines his/her vision for the city. Those two hats just don’t fit.
According to James Cote, the Alderman are so overloaded with work that they can’t be downsized from 8 to a committee to 6 or 5.
We’ll find out how many on a committee are doing productive work and how many are doing busy work when it’s time to run for the Charter Commission.
Terry, Good point.
Completely separate from any issues of potential conflicts of interest that have been raised so far, I would hope that a Charter Commission would not be dominated by elected officials (either by their number or by any strong personality among them), simply to ensure that the Charter Commission would bring a fresh look at everything and not be too tied to how we’ve always done things. By chance, just the other day a friend of mine sent me this apocryphal story, which is fun if not relevant.
@Bruce – geez, could you please not do that? I have a hard enough time trying to focus on exactly what the hell is the point of a given thread, much less the current post, and then to send me off into the 1001 Nights and some bloody fairy tale, which always ends with “and the monkey leaves the tale here, but we remain in the court of the Emperor awaiting the fate of the woodsman and his daughter.” Like, I know Ralph can mow one half of the lawn in an hour, and Fred can pull 20% of the weeds on Tuesday, but why is Phyllis stuck waiting for the 3 PM bus? Thanks, I needed that, but I’m not fooled, it is a full moon, damn you.
Jane, that is an odd–and uninformed–argument to make.
There are three ways that the size and composition of the Board of Aldermen can be reduced: Charter Commission; a Home Rule Petition adopted by the Board of Aldermen, signed by the Mayor, and passed by the Legislature; or the initiative procedures contained in the City Charter. A Home Rule Petition, by definition, involves the Board in determining its size and composition. Term limits, length of terms, and how vacancies are filled can be amended pretty much the same way. Indeed, the Board has and does amend the Charter from time to time through a Home Rule Petition (a/k/a Special Legislation) in ways that affect the balance of power between legislative and executive, e.g., the power to approve or reject the appointment of department heads by the Mayor. So to say aldermen should have no role in any of these is a specious contention–they already can and do.
As far as the scope of responsibilities of the Board, State law pretty much mandates that the Board (or city council) performs a legislative function and the Mayor (or Board of Selectmen) performs the executive function. State law similarly lays out various other functions of municipal government as well (lending irony to the so-called “Home Rule” amendments of the Massachusetts Constitution). There is not a whole lot the Charter Commission can (or should) do to change that. As far as how many committees, how many aldermen on each, what each committee does, etc., that is entirely up to the Board and is contained in its rules and not the City Charter.
Much of the rest of the responsibilities of the Board and Executive are set forth in the ordinances, which are adopted by the Board and signed by the Mayor. For instance, the Board of Aldermen is designated by the Zoning Ordinance as the Special Permit Granting Authority. This is probably one of the board’s most important functions and has a profound impact on land use and development in the city. The special permit granting authority, which is a creature of state law, is entirely within the Board’s jurisdiction, although the Board could delegate some of its authority to other public bodies, and the Mayor has absolutely no role in it. Again, that is not something the Charter Commission can really do anything about, since the Board of Aldermen must adopt amendments to the zoning ordinance by a 2/3 majority, which is a veto proof majority, so the Board pretty much has plenary control over that.
Tom, you are absolutely correct about one thing (actually more than one). There is a serious need to educate the public about the Charter Commission, what it can and cannot do, and why we need one. But, what do I know? I am just an alderman.
Ted,
is there a person in state government (or anywhere, or maybe an expert) on the charter commission and the extent of what they can do? Is there someone who can come into a meeting and explain the boundaries, etc.?
Absolutely, Tom. You could start by contacting the Division of Local Services. I met with DLS staff a number of years ago regarding the charter reform process, and they were able to explain the ins and outs, pros and cons of the process.
Thanks Ted
Terry and Tom: Ted does a great job explaining the process and activities of the Board and to respond to your comment that you can reduce a committee from 8 to 6, or 5; looks good in print. In operation though reducing members would require changing the committee structure, hence workload. The current set-up has an Alderman from each Ward sitting on each standing committee, hence 8 members. Reducing the size of the committee means that you will have to eliminate some committees, or not have Ward representation on each of the committee. Trust me there are big differences in concerns from Ward to Ward and representation is important to the process. These issues are clearly not insurmountable it just goes back to my comment that we will have to change the way we distribute duties/workload within City government.
I am aware of the branches of government and their respective responsibilities. However, at the present time, as Ald. Cote and many others have pointed out, the aldermen assume many responsibilities that are typically performed by a city staff. I haven’t heard of any aldermen who want to change this aspect of their current role. The question that a charter commission can and will address is what is the most effective and efficient way to to run our city government as we move forward.
James, I think you are concerned that if the charter commission decides to reduce the size of the board, that the number reduced would be a random number. It would be like me saying that we should go from 24 down to 15 without doing any homework. If that were the case, I share your concern, but given the right diligent CC that won’t happen. The commission should do research on everything the BOC does (including seeing constituents). If this is done right, I believe, the council should have less work. For instance, many cities don’t use elected officials to determine special permits. Now, I’m not saying that is whats best for Newton, I am saying that is one area where the commission can cutback on the Boards workload. In other cities the special permits are taken care of by a group of volunteers who meet once or twice per month and each has experience in permits. Some work can be given to the administration or clerks office. Hopefully, this won’t be random and I hope you stay on top of the commission to make sure it’s done to your liking and bring up any concerns. no one is trying to bury councilman with work. I hope this alleviates some of your concerns.