Newton City Clerk David Olson sent this to aldermen today…
As of 9:30 am this morning, we have certified 8,374 signatures for the League of Women Voters Charter Revision Petition. This is 21 signatures more than the required 8,353. I expect the League will submit additional signatures up until Monday’s docket deadline so the grand total may be higher. The petition will be docketed with the Board of Aldermen on the July docket and referred to the Programs & Services Committee. The Board must officially place the question of forming a Charter Commission on the November municipal ballot.
David
David A. Olson
Newton City Clerk
This was a Herculean effort by a group of Newton citizens. Congratulations and thanks for your efforts organizing this signature drive.
Awesome! Congratulations to the League and all of the volunteers who collected signatures.
Nice job!!
Thanks to all who collected signatures! Look for more info coming soon from LWVN about being on a charter commission…
Here’s a press release from the LVWN…
League of Women Voters of Newton Announces Charter Commission Petition Success
The League of Women Voters of Newton has been notified by David Olson, Newton’s City Clerk, that the charter reform petition has met the threshold of 15% of registered voters. 8,374 signatures from the petition have been certified as legitimate.
As a result, on Election Day, November 3rd, 2015, Newton residents will have the opportunity to vote on the question “Shall a commission be elected to revise the charter of Newton?” On the same ballot, voters will vote for up to nine candidates to serve on the commission. If the “yes” vote carries, the nine candidates with the most votes become the commission. The commission will have 18 months to review and propose changes to Newton’s charter. Before a revised charter can be adopted, it must be approved by Newton voters at the city-wide election in November of 2017.
A city’s charter functions like a constitution. It specifies a city’s form of government, including the size and composition of its city council and school committee, powers and duties of officials and certain city departments, term lengths, term limits, and checks and balances.
The charter commission is a well-tested process under Massachusetts state law that is designed to allow cities and towns to pursue charter reform without the involvement of the mayor or the city council. 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.
(mass.gov/dor/local-officials/dls-newsroom/ct/charting-a-route-for-charter-change.html )
The League of Women Voters of Newton launched its signature drive in November of 2012. Fifty volunteers have devoted roughly 500 hours to the effort. In addition, approximately 15% of the total certified signatures were collected by a group of citizens led by Tom Sheff, Alan Dechter, and Miles Fidelman.
Forty-four years have passed since Newton’s charter has been substantially revised. Newton’s last charter commission concluded in 1971, and it resulted in Newton’s present charter. Before 1971, Newton had a two-year term for mayor, there was no override of the mayor’s veto, and vacancies in the office of Alderman or School Committee were filled by a vote of the Board of Aldermen. The 1971 charter brought us a four-year term for mayor, an override of the mayor’s veto, and special elections to fill vacancies created in the first 15 months of a term. The 1969-71 charter commission also resulted from a League-led petition.
The League’s decision to pursue charter reform again after 44 years came after a comprehensive, year-long study of Newton’s charter that concluded in 2010. Thirty-four League members participated in the study, which compared Newton’s charter to the charters of 11 benchmark communities, as well as to the Model City Charter, published by the National Civic League. Study members interviewed officials from the benchmark towns, met with a charter expert employed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and researched charter commissions from ten Massachusetts towns dating back to 1999.
The study identified significant opportunity for improvement to Newton’s government. The League supports downsizing our 24-member Board of Aldermen/City Council—cities Newton’s size in Massachusetts have an average of 11 members on the city council. The League also supports shifting to four-year, staggered terms for City Councilors and School Committee members, to reduce the number of contests in each city-wide election—Newton voters presently have to elect 25 officials every two years.
The LWVN encourages interested Newton residents to consider running for charter commission. The League believes that successful charter reform is dependent on Newton electing commissioners who are open-minded to the reform possibilities offered by the charter commission process. Commissioners will need to engage with the public to gather input and feedback, and they will need to set the tone of constructive and respectful dialogue.
The League also encourages all Newton residents to participate in the charter reform process, by staying informed, attending meetings, and advocating for change.
The League is planning a public forum on the charter commission process in general. The forum will conclude with information on the responsibilities and commitment of serving on a charter for commission, for those who might have an interest in running.
The League of Women Voters, founded in 1920, is a non-partisan political organization that encourages the active and informed participation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.
For more information on Newton charter reform, see our website: lwvnewton.org/action/charter-commission-initiative.
So, this has to go to the Board of Aldermen for approval to place it on the ballot. What was all this nonsense I was reading about why aldermen should not sit on the Charter Commission? I guess the shoe is on the other foot now! 😉
Sincere congratulations to everyone who collected signatures.
I am really intrigued to see how this is going to unfold. I suspect a number of aldermen will run for Charter Commission precisely for the reasons Ted states, although I can’t imagine taking on that much additional work if I were an alderman. I have to imagine many members of the LWVN will also run, given all the time and energy they’ve put into this effort to date. Will there be so many candidates that people campaign? Will people run on slates? And will it have any impact on number of voters at a non-mayoral municipal election?
There’s now more to the election season than Ward 2!
What I am eager to see is if people vote against the charter reform, if those people will know they can still vote for people to be on the commission. I think thats a challenge, to educate people as to why we need it.
You gotta love Newton politics. I’m trying to think of another organization that would be non-partisan, non-location-or-ward-specific, non-denominational, gender-ok(although we do know they have been accused of Political Correctness Disease and Reverse Discrimination despite an explicit policy of allowing anyone to join – I remember joining and attending a very nice dinner meeting with excellent food 20 years ago, although I am not by so doing speciically indentifying my gender identity or political persuasion). So here is this long-established non-partisan civic organization, having devoted years and years of persistent thankless effort to making possible a very fundamental process for revising our basic governing legal document, in a completely open and (use the correct term of art) Transparent process, placing it upon the ballot in a general election, for an open and fully-disclosed vote by the qualified citizens who happen to be registered voters in the political jurisdiction under discussion, and someone is bitching about who can run for the Commission. OK, got it.
The League of Women Voters of Newton is not opposed to elected officials running for charter commission while also running for other office. The League never supports or opposes individual candidates, and opposing the candidacy of all elected officials would cross that line.
Any comments I have made on the subject are speaking for myself and not as a spokesperson for the League.
Rhanna,similarly, I don’t speak for the Board of Aldermen, only for myself. But as someone who was so intimately involved in the signature drive for the LWVN, I am a little dismayed by your previous comments. Like it or not, you are the face of the League, and should probably add your disclaimer whenever you speak on it, not after the fact.
HLD,
The signature drive is wonderful, but it’s 1/4th of the process. The signatures drive is the first step…..the second step is educating people as to why we need a charter commission (if the people vote against it, the process is over) the third step is getting the most qualified people on the commission (everyone’s definition of most qualified is different) if the commission makes bad recommendations then we need to work hard to get people to vote against the suggestions and the last step is educating people on the why we need the new changes that the commission recommends.
So, anyone talking about who/why someone should be on the commission is only looking forward to step 3.
Was in a local coffee shop this morning (Starbucks, Waban) and over heard a discussion at the next table about possible potential candidates. The names of Tom Sheff, Charlie Shapiro, Tom Concannon and David Mofenson were all discussed. Is anyone at the starting get yet?
Doug, you must have been at the past is the past table, lol. Was that a time warp table.
Doug, in all seriousness, I haven’t ruled anything out, yet. My problem is I am living in ward 8 and there’s an open seat in ward 8. One person has taken papers out and I spoke with him for hours. He’s a very nice guy. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen him campaigning at all. I hate giving people seats without competition. I told him if I don’t see him at Albermarle this weekend for the 4th and at the st mary’s parade on friday night campaigning and giving out literature I will run against him. win or lose he will have competition if he doesn’t go out and campaign. If anyone out here has met him campaigning, please respond to this thread. If he does campaign at both sites/dates, there’s a better than 50/50 that I will run for charter commission.
Thank you for asking. You deserved a serious answer.
Ted, I spoke in the first person and never mentioned the League in my comments (other than, in a comment unrelated to who should serve on the charter commission, to direct people to info on the LWVN website). I don’t see how anyone could infer that I was speaking for the League.
The LWVN always has one spokesperson, the president, and no one else ever publicly speaks on behalf of the League. This is an important point because, while the League is non-partisan and does not support or oppose individuals, many members are active in partisan politics, but the president is explicitly forbidden from partisan activities.
Concerning Doug’s conversation overheard at Starbucks:
We should start a draft movement now to convince David Mofenson to be a Charter candidate.
He was our State Representative, Chair of the Election Commission, a successful attorney and has immense common sense. To say nothing about the fact that he is a complete gentleman. I’m obviously a big fan!
How many signatures does someone have to collect to run for charter commission? Does anyone with a very good memory know how many people ran the last time?
Linda Wertheimer had a segment on NPR today that offered some insight into conflict of interest issues in the political arena. She interviewed political scientist Thomas Mann (UC Berkeley) about the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed non-partisan commissions to draw congressional district lines. Here is a short segment of the conversation:
WERTHEIMER: The thing that the people of Arizona and the people of California and other states were trying to do is take the decision about what a political district will look like out of the hands of the politicians, who have, over the years, tended to draw districts that are friendly to incumbents.
MANN: Well, there’s an obvious conflict of interest when the body redrawing the lines is made up of people who will run for re-election under the new lines.
Just wanted to point out that it’s common knowledge that elected officials (as well as other people who work in the public sector) are held to a very high standard when it comes to conflict of interest issues.
Julia,
It takes 100 certified signatures to run for CC.
I would love to see many Newtonians under 40 run for Charter Commission. As well, I hope to see elected to the commission many native Newtonians (people born and raised here and still chose to live here). Less Newton political hacks (retired and current Aldermen, retirees from State and local office, former candidates for public office, etc) and more people with basic common sense!
Janet, I am well over 40 but plan to run for the Charter Commission.
It is interesting that some of the people commenting here who collected signatures for a Charter Commission to make our government more responsive and transparent are so interested in limiting democracy and the choices voters have, presumably so they can get a certain result to their liking. Seriously? Assuming any of them run, they will not get my vote.
Jane, your logic is fatally flawed. There is a big difference between giving the legislature sole authority to decide on redistricting its own districts to protect their jobs (e.g., U.S. v. Thomas Finneran, Defendant) and a popularly elected commission that is open to all to run for which will recommend changes to the Charter that all voters, in turn, will vote on. Indeed, the SCOTUS case upheld the constitutionality of an independent redistricting commission in Arizona. But, please note, the commission has five members: two appointed by Republican lawmakers, two appointed by Democratic lawmakers, and the fifth member is chosen by the other four.
And, yes, the BOA does vote on redistricting/new precincts every ten years. The only time I think a true conflict of interest ever came up in connection with redistricting was when an alderman who moved to a house in a different ward was allowed to vote on redrawing the line to keep the same ward. That predated my tenure on the board, but I think that the alderman should have been recused from voting because of a clear conflict of interest.
Howard Haywood has my vote! And it isn’t just because I am over 40.
Good luck, Howard!
Ok, so some city charters allow citizens to hold only one elected position at a time – I’d imagine the reasons are to avoid a concentration of power and conflicts of interest (in the common sense, not legal sense.) Are they wrong? Seems reasonable to me.
How many people will be on the commission, and what is the process to be considered?
Well, the current City Charter says the Mayor “shall devote full time to the office and shall not hold any other elective public office, nor actively engage in any other business, occupation, or profession during his term as Mayor.” I think the main emphasis was on devoting “full time to the office” and not so much on concentration of power. Otherwise, why forbid any other compensated employment? Which, by the way, is one reason it is so important to make sure that the Mayor is well compensated. As it is, a salary of $125,000 a year is not enough to afford even a median priced home in this City. That can have ramifications as well, in terms of who may be well off enough to run for Mayor. The aldermen and school committee are not so limited to holding a single public office or other job, which, given what they are paid ($9750 and $875, respectively), is eminently sensible.
*$4875* not $875
NN- The process is simple
The LWV got the necessary certified signatures to go on the ballot
This means 2 things will occur on November’s ballot:
1. A question (drafted by the state) will occur on the ballot to ask the voters whether they want a charter commission
AND
2. An election for the charter commission.
IF
the people want a charter commission and vote yes on the ballot, the top 9 vote getters on the ballot will be the charter commission.
If the people decide not to have a charter commission, then the election for charter commission is null and void.
IF
the charter commission gets past the voters and the top 9 votegetters are on the commission the CC will meet with other cities/towns and the general public and gather research and decide what/if any changes should be made to the current charter. They have 18 months. (18 months is the length of time to get their act together and put their recommended changes for the next local election. This process doesn’t cost the city any money, it’s all taken care of during local elections, so there’s no special elections involved).
Once the changes are submitted after 18 months, there will be an election as to whether people want the changes made to the old charter.
Everything is done without spending money (unless you argue time is money) and everything is done democratically.
How would someone get on the ballot?
The essential point is that elected officials should not be in a position to influence the outcome of a process that will determine a how their role will be revamped. The history of this very process is a case in point. Elected officials served as a majority of the previous charter commission and retained their positions on the BOA.
It’s actually very simple and straight forward, and we have two examples of the potential for conflict of interest issues within the city’s recent history that illustrate that.
NN-
Go to elections office, get signature sheets and gather 100 certified signatures
Thank you, Tom.
Jane, again, the fallacy of your argument is that the facts are against you. There was a school committee member, an alderman, and two state representatives on the previous 9 member charter commission. And the Charter Commission approved some fundamental changes to the way that aldermanic vacancies were filled, and imposed term limits on school committee members.
.In the “bad” old days, when an aldermen resigned or died before the end of his/her term, a majority of the board approved the successor. This was a situation that was ripe for malfeasance, as incumbents who secretly planned to retire could pretty much hand pick their successors by running for office, and then resigning shortly after being elected and nominating their chosen successor, who was almost assured of receiving approval. In this way, would be challengers were discouraged from competing against a longtime incumbent where they might very well have been elected in a fair and honest election against other newbies.
If you read the interview with Flo Rubin (I spent hours talking to her about this stuff), she made clear that the Charter Commission recommended term limits for school committee based on the feedback from the public expressing frustration with how difficult it was to displace long serving members who were no longer responsive to the voters and to changing attitudes and policies concerning public education, something I assume is near and dear to your heart. There was a coup in the 1970s that replaced many old time school committee members, and then those new members were voted out a few years later, but the process worked more or less as intended.
So spare me this nonsense about how having elected public officials on the Charter Commission will negatively influence the process and results obtained from a group of people who take their job seriously, regardless what their backgrounds or experiences are. In the end, the voters still get to decide. So, to coin a phrase, you argument is just plain “applesauce.”
@Ted – I wasn’t referencing the Newton charter. Other localities expressley prohibit holding 2 elected offices at the same time. Others prohibit holding 2 incompatible offices at the same time, with incompatibility including one position voting on something that would impact the other position financially (either positively or negatively.) My question is, are other municipalities wrong in worrying about this?
Tricia, I think there is room for reasonable people to disagree. My perspective is that the more freedom and choice we have in electoral politics the better. I firmly believe voters can make informed decisions about who the best person for any particular job might be, and take all that into consideration, without a rule saying “thou shalt not run for more than one elected public office” without a good reason. I think having a full time Mayor is a good reason. I do not think limiting a Charter Commission to people who do not hold, and in some cases never have held public office because they might advcersely influence charter reform is a good reason. But Newton’s past experience, I think, proves that even elected public officials can participate in Charter Reform that could have a direct impact on their political future, particularly in the case of term limits on school committee members.
Listen, I support downsizing the board. Always have. I would love to see a City Council more like Cambridge, that has far fewer, better paid councilors who can devote more of their time to public service. But I wouldn’t want them to not be able to have a second job, just as I would not want my State Rep or Senator denied employment opportunities to supplement their meager income from public service. Because then we would end up only with people wealthy enough not to have to worry about money. IMHO, that would exclude an important segment of citizens who are middle or working class, and actually have to worry about paying rents or mortgages and putting food on the table. Those are the people I want to represent me.
The same with the Charter Commission. I want a mix of people inside and outside local government who can view things from varying perspectives, and provide some balance. If everyone is on the same side, you might well get a charter that is too radical to win the popular vote. And that would be a real shame, because Charter review is a good and a necessary thing. But if the only people who participate are the ones who want to blow it up, that is no better than no change at all.
Change is not “blowing it all up” and I would never vote for someone who wanted to “blow it all up”. That line of thinking is hyperbolic at best.I want people on the commission who enter the process with an open mind, ready to look at a range of options that will make city structures more efficient and effective, who listen well, and are not entering the process with a conclusion in mind.
In fact, most city charters prohibit elected officials from being on a charter review, with good reason. Five of the nine members of the 1971 charter commission were elected officials and according to Chair Florence Rubin, “…whatever office they held and whether they held one was a significant factor in the decisions they made in the Charter Commission.” She also commented that “I will tell you whatever office they held and whether they held one was a significant factor in the decisions they made in the Charter Commission. I know I spoke to each of them if I was trying to see what kind of a chance we had for a particular issue. Time and again they’d say to me I’d like to vote for that but I can’t afford to take a chance and the aldermen will sink my re-election, or the aldermen will see that I don’t get elected to the legislature.” So even the person with the most access to the thinking of individual charter members was convinced that elected officials felt outside pressure from other concurrently elected officials when making decisions that would affect the structure of the city’s government for decades to come.
Wise words Jane.
I hope the Charter Commission gives normal citizens the opportunity to make Newton better. Perpetual office holders already had their chance and will continue to have chances in the future. Isn’t it obvious that City Councilors have a conflict of interest in considering a proposal to reduce the number of Councilors?
Actually, it was Florence Rubin who many years after the fact spoke about her experience on the Charter Commission. I just happened to read her 2007 interivew with John Stewart.
One would think it was obvious.
Y’know, in twelve years of service, I have never once worried about re-election. I spent a number of hours talking to Flo Rubin about charter review, and I do not ever remember her saying that elected officials should not be part of the Charter Commission. In fact, she served with four of them. So I am going to call bullsh*t on the idea that elected officials should not serve on the Charter Commission.
Game on.
Read the interview. Ms. Rubin spoke clearly and honestly about her experience serving with four elected officials on the Charter Commission.
The quotes from that interview:
“…whatever office they held and whether they held one was a significant factor in the decisions they made in the Charter Commission.”
“I will tell you whatever office they held and whether they held one was a significant factor in the decisions they made in the Charter Commission. I know I spoke to each of them if I was trying to see what kind of a chance we had for a particular issue. Time and again they’d say to me I’d like to vote for that but I can’t afford to take a chance and the aldermen will sink my re-election, or the aldermen will see that I don’t get elected to the legislature.”
-Florence Rubin, in an interview with John Stewart, 2007