The still mysterious Newton Villages Alliance has just issued an alert to its email subscribers calling for aldermen to “vote NO, and against putting the questions of establishment of a charter commission and candidates for such a commission on the November 2015 ballot.”
Here’s a copy of the letter they’re asking their supporters to send to the board:
RE: Docket #171-15 Charter Commission
Dear Members of the Board of Aldermen,
I am writing to ask you to vote NO, and against putting the questions of establishment of a charter commission and candidates for such a commission on the November 2015 ballot. The charter is a very serious document, and establishment of a commission to revise it and those who would serve on such a commission are matters that must be taken just as seriously. It is not appropriate for commission candidates to be expected to prepare themselves to, or for voters to be asked to choose the people who will, reshape the document under which we will be governed for decades to come – on short notice. Such unseemly haste does not serve democracy at all.
If you decide you want to see these questions come before the voters, I ask that you instead pursue a Home Rule petition to obtain permission from the Commonwealth to put the question of establishing a charter commission on the November 3 ballot but the candidates on the 2016 ballot, OR to place both these questions on the November 2016 ballot. Either scheduling modification would allow sufficient time for voters to study the issues at stake, and the candidates’ positions on those issues, before any vote on establishment of a proposed charter commission and those who would serve on it. Thank you for considering my views.
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that NVA stands for “No Variation of Anything.” Is there any change this group has ever been favor of?
Seriously. Is there?
Who signed the letter?
At least we’ll know who they are.
I would ignore them completely!
All I saw in the letter is “I” and “my” it might be run by one person.
I would expect a letter sent from the group would be “we”. Just saying.
To clarify, if you read Greg’s Post:
“Here’s a copy of the letter they’re asking their supporters to send to the board”
No clue as to the members but looks like this is being sent to folks who signed up on the NVA website to sign and sent members of the BOA.
Yes Groot is right. This was an email sent via Mail Chimp and lists only a Newton Highlands P.O. Box.
The NVA continues to be an anonymous group that requires your personal information to get on their list but refuses to say who they are.
Perhaps it stands for “Not Verified Antagonizers “
Whoever they are, NVA could certainly use an editor. If I’ve got this right, the letter questions the seriousness of the democratic process and then asks for a petition for a referendum on a ballot question? Talk about obstructionism.
Surely our BOA just ignores these bulk emails. I like to see their positions here though so we can know what they’re up to even if we don’t know who they are, other than the few who have owned up to it. Of course some are on their email list just for that purpose.
I really can’t stand calls for sending bulk emails. I hear they have them going out about going to court over the 1.5% safe harbor and, of course Austin Street. How can our officials handle their responsibilities while being bombarded with pre written emails? It’s good I’m not an elected official, because I would be tempted to vote the opposite to the way these emails wanted.
They did put their names on their Tab op-ed:
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20140523/News/140527895
Also, another member identifies herself here:
http://village14.com/newton-ma/2014/05/newton-villages-alliance-makes-its-debut/#comment-47153
@Devanshu: Yes Koot and Albeck identified themselves on an oped. And Julia Malakie has done so. But they certainly purport to be larger than that. And the question remains, why not list your steering committee and titles on your website? Why not attach your names to your emails? Why refuse to be interviewed by the TAB?
Maybe NVA stands for “Not Very Apparent”
So did Koot and Albeck send the email? If so, why not just sign their names?
What is more democratic than standing in from t of grocery stores and the library for hours collecting signatures for a cause you believe in?
The petition to change the charter is a serious matter. In fact, in this very blog (http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/07/are-you-running-for-charter-commission/#axzz3ft1QK5K4) there were many concerned about who would/should/could be on the commission and what that will mean for the shaping of a new charter. Whatever one’s leanings, who will control the process and how objective or balanced that process will be should incur deserved gravitas.
We’re all in agreement about that. Of course it should and will be taken seriously.
So, Lynne, did you send out the NVA alert for bulk emails and are you a member of NVA? I’d really like to know before Election Day.
The letter also seems rather ill informed.
1) The BOA can not “veto” something that has been submitted by collecting 8400+ signatures of verified voters. They can only go on the record as being in support or against it.
2) The Charter Commission and candidates must be elected with the local elections, per the State rules that allow a Charter Commission to be formed. So it can NOT be on the 2016 ballot, it has to be on the 2015 ballot.
Here is a good link to learn more about Charter Change.
Basically, we’ve patched our Charter with piece meal Home Rule petitions over the past 40 years and it is simply time to review the whole Charter again through a full Charter with an elected Commission with public hearings and the works.
Re “an anonymous group that requires your personal information,” anonymous they may be, but I hear from them all the time, and I don’t remember divulging anything more personal than my junk e-mail address. I’m sure the aldermen (are we still calling them that?) cheerfully ignore anonymous requests that come their way, but if personal experience is any guide, they also cheerfully ignore requests that come with names attached if they’re not that way inclined.
No Marti, I am not a member of the Newton Villages Alliance.
Allthough not a member of the Newton Villages Alliance Ms. LeBlanc does appear to share their views on development in Newton.
@Sam
And the silent majority do not?
We’ve been hearing alot about silent majorities lately from Donald Trump. Perhaps both you and he should be mindfull of an earlier notable user of that turn of phrase. It was after all Richard Nixon who used it to describe those who supposedly supported the Vietnam war.
As a friend points out, there’s a hidden agenda here to go with this group’s hidden identity.
And it has nothing to do with wanting to give voters more time to vet commissioners.
The NVA is terrified that Land Use could be taken out of the hands of some NIMBY city councilors and given to a strong Planning Board. So rather than let our community have an open discussion about that idea and/or other reforms, they want to kick the can down the road for another decade.
And then, hopefully, kick it down a few more decades after that.
Marti et al,
Re NVA,.. What difference does it make?
Do you agree with positions or opinions she has taken or not ?
@Greg,
Have you not noticed that all 3 of the new ward 2 contenders have taken a hard stance on development? In my opinion that is because they have been knocking on doors and listening to peoples concerns.
Nice to see what you think about some of our Aldermen too!
@Simon: I’m trying to avoid taking this thread off topic but of course we have some NIMBY aldermen. That’s debatable?
I do think it might be debatable to say that Jake Auchincloss (who poses with a bus on this home page) has taken a hard stance on development, although he has taken a hard stance on Austin Street.
But as I said to Charlie, this isn’t about being pro or anti anything, it’s about respecting the people who signed that petition and the NVA is asking our aldermen not to respect them.
Simon makes a very good point.
I can’t help wondering why so many anti-open space preservation, pro-development, pro-greater density and pro-current Austin St plan feel like its just simply impossible their opinion might be in the minority.
I bet if truly objective research was done, the majority would be in favor of maintaining or increasing the current amount of open space and trees, and not going out of our way to increase the population and density of the city, while still ensuring equal opportunity at existing housing.
NIMBY is sounding more and more like a compliment than an insult these days.
perhaps it should be NIMBYBILNAI.
“Not in my backyard because I love Newton as is”.
Pronounced “nim-bee-bill-nay”.
and yes, it’s been a long day. 🙂
@Charlie: You’re talking about respecting the will of the public and so am I.
The public signed a petition asking for a vote on creating a charter commission. This NVA is seeking to delay the will of the public to further it’s own agenda.
I say, allow those concerns to be openly and honestly debated in public. And don’t use your anonymous group to hide behind some phoney-baloney excuse about how voters need more time.
Respect the members of the public who signed the petition and hold the vote in accordance with state law.
Anything else is unacceptable.
@Greg-
My comment was not related to NVA in any way. It was a general statement which followed Simon’s post.
I absolutely agree that the Charter Commission vote(s) should move forward and be on this upcoming ballot. The signatures were gathered. Lobby however anyone wants to, but the process and the effort must be respected.
thanks for clarifying Charlie.
@Charlie Shapiro –
Are you sure that’s not Pig Latin?
So – would this Charter Commission be a good opportunity to create the ¨Empress of Newton¨ position I have so longed desired?
On a more serious note, I count 6 letters sent to the BOA – maybe 2 from NVA members but the rest from people who do not want the question on the November 2016 ballot or have suggested we go the Home Rule petition route.
Correction to my last post – I count 6 letter sent to the BOA – maybe 2 from NVA members but the rest from people who do not want the question on this November’s ballot but want the question and the election of the Commissioners on the November 2016 ballot.
This is what happens when I try to make dinner and blog……
@Empress Sangiolo
What would your first wish be??
@Simon: World peace?
Thanks Lynne. Good to know.
Lynn-Do you oppose putting the charter commission on the ballot in November?
@ Greg R
“The Public Signed the petition “,
Which “public ” ? I never saw a petition to sign?
Political Insiders Groups could collect any number of signatures over a number of years to gin up anything , no problem.
The NVA ,over a few years, could gather signatures to gild city hall if they set their sights on doing so.
Rush , Hurry Up , Quick,.. before anyone can react in July and August and slide this thru. Everyone’s on vacation !
Maybe V 14 should petition for a commission seat as well. Let’s see now,..
@Blueprintbill – I’d guess I encountered people collecting signatures for this initiative at half a dozen different public events over the last year or two, or however long they’ve been collecting.
What’s point are you making? Do you not like the fact that the law allows for a citizen initiative based on collecting certified signatures? Do you think the threshold of 15% of the registered voters is too low?
As Greer Tan Swiston pointed out above, the timing of the election is not up for grabs, it’s dictated by the law. So who are the conspirators that are “sliding this thru while everyone’s on vacation”.
As for gilding City Hall, sure come on by and I’ll sign that too 😉
Sorry for not jumping in sooner, but I’ve been at work since 3 and can only type so much on a phone.
Let’s rewind the tape to understand why everyone is so confused. There’s been a lot of misinformation along the way that seems to have gotten baked into people’s assumptions.
In an October 27, 2012 post on V14: http://village14.com/newton-ma/2012/10/fellow-newton-wonks-lets-talk-city-charter-review/#axzz3fvHH4Zc2 Gail posted a link to a Borg/Flicop column about the signature drive and asked:
And Rhanna Kidwell responded in a comment:
As we now know, that March override vote was not actually an option, because it wasn’t a regular city election.
Now fast forward to the Tab’s June 29, 2015 article by Jim Morrison (he’s gone now, right?), http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20150629/NEWS/150626629 which said:
Note the “whether or not” and “if approved by the board.” Sure sounds like getting it on the ballot depends on the Board vote, and that the Board has a choice. And this same quote was used by Greg in his post later that day: http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/06/should-aldermen-sit-on-a-newton-charter-commission/#axzz3fvHH4Zc2
Then on July 1, Greg posted that the docket deadline had been met, http://village14.com/newton-ma/2015/07/charter-commission-drive-meets-its-deadline-will-appear-on-november-ballot/#axzz3fvHH4Zc2
quoting David Olson’s notice to the aldermen:
Greg’s headline, and the LWV press release Greg added later, suggest, correctly it turns out (I think!) that the signatures meant the question would be on the November ballot. Although David Olson’s statement that the Board must officially place it on the ballot, and Ted Hess-Mahan’s comment:
implied there was a choice.
Now let’s look at the actual language in Chapter 43B, https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter43B/Section4
I’m sending Greg my attempt to graphically interpret this language, but what it boils down to, is that it seems to be irrelevant whether or not the Board votes to put the Charter Commission question on the ballot. If they don’t vote at all, it goes on the first regular election ballot that’s at least 90 days after July 1 (the day the Board was notified of the signatures certification). And it looks like the Board is supposed to vote within 30 days of July 1, or it goes on the November ballot anyway. But the next scheduled full Board meeting isn’t until August 10. (Will there be a special meeting? But why bother, if it doesn’t matter?)
So my new question is why was there all the talk about docket deadlines and the Board needing to vote, from people who should know better? I still have my earlier question about the rush to get the signatures submitted late in this election cycle, rather than early for 2017.
@Julia: Thanks for explaining why there may have been confusion as to whether or not the board has the authority to postpone this or not.
But I’m more interested in understanding why anyone — and in particular Newton Villages Alliance — believes we should?
In particular:
1. Why should we be delaying the will of 15 percent of Newton’s electorate by postponing the question of opening the charter?
2. How is four months of debate not enough time for the public to decide if it wants to open the charter or for potential commissioners to explain why they should be elected if indeed voters approve opening the charter? Does anyone think the public would be better suited to making either decision with, say, 18 months of deliberation?
Absent persuasive answers to those two questions, I can only fall back to my earlier theory which is that NVA opposes charter reform and is simply using the “we need more time” argument to kick the can down the road.
A much more transparent approach for NVA (and I know I’m asking a lot when asking NVA to be transparent) would be for NVA to campaign against opening the charter when the question goes before voters in November.
And if Blueprint Bill, Simon, Charlie and others are correct and there really is a silent majority in Newton who want to Newton to remain exactly how it is now, think of the celebration at NVA World Headquarters this fall when you successfully (1) unseat two “evil” pro-development incumbents in Ward 2, (2) stop charter reform and (3) use that momentum to keep Austin Street as a broken down parking lot! (yes insert sarcasm font here.)
I don’t think “everyone” is so confused. Indeed, based on the aldermanic email traffic, maybe 6 people were either confused or completely missed the Charter Commission signature drive that has been going on since 2008.
I’ve done a nonscientific study, and it comes down to this: if you bought food somewhere in the last 7 years, you have at least seen someone with a clipboard collecting signatures for the Charter Commission. The League and others have been at every Shaw’s, Stop & Shop, Star Market, and Whole Foods in the City, and have had booths set up at the Farmers Markets at Cold Spring Park and Elm Street in West Newton. Not to mention every polling place, every Democratic City Committee meeting, and every other political event over the past 7 years. So, only those who have been in hibernation and have not eaten anything for the past 7 years, or just don’t get out of the house that much would have had no way of knowing about it. I think that excludes almost everyone but the locusts.
BTW, I was being a wiseacre about the proponents having to come to the board. I should have thought that was obvious to intelligent, insightful people. Curse Village 14 for not having a sarcasm font. NB, the subject of elected officials running for Charter Commission may still come up tonight.
Thanks for the clarification, Greg. As anyone with whom I’ve spoken can attest, I am in favor of thoughtful up-zoning of the village centers to increase walkability and diversify our housing stock, including rental units. Moreover, public transit in the Commonwealth is too rare and too expensive to not have more folks within walking distance of it.
I am also in favor of a Charter Commission and was happy to sign the petition. I may even put my name forward. It will be a once-in-a-generation privilege to help shape the city’s basic law, and I think it’s important that my generation has a voice in the process.
@Ted, the confusion I’m referring to is the confusion over the necessity of going to the Board to get this on the ballot, as will be clear to anyone who managed to read my whole last comment.
And for you, maybe we need a “I’m not being sarcastic” font. 😉
This sure has been a long process, and we’re only at the beginning! Those in favor of a charter commission collected about 12,000 signatures over many years, which means we’ve spoken to some people more than once, to some who no longer live in Newton and to some who have since passed. We’ve collected signatures at supermarkets, city events, farmer’s markets, polling locations, the Newton Free Library, village days, etc. The League created red LWVN t-shirts so we would be more visible, and dedicated a section of our website to the charter commission. We’ve written numerous times on blogs and in the TAB about charter commissions. In the end, we had enough signatures that could be certified in time for this election.
The League’s original hopes were that we could do this in time for the 2013 election, but signature collectors found that it took more time to explain to each registered voter what the charter is and what a charter commission would do. It was different from asking for signatures to be a candidate–most people understand that. But getting this question on the ballot required more discussion and interaction, and so we made it in time for the 2015 election.
The process is completely spelled out by the state. As we’ve come closer to certification, we’ve consulted with City and State staff to complete our understanding of each step of the process. And it seems clear that the question of a charter commission will be on the ballot, along with the commission candidates, regardless of whether the Aldermen approve the request from the Election Commission.
I want to remind everyone that we, as Newton voters, don’t automatically accept the recommendations of the charter commission. We get to vote on them in the 2017 election–an up or down, all-or-nothing vote, not like a menu. This will certainly enter into the discussions by a commission–they would want to present a package that is appealing to the voters. On average for those communities that have had charter commissions, about 50% of the commissions are successful in getting their recommendations approved.
The League wants to encourage people to run. This is a temporary commission, though we expect those 18 months to be intense. We hope to have commission members who are open-minded and accessible to the public, who will meet with groups around the city as well as individuals, and who will communicate effectively, efficiently and thoroughly. LWVN will not endorse candidates or slates, but does expect to have at least one candidates’ forum for the charter commission.
We are still working on an info session about running for charter commission…stay tuned for more details!
Julia, fair enough!
Inevitably, there will always be those who, when they don’t like the result, will attack the process. There were no Star Chambers, smoke filled rooms or backroom deals to get this on the ballot. The laws and regulations concerning Charter Commissions are all public information. The proponents of the Charter Commission collected the requisite number of signatures, complied with all the rules, and met the deadlines to get the question and candidates on the ballot for the next regular municipal election this November. Now it will be up to the voters.*
*Disclaimer: I’m not being sarcastic.
Julia, Re: the “rush” to get this on the 2015 ballot…when collecting signatures, the longer you spend collecting them, the more you must collect. That is because the “fallout rate” of signatures that are thrown out because they are duplicates or because signers have moved or passed away increases with time. The fallout rate on the signatures most recently collected by the LWVN skyrocketed, so prolonging the collection period would have created considerably more work.
I think it is hard to make a case that this has been a rush, or that Newton voters have are surprised by this. In addition to being thoroughly discussed on V14, it has been covered repeatedly in the Tab.
This July 2013 piece from the Tab notes that the LWVN aimed for the 2015 election:
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2013/07/16/league-eyes-2015-for-newton-charter-commission/#axzz3fvakDLTl
Here are a couple of other things that ran in the Tab, in December of 2012 and December of 2014:
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20141212/Opinion/141218702
http://www.wickedlocal.com/x1781247976/Anne-Borg-and-Sue-Flicop-Charter-Commission-is-a-proven-process?zc_p=0#axzz2KWYZJ1wZ
Great explanations from Rhanna and Sue, as well as point well taken by Ted about the significant presence of signature collectors in high visibility places throughout the city over a number of years.
It’s evident the NVA did not know about the process and sent out an email request that served no purpose and either has few members or few members who sent emails. Sounds like good news as to the existence of a silent majority of residents who aren’t against change.
@ Alderman Amy
Unless you get elected Mayor, wouldn’t you only entitled to the title of Archduchess of Auburndale!
Except for the issue of the number of alder”people” or whatever they are now called, what is the reason that LWV is so focused on this? What is wrong with Newton’s government that they think needs to be fixed? What changes might we expect?
Personally, I don’t have a problem with 24 of whatever they are called in a city of over 80,000 people.
@Barry, the LWV outlined a number of changes that they support (http://lwvnewton.org/2010/10/2009-2010-lwvn-charter-study/). One that is close to me is the elimination of Neighborhood Area Councils. I was recently told that they are nolonger advocating for the removal of the Area Council provision but saw from their site that this was still a position from their 2014 annual meeting. I hope the person in the red t-shirt collecting signatures was truthful that this position has been reversed.
Groot, The League formally rescinded its position on the NACs at the 2015 Annual Meeting in May. So, the League does not have a position that supports removal of NACs from the city charter.
Just for the record, the League was never opposed to the existence of NACs. The position was based on the idea that, while the Newton Highlands NAC (the only one in existence at the time) was a big asset to the Highlands, it did not need to be governed by the charter. At the time, the city did not staff the NAC elections (that were required by the charter) , and called upon LWVN volunteers to do so. Much has changed in the city since that time, including the formation of 3 more NACs and the city now supporting the NAC elections, so the position seems no longer relevant.
@Janet: But I am an at-large representative! I want to be Empress of all of Newton!! : )
Groot,
Where do I look to understand the current ideas about what would be accomplished?
@Rhanna, thank you for the background information and confirmation on the current position (or none-position) regarding NAC.
@Barry, I believe that you need to both look at what is posted on the LWV site for an understanding of the process, that of potentially presenting a completely new charter to the voters or more likely some tweaks to what we have now after the charter commission does their 18 months of work, and your imagination of what you think may be a better way to structure the governing document of the City of Newton. The LWV have made some general suggestions in the posted information but I would think, if the formation of the commission is passed by the voters, the individual commision members would be looking at many sources of input to see what the whole community would like to see changed and improved. I was not trying to avoid your question if you think I didn’t provide an answer 🙂
I just want to reiterate what Groot said. The LWVN has official positions on things the League would like to see changed in the city charter.
But, the 9 elected commissioners, through a process of listening to voters via public forums and other informal means, along with examining possibilities in other charters, will ultimately propose the changes they think make the most sense. The League will certainly advocate for what it wants during this process, and hopefully lots of other citizens will engage and advocate for what they want.
AND…voters will have the final say, as they must approve the proposed new charter in an up or down vote in November of 2017.
Then, I ask again, what is the motivation for doing this? Not, how is it done? As they say, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. What is broken? Why not stay with things as they are, and save the hassle of a vote and and a committee and another vote?
Barry – I don’t hear anyone say that our city government is “broken”. However, 8300+ registered Newton voters thought that, at the very least, the question as to whether or not to have a charter commission should be on the ballot.
Jane,
You know that doesn’t answer my question. Someone, apparently the LWV, decided to do the petition. Why?
I would imagine that many of the people who sign such petitions didn’t think anything, but were asked on the street and just saw no reason not to sign.
Barry: I think the League was prompted by at least a desire to make the BOA smaller. A signature taker for the League whispered that to me when I was asked to sign a couple of years ago. I wasn’t into the mechanics of our municipal gov’t at the time and, while worried that a whole charter revision could turn us into the former USSR, I held my fellow citizens of Newton in enough high regard that I signed anyway.
@Barry – The League of Woman Voters was motivated to open the charter up and they have a list of the specific changes they would like to see on their web site. That’s their motivation.
As Rhanna says though, that’s a starting point. There’s no guarantee that those changes will be adopted or that other change won’t be suggested by others, or that the voters will approve any recommended changes.
Thanks, Jerry,
So, they list four things, one of which is the size of the BOA. Then they list things they support, which are irrelevant, because they are already implemented.
So, personally, I don’t see those four things justifying an election for committee people, an 18-month discussion, and an election to approve or not the new charter. The committee may come up with other things.
Only my opinion.
Barry – Tom Sheff decided to begin the signature collection, then the LWV became involved. Voters signed the petition for many reasons, and none of us vouch for what their reasons were. At this point, the LWV does not control the process and certainly not the outcome, nor does anyone else who participated in this part of the process.
I found the two biggest reasons why people signed the signature papers were the size of the BOA and the fact that the charter hasn’t been reviewed in over 40 years. For most people that was enough. I am expecting a minimum of 50 changes requested and have to be studied.
Anyone hear about others who want to run for CC?
The US Constitution hasn’t been rewritten in over 200 years. It’s been amended. Isn’t there a process to amend the Charter if certain things seem desirable? Probably the BOA wouldn’t want to downsize itself, but otherwise, can’t amendments be done?
No.
RE other folks who might run for Charter Commission, did Mr. Auchincloss, current candidate for Ward 2 Alderman at Large, just say he was throwing his hat in the ring for Charter Commission as well, which I guess means running for both at the same time? What’s up with that? (from a post earlier in this thread)
Perhaps the more places your name appears on the ballot, the more votes you can get? I don’t know, someone needs to ‘splain this to me. I don’t mind his generation having a voice, but exactly how many voices does he personally need?
@HL
Aldermen and school committee members can run for this too.
Indeed, it would appear alderman THM is interested in running too.
Are you going to join the throng?
@Simon – mighty neighborly of you to ask, but no, I’m way past actually trying to ride a bull in this political humpty-doodle. I’m lucky to make my way into the voting booth to cast a vote without sustaining physical injuries. I would sure support any of you young folks running, however. You raise a good point: as long as you’re collecting signatures, is there anything stopping you from running for Alderman, Charter Commission, and School Committee as well? In for a penny, in for a pound, eh? Anything else available on this ballot? I almost used the (bad) old joke about dog catcher, but being a dog lover myself, I will not demean the Animal Control Officer which I do not believe is an elected office in Newton anyway. Elsewhere in New England, one of the most popular positions is Road Agent, which I think I will submit to the new Charter Commission for consideration of inclusion in our new City Charter.
I was at the Programs and Services meeting (of the BoA) last night to hear the discussion/vote on the charter commission. David Olson said that all candidates for charter commission will need to form an election committee and file the usual forms, whether or not the candidates raise and spend money. The forms aren’t too cumbersome, especially for those who are doing this on a shoestring. To form a committee, a candidate needs a treasurer to sign the form to go to the Elections office, and then will get notice from them as to when to file financial disclosure forms. If you don’t raise or spend money, there is a kinda of short form. David has all the details, but I wanted all potential candidates to know about this!
Barry Cohen asks:
Yes, there is, through a Home Rule Petition. We have amended the City Charter in a number of small but substantive ways over the past generation since the last Charter Commission. Indeed, the Home Rule Petition to amend the Charter to change the name of the Board of Aldermen to City Council is currently pending (where it has gotten House approval but is running into some chaff in the Senate over “style” points).
Our Commonwealth’s constitution, which served as a model for the United States Constitution, is the oldest functioning written constitution in the world. It has been amended 120 times (most recently in 2000), and after its initial adoption in 1780, constitutional conventions were convened in 1820, 1853 and 1917 to consider changes. This mirrors the process that Newton and other communities have followed, whereby amendments are adopted by the legislative body and approved by voters and, from time to time, through a Charter Commission. Many communities have created standing charter review committees which periodically review and propose changes to the charter, which may or may not be adopted.
The process of amendment and reform is intentionally challenging and deliberate. Amendment by a Charter Commission opens up the entire charter to review but sets a strict timeline of 18 months within which to review and make recommendations for changes, which require voter approval. In fact, changes to municipal charters recommended by Charter Commissions succeed only about half the time. So it is incumbent upon the Charter Commission to recommend changes which will receive the broadest support from the electorate. A Home Rule Petition must go through the state legislature, which may or may not approve the proposed changes or make its own amendments, and in some cases–such as the composition and terms of municipal legislative bodies–may require that any amendment be placed on the ballot.
So, you say you want a revolution? …. We’d all love to see the plan.*
*Revolution (Lennon, McCartney)
One may run for charter commission and Alderman, simultaneously.
Two charter commissions I know of that were formed in MA in the last decade were in Saugus and Everett. I believe Everett voted to institute the new charter after the commission made their recommendations. Not sure about Saugus.
I assumed that Barry was asking if the charter itself offered a way to amend it. It does not.
No need to overstate the outcome of a charter commission. Newton is has difficulty with change and we often hear people overstate the possible results of change. No one wants a revolution, or wants to blow the whole thing up as was stated in a previous post.
But, it is possible that the committee could conclude that a “revolutionary” change would be best, like a town meeting, or a city council, or something like that, right? Not likely, I think, but possible.
Barry: Yes. A CC can do anything. But, it still has to pass the electorate once the changes are suggested.
Sue: Thanks, I didn’t know that. All of this is new.
Right, Barry. But a revolution is unlikely to pass for the reasons Tom and I gave. Sometimes also Charter Commissions may be split along ideological lines, so you end up with a “majority” and a “minority” report, which does not bode well for passage.
If the charter commission is approved then it will be revised, not thrown out. I’m just not getting all this doom and gloom. Outside of V14, everyone I speak to sees this as a positive step for the city.
I believe the charter commission could initiate significant changes to our city rules. People with good leadership skills could step up and educate voters via several different forms of media. Everyone has an equal opportunity to make a cogent argument for change and the ability to reach voters without spending big bucks.
This has been a fascinating and informative debate. I’ve read carefully thought through items from people on both sides of what I feel is the major dividing line in this debate; i.e. whether to centralize planning and decision making within Newton for the sake of efficiency, or disperse it by keeping a 24 member Board that retains zoning and planning powers and reflects village dynamics and locally or village based constituencies.
The sun, moon and stars must be in some kind of special alignment, or perhaps it’s just the effect of the dramatic fly past Pluto, but I find myself agreeing with portions of what Barry Cohen is saying. I’m certain he’ll feel the same sensation when he reads that this is from me.
Like Groot, I hope the League has dropped it’s recommendation that Village Neighborhood Area Councils be discontinued. I’m almost certain that including this recommendation in a final revised charter would croak whatever else the Charter Commission comes up with.
Bob, Rhanna Kidwell posted somewhere above that the League officially dropped any opposition to the NAC’S.
And I’m wondering which “portions of what Barry Cohen is saying” you are agreeing with. Do you not want the charter opened because of the possibility of catastrophic changes being both approved by the commission and by the voters? If so, I recommend having your fear level evaluated, because it may be at capacity.
I’m just wandering if this discussion has alleviated people’s concern with the CC?
No Marti, with everything else going on in the world and nation, I hardly fear anything that would come out of charter reform and, in any event, my fear level is reasonably low to begin with.
I agree with Barry that nobody has made a convincing case to me that reducing the size of the Board would really improve its effectiveness and ability to get things done expeditiously, but inclusively. And I think we stand to lose something precious in terms of diversity of viewpoints, specialty expertise, and local village concerns. I have read the League’s Charter proposals and I know they have addressed many areas where they feel reform is warranted. I agree with several of their positions, but you will note that they and other charter reform advocates seem to lead their discussions with proposals for considering reducing the Board’s side. I’m simply saying that this is something we should not promote as beneficial before we examine all the impacts. There are several side effects that go with this proposal that center on Newton’s future development. I just hope all of these effects (positive and negative) are examined openly and fairly and that there isn’t a rush to judgment about reducing the Board’s size or transferring some of its authorities to non-elected bodies.
Again, I’m certain I’ll have Newton friends with strong and different viewpoints on this, but I never intend to lose a friend and ally because of a political or issue dispute. I just may find I want to be on their side the next go around. I’m finding that with Bernie Sanders campaign in Newton. We’re beginning to register strong support with a lot of folks and I’ve been on opposite sides of past campaigns with many of them.
Maybe I can get Barry to go with Bernie.
Bob Burke for CC !
Bob Burke for CC!!!
One potential advantage of reducing the size of the board is to introduce a bit more democracy into our local government. It really is an abysmal system that we have, where the overwelming number of our elected officials,run unopposed in every election.
I have to beleive that a smaller board would lead,to more competitive elections – and that would be a,good thing.
@ Jerry Reilly
?????
Ha sure, Sure more competitive elections,.. For the one or two seats that come up each term because of a death or sheer exhaustion. In the mean time Ted HM, Deb Crossley, Len Gentile etc ( all the long entrenched alders ) will be constant shoo ins by dint of name recognition and institutional momentum. If you want no change change now!
Also how about 6 year terms while we’re at it. It would get real competitive then.
@Blueprintbill, it is odd that you single out Deb Crossley and myself as “long entrenched.” While Ald. Gentile has served for 26 years (and before that on the the School Committee), Ald. Crossley is only in her 6th year and I am in my 12th. Meanwhile, Ald. Yates has served since 1987 (28 years) and Ald. Baker has served on and off since 1980 (30+ years). And Ald. Johnson, Lappin, Lennon and Sangiolo have all served longer than I. In fact, there are a majority of at least 14 board members who have served fewer years than I, and fully a third of the board that have served 3 terms or less.
Knowing your politics, I suspect you would like to see some of my longer serving colleagues remain on the board while you would like to get rid of other who have served the same amount of time or less.
BOB,
No, not Bernie Sanders.
@Bob and Barry
IMO, Bernie Sanders has a much of a chance being the next POTUS as Berwick did being the Guv of MA.
If HRC winds up as the Dem Candidate for POTUS, she will carry MA, but I am not so sure about the rest of the country (maybe Arkansas).
In case you’re taking this blaaaaaaaag too seriously, there is no 14th Village in Newton.
@Bob-
I am in complete agreement that whoever winds up on the Charter Commission must not go into it with a specific agenda.
Bad approach = “We must reduce the Board”.
Good approach = IF we reduce the Board, what are the ramifications”.
Remember, there’s a lot more to this than just Board size.
While it’s perfectly appropriate to have ideas of how changes might be positive ones, anyone thinking about running for the Commission who has an entrenched viewpoint of what the outcome “must” be is probably not the right person for the position.
Also, let’s not assume that the bulk of signers were in favor of any specific changes. LWV info sessions and a number of non-LWV independent public forums (in all villages) to inform the public and gather input will be the key to the process having credibility.
@ Ted HM,
Indeed given ‘my politics’, perhaps I should have singled out those politicos with agendas ( pro development, pro density , pro urbanism, pro growthers ) who are respondent to Political Insider Groups as opposed to their own constituents.
@blueprintbill – Who exactly are these,mysterious “political insider groups” you speak of? The League of women voters? The,alderman? The Democrat or Republican parties? The Newton Village,Alliance?
Even though it yields a catchy acronym I,Have no idea who or what you’re,referring to.