Just wanted to say a quick thank you to Village 14 for inviting me to post! I’ll be sharing news from the Charter Commission as well as general thoughts on public policy as it pertains to the city of Newton.
The Charter Commission is having our first public hearing next week. Take a look:
NOTICE: Charter Commission Public Hearing
Thinking about the goal of greater public participation in government and the effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency of our government, the Charter Commission welcomes public input on the structure, responsibilities, and election of our city government.
Date: Thursday, December 17th, 2015
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Newton City Hall, Aldermanic ChamberFeedback is also welcome via email at [email protected].
The work of the Charter Commission can be followed online at http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/chartercommission/default.asp.
Sincerely,
The Newton Charter Commission
Joshua Krintzman, Chair
Rhanna Kidwell, Vice Chair
Bryan Barash
Jane O’Connor Frantz
Howard Haywood
Anne Larner
Brooke Lipsitt
Karen Manning
Christopher Steele
@Bryan
It would be great if the Commission could define a plan with clearly defined phases that could help inform how/when the public can best engage.
For example
1. Idea generation on areas for charter improvement
2. Selection of ideas to explore in-depth (pros and cons, analogs, learnings from other cities, etc.)
3. Findings
4. Option generation
5. Recommendation
Ideally, the public would have opportunity to engage at all steps– sharing ideas on potential ways to improve the charter, providing input on choosing the ideas that merit research, learning from the Commission of those findings, hearing and contributing to potential options and participating in the recommendation process.
I think one of the misunderstandings in the Austin St process, is that there is a difference between having public meetings, and a creating an open, effective process that solicits public input on the right elements at the right time. We can debate whether the lack of effectiveness in Austin St was deliberate or not, but I hope in the case of the Charter Commission that there is a desire and intent for genuine public input at all stages. I’m curious if you agree that the public should have the opportunity to provide input on the various elements that I laid out above.
@Paul: I certainly agree that we should be welcoming public input at every stage and the Commission plans to do so. This first meetings will, as you say, be focused on idea generation although we welcome the public to share whatever they feel is appropriate for us to hear.
I would also point out that the commission is still mapping out our work plan. This first public hearing is required by state law to be within the first 45 days after we are elected, which is why it is happening in mid-December, so apologies to anyone whose Holiday plans interfere.
In an idea generation phase, it is said that no idea is a bad idea, because you want broad based brainstorming.
But in the final analysis, not every idea is in fact “good,” and even good ideas will get trumped by better ones.
So i hope that as this process goes along, folks will recognize that not all ideas will make it through the process, and that the commission’s job is to sort all that out.
The voters have the final say: the commissions recommendations must hang together in a way that gains majority support.
@Dan
I may be reading too much into what you posted, but there is a line of thinking in your post that is precisely what I would guard against. No question that every idea is a not good one, and ultimately decisions need to be made by the Commission on proposed changes to the charter. But a process that simply gives the public an upfront opportunity to sound ideas, and is excluded from the process until we’ve reached the point of voting on the proposal, is a failed process.
The public should be part of the process of vetting ideas, identifying alternatives and compromises between different perspectives, and learning about the practices of other communities that hopefully inform our analysis. I was explicit about the five steps laid out above, and think the public should have the opportunity to engage at each step.
To give an example– its clear to me already that a point of contention is going to be potential changes to our zoning/development process. Some will want their representatives directly elected to make decisions, others will want some/many parts of that process to be made by a group of appointed/non-elected officials. There are merits to both sides. For the charter to simply choose one perspective as the proposal, and then leave it to the voters to vote yea or nay is the type of binary outcome that leads to the highly divisive process that we just went through. Even more unfortunate, would be many other good ideas being rejected because of public opposition to one part of the proposal.
Instead, a process that allows true input from the public throughout the process, could help us identify common ground and compromises that lead to solutions that unify our city instead of potentially dividing it. Definitely a higher burden on the commission to run a process like that, but after what we just went through, I hope and ask our Commission members to consider this thoughtfully so we can avoid the mistakes of the past.
Nothing in my post was designed to imply there should not be continuous input as appropriate along the way, but my understanding is at the end of the process there will be only one set of recommendations that go before the voters.
@Paul, Dan is correct. Under state law, one proposed charter is presented to voters, and voters can vote yes or no on the entire charter in an up or down vote. There is not line item voting and no presenting of alternatives. But citizens can share opinions throughout the process. They can comment at public hearings or during the public comment period at any regular meeting, and they can email [email protected] (which will get to every member).
As Bryan said, we are mapping out our work plan now, and that will be available to the public so that citizens can know when we expect to focus on which issues in advance.
@Rhanna Kidwell, I interpreted Paul’s comments in a different way, and I do not know if this was the point he was making. One thing often forgotten is the marketing required to “sell” an idea, in this case the charter proposal in total. Continued and proactive engagement with the voters will be needed, IMO, to allow people to accept changes in a positive light. For instance, if I went to the polls not seeing a ballot initiative I would likely vote against it not being able to digest the benefits during the voting period. This means that the commission should, again IMO, do more than simply meet in a large enough room to have the public attend with a couple of public meetings but vigorously share the current status of the process. I am sure the commission will produce some great ideas but change is hard no matter how well considered the changes are in the minds of the people porposing the changes.
“This means that the commission should, again IMO, do more than simply meet in a large enough room to have the public attend with a couple of public meetings but vigorously share the current status of the process.”
Groot – Completely agree.
It strikes me that the commission could hold a series of public session on the final recommendations similar to what was done for the ’13 override.
But let’s be real, a lot of folks just won’t pay any attention irrespective of how many meetings are held. But those might be the same folks who don’t bother to vote anyway.
But Groot, I thought Paul’s comment was pretty clear, that he worried I was suggesting that after an initial round of suggestions the public’s input wasn’t needed until the end. Not my intent at all. However much input is provided during the process, the commission sooner or later has to distill it all down and come up with a single set of recommendations. And at that point a lot of folks might feel like they weren’t heard. That will happen but it doesn’t mean they weren’t heard, but that on balance their recommendations seemed best overall. And we chose them to do just that.
This is not a fully democratic process; we operate through elected representatives.
@Dan
Thanks for clarifying, good to hear that you support continued input from the public.
@ Rihanna
Fully understand the process, my thoughts above are about debating alternatives, identifying compromises, etc. before it reaches the ballot.
I’m emphasizing that we should design a process that seeks real, effective input from the public at the right times in the process. That input should be provided in the context of transparency on the commission’s thinking, interim decisions, research supporting ideas, etc. I would strongly caution against a process that defines “continuous” as one where there are a series of meetings throughout the first 12-15 months to allow the public to share its comments on various components of the charter, with little transparency on the commission’s thinking, and then in the last 3-6 months the commission reveals its thinking and the public has the opportunity to provide feedback, with some tinkering around the edges, but the cake is essentially baked at that point in the timeline.
For example, if 100 people share that they believe that we should consider eliminating the Mayor position and move to a city administrator structure, and the commission doesn’t believe that is an idea worth their time to explore– that interim decision should be shared early in the process, with a rationale, so the public can respond. The public shouldn’t have to wait until late in the process to learn that the commission decided not to explore eliminating the Mayor position with no real time for a course correction.
I look forward to learning of the work plan, how the commission plans to share its thinking and work throughout the process, and how the process can help us achieve real compromise in areas where there are strong areas of disagreement.
I agree with others that state that ultimately decisions have to be made, some people will be disappointed, and we will have a binary outcome based on a vote. But we will all be better off, with a much less divisive process than we just went through, if there is a genuine attempt at real dialogue, transparency and compromise. There were multiple times in the Austin St process where we fell short. I felt that way irrespective of outcome. Let’s look to do better this time around.
All of the comments regarding the process for reviewing the charter are extremely helpful. Informed and regular input from the general public will be vital in producing a Charter that will be adopted by the voters.
It’s great to hear that the commission is focusing on listening to public input. I’ve got to get work now on my “let’s go to public meeting form of government in Newton” campaign.
Just kidding. You folks seem to be off to a good start.
Ditto. Great start CC!
I’m sure the charter commission is working on a web site, if they don’t already have one. Maybe they can have a page or two for issues they explored with a rationale as to why they were for or against that issue and how the vote went.
The Charter Commission has started work on its City web page ~with documentation, meeting details, and a short form for subscribing to our mailing list.
The site again for your reference is:
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/chartercommission/default.asp
Thank you!