Concerns about the Charter Commission proposal to reduce the size of the City Council seem to have hit a nerve with some. Change is hard. One blogger, in the absence of the actual arguments presented, on a site ostensibly dedicated to improving the level of discourse in the city, has plenty to say. Despite the fact that this body was democratically elected and has open meetings, charges of conspiracy abound. Like most posts at the site, there seemed to be little dissent. Some of the language distracted this reader from what might be fair questions about representation. A couple of phrases made my jaw drop.
I didn’t move to Newton so I could live in City that struggled to upgrade its government so it could favorably compare to Somerville
This one left me speechless:
Those white gloved, hatted, League Ladies of yesteryear will rejoice in their heaven at the thought that the Newton Legislature may be returned to responsible people who understand what is best for our City.
Wow. Thanks for sharing that Adam, I guess.
Peter Harrington’s column is over-the-top inflammatory and paranoid. Just as disturbing are the commentators who follow by saying they agree with Harrington’s every word.
Look folks, it’s entirely reasonable to disagree with the eliminating our ward city councilors — and many good people have posted entirely credible arguments to that end — without accusing people being part of some conspiracy.
Sometimes people just disagree.
Wow. Thanks for sharing that Adam, I guess.
Peter Harrington’s column is over-the-top inflammatory and paranoid. Just as disturbing are the commentators who follow by saying they agree with Harrington’s every word.
Look folks, it’s entirely reasonable to disagree with the eliminating our ward city councilors — and many good people have posted entirely credible arguments to that end — without accusing people being part of some conspiracy.
Sometimes people just disagree.
I doubt you are of the age to recognize how much Peter Harrington has done for Newton in the scores of years. You might like to research who he is, and especially since he is the only 1970 charter commission member with us.
As witness then and in similar fashion now, the affluent 19th amendmenters of Newton continue to negotiate a not fully honest power play, reflectively aware that GASB best practices will not be supportive of their strategies.
A hidden agenda of rule by wealth, protection of status quo machine politics by the separation and inability to finance a CTE at-large citywide – either run a popularity contest citywide or don’t run if you have neither the money or the smarts.
This agenda appears to be more insidious and subversive that the League politics of 1970.
Back then they could do it and get away without anyone noticing. – but we did notice!
@Harry: No disagreement: Peter has done a lot to contribute to our city and deserves our thanks.
So have many others, including folks on the commission.
But truth is, no one’s seniority entitles them have a more valid view of how to run their community than others. Every citizen gets one vote.
The commission was democratically elected following a legal effort by fellow residents to open the charter, which was approved by voters. The commission meetings have been fully open and transparent. How is this a “not fully honest power play”?
Again, it’s different citizens seeing things differently.
Oh and how about taking a few deep breaths too. It was a straw vote folks. The final charter needs to be approved by the voters.
People are carrying on as if this was a military coup.
I doubt you are of the age to recognize how much Peter Harrington has done for Newton in the scores of years. You might like to research who he is, and especially since he is the only 1970 charter commission member with us.
As witness then and in similar fashion now, the affluent 19th amendmenters of Newton continue to negotiate a not fully honest power play, reflectively aware that GASB best practices will not be supportive of their strategies.
A hidden agenda of rule by wealth, protection of status quo machine politics by the separation and inability to finance a CTE at-large citywide – either run a popularity contest citywide or don’t run if you have neither the money or the smarts.
This agenda appears to be more insidious and subversive that the League politics of 1970.
Back then they could do it and get away without anyone noticing. – but we did notice!
@Harry: No disagreement: Peter has done a lot to contribute to our city and deserves our thanks.
So have many others, including folks on the commission.
But truth is, no one’s seniority entitles them have a more valid view of how to run their community than others. Every citizen gets one vote.
The commission was democratically elected following a legal effort by fellow residents to open the charter, which was approved by voters. The commission meetings have been fully open and transparent. How is this a “not fully honest power play”?
Again, it’s different citizens seeing things differently.
Oh and how about taking a few deep breaths too. It was a straw vote folks. The final charter needs to be approved by the voters.
People are carrying on as if this was a military coup.
Can someone explain to the the random trope about the League of Women Voters? I may not agree with them on every issue, but they don’t seem to be particularly exclusionary. Am I missing something?
I can’t.
Can someone explain to the the random trope about the League of Women Voters? I may not agree with them on every issue, but they don’t seem to be particularly exclusionary. Am I missing something?
I can’t.
I couldn’t tell you because I’m not a member of the League and have never attended a meeting.
I couldn’t tell you because I’m not a member of the League and have never attended a meeting.
my comments are directed to the author of this thread. I do not engage in discourse for sensationalism; but more appropriately in dealing with facts which are supported by the archives of the library’s Newton Room.
my comments are directed to the author of this thread. I do not engage in discourse for sensationalism; but more appropriately in dealing with facts which are supported by the archives of the library’s Newton Room.
So is this new blog a place to be nice or a a haven for paranoid conspiracy theorists? Wait, it’s obviously a place to only be nice to those who agree with you.
So is this new blog a place to be nice or a a haven for paranoid conspiracy theorists? Wait, it’s obviously a place to only be nice to those who agree with you.
I hope not. It is a place to address issues with your real name and to do so politely. Check it out. I have a couple of posts there (one for April Fools day, too.) Your polite disagreement is welcomed. Thoughtfulness is, too! Tone is not the sharp barb type. The blog is new …and reasoned arguments and agreements to disagree would help further discussion of the issues!
@Salle: Really? Accusing the commissioners of being under the thumb of the League of Women Voters; of favoring a dictatorial form of government; and calling this an “elite, philosophically Republican, proposal” is thoughtful, sharp barb free, polite disagreement?
At least Village 14 doesn’t pretend to be something its not.
I hope not. It is a place to address issues with your real name and to do so politely. Check it out. I have a couple of posts there (one for April Fools day, too.) Your polite disagreement is welcomed. Thoughtfulness is, too! Tone is not the sharp barb type. The blog is new …and reasoned arguments and agreements to disagree would help further discussion of the issues!
@Salle: Really? Accusing the commissioners of being under the thumb of the League of Women Voters; of favoring a dictatorial form of government; and calling this an “elite, philosophically Republican, proposal” is thoughtful, sharp barb free, polite disagreement?
At least Village 14 doesn’t pretend to be something its not.
I wish Harry would clue us all in so we can better understand his argument without sending us to the Newton Room!I worry about a LWVN in a town where only one party exists and progressive thought is the norm! That doesn’t seem to be what Peter or Harry are saying.
I wish Harry would clue us all in so we can better understand his argument without sending us to the Newton Room!I worry about a LWVN in a town where only one party exists and progressive thought is the norm! That doesn’t seem to be what Peter or Harry are saying.
In addition to his service as a member of the first Charter Commission, Peter Harrington served as an Alderman at Large from ward Two (before I joined the Board–if you can imagine any time so distant) and a State Representative. He was a lead sponsor of Chapter 40 A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the current Zoning Law. I believe he also served as Chair of the Ward 2 Democratic Committee. He has been a local land use lawyer for neighbors mainly. He ran unsuccessfully for Mayor. but he did win Ward 5 Precinct 1. 4 months later the victorious Mayor cast the 5th vote on the School Committee to close the Emerson School located in 5/1.
I have not seen the site or the post in question so I don;t know what the text in question says.
Brian Yates
In addition to his service as a member of the first Charter Commission, Peter Harrington served as an Alderman at Large from ward Two (before I joined the Board–if you can imagine any time so distant) and a State Representative. He was a lead sponsor of Chapter 40 A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the current Zoning Law. I believe he also served as Chair of the Ward 2 Democratic Committee. He has been a local land use lawyer for neighbors mainly. He ran unsuccessfully for Mayor. but he did win Ward 5 Precinct 1. 4 months later the victorious Mayor cast the 5th vote on the School Committee to close the Emerson School located in 5/1.
I have not seen the site or the post in question so I don;t know what the text in question says.
Brian Yates
I think Peter’s solid reputation may have caused a few of us to refrain from comment, but i am sure he will explain if asked nicely. You know ,Greg, Woody Allen said that just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean no one
is trying to get you! I doubt the LWVN’s neutrality, too…but for different reasons! I can’t figure out where the list from which the CC chose its pick for composition of city council came from. It was prepared and offered much earlier than any testimony from our city councilors or those from other cities. Who put the choices together? The Collins center???
I think Peter’s solid reputation may have caused a few of us to refrain from comment, but i am sure he will explain if asked nicely. You know ,Greg, Woody Allen said that just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean no one
is trying to get you! I doubt the LWVN’s neutrality, too…but for different reasons! I can’t figure out where the list from which the CC chose its pick for composition of city council came from. It was prepared and offered much earlier than any testimony from our city councilors or those from other cities. Who put the choices together? The Collins center???
@ Brian Yates: By the way the site in question is newtonforum.org.
@ Brian Yates: By the way the site in question is newtonforum.org.
Nor do I. @Harry Sanders, I know who Peter Harrington is. I do not doubt his commitment to our city and he’s entitled to his opinion.
Nor do I. @Harry Sanders, I know who Peter Harrington is. I do not doubt his commitment to our city and he’s entitled to his opinion.
I hope the CC will rethink the idea of eliminating Ward Councilors. But I’m not seeing any conspiracy here. I think the CC has been surprisingly transparent, and done a tremendous job of involving the public in the review process.
Now if you want to talk about real conspiracies, Oswald clearly did not act alone. And I’m increasingly suspicious about what really happened on 9-11.
I hope the CC will rethink the idea of eliminating Ward Councilors. But I’m not seeing any conspiracy here. I think the CC has been surprisingly transparent, and done a tremendous job of involving the public in the review process.
Now if you want to talk about real conspiracies, Oswald clearly did not act alone. And I’m increasingly suspicious about what really happened on 9-11.
I don’t believe there has been a conspiracy. I have been watching closely. I do think the cc may have been too ready to accept a position without enough real discussion. I’d still like to know where the choices came from. Why move to ward at large? What was wrong with direct Ward councilors that motivated their change? Examples of what they want to prevent from happening in Newton that happened under direct ward representation here. I believe the ward direct rep is the best example of the best possible government.
I don’t believe there has been a conspiracy. I have been watching closely. I do think the cc may have been too ready to accept a position without enough real discussion. I’d still like to know where the choices came from. Why move to ward at large? What was wrong with direct Ward councilors that motivated their change? Examples of what they want to prevent from happening in Newton that happened under direct ward representation here. I believe the ward direct rep is the best example of the best possible government.
The CC wants to totally redefine Newton’s city gov’t. The question is will these changes benefit Newton residents? Important decisions about our future will be made with less public input. Strong local gov’t will be weakened significantly. With so much at stake in today’s precarious economy a smaller more authoritarian gov’t is not the solution to our problems.
The CC wants to totally redefine Newton’s city gov’t. The question is will these changes benefit Newton residents? Important decisions about our future will be made with less public input. Strong local gov’t will be weakened significantly. With so much at stake in today’s precarious economy a smaller more authoritarian gov’t is not the solution to our problems.
I think the sentiment on this blog is that the residents of the City would not want the at-large Ward representation to replace the directly Ward-voted Ward Council positions. If that is the case, it is on our shoulders to spread the word beyond Village 14 and Newtonforum.org to our neighbors, and any open ears willing to listen. I joined the LWVN last year to attend a meeting they were having that spoke of their plans for publicizing and supporting Charter Commission changes. They will, if they like the changes, promote their support through all their communication channels. We as individuals and members of other City organizations should plan to do the same! The earlier the better, since the CC may rethink this notion if they believe it is a game loser! Even the Tab today spoke out against removing directly Ward-elected Ward Councilors.
I think the sentiment on this blog is that the residents of the City would not want the at-large Ward representation to replace the directly Ward-voted Ward Council positions. If that is the case, it is on our shoulders to spread the word beyond Village 14 and Newtonforum.org to our neighbors, and any open ears willing to listen. I joined the LWVN last year to attend a meeting they were having that spoke of their plans for publicizing and supporting Charter Commission changes. They will, if they like the changes, promote their support through all their communication channels. We as individuals and members of other City organizations should plan to do the same! The earlier the better, since the CC may rethink this notion if they believe it is a game loser! Even the Tab today spoke out against removing directly Ward-elected Ward Councilors.
The Charter Commission might be less interested in reducing ward representation as it is in reducing council size without inflating ward representation.
The Charter Commission might be less interested in reducing ward representation as it is in reducing council size without inflating ward representation.
I intended this thread to be more about the absurdity of that post, but it’s probably best that we’ve veered back to the real topic. FWIW, I’ve never noticed much difference dealing with ward or at-large Aldermen, either for local issues or city-wide. My experiences typically were more of an issue of dealing with the individual rather than who held which position (i.e. there have been good Ward aldermen and not so good ones) I’ve had just as much luck getting the two at-large Aldermen from my ward to help out with a local issue (typically depends more on which committees they served on) I’ve also gotten good response speaking with ward aldermen from other wards on city-wide issues. I’d say that says a lot about the weakness of our current governance (including the fact that those elected by ~500 ppl serve on committees and even run them) more than the at-large vs ward representation issue.
So there really are a lot of issues in play, and I think blog comments here have oversimplified all that. For true ward representation, a separate chamber would almost make sense, but does anyone really think that’s a good idea? Why not street-level representation? It’s gotta end somewhere, and there’s nothing blessed about ward boundaries.
Count me as one of the people who would love to learn more about the deliberations. Has anyone actually listened to the CC meeting audio? Was there no discussion of the various options or did they really just go straight to a unanimous straw vote?
I intended this thread to be more about the absurdity of that post, but it’s probably best that we’ve veered back to the real topic. FWIW, I’ve never noticed much difference dealing with ward or at-large Aldermen, either for local issues or city-wide. My experiences typically were more of an issue of dealing with the individual rather than who held which position (i.e. there have been good Ward aldermen and not so good ones) I’ve had just as much luck getting the two at-large Aldermen from my ward to help out with a local issue (typically depends more on which committees they served on) I’ve also gotten good response speaking with ward aldermen from other wards on city-wide issues. I’d say that says a lot about the weakness of our current governance (including the fact that those elected by ~500 ppl serve on committees and even run them) more than the at-large vs ward representation issue.
So there really are a lot of issues in play, and I think blog comments here have oversimplified all that. For true ward representation, a separate chamber would almost make sense, but does anyone really think that’s a good idea? Why not street-level representation? It’s gotta end somewhere, and there’s nothing blessed about ward boundaries.
Count me as one of the people who would love to learn more about the deliberations. Has anyone actually listened to the CC meeting audio? Was there no discussion of the various options or did they really just go straight to a unanimous straw vote?
there’s always going back to a town and having town meetings…
there’s always going back to a town and having town meetings…
Adam: I was there when they voted. They went around the table and each made a couple of short remarks. No real debate took place. The only thoughtful questioning of her own decision was Brooke Lipsitt. The others kind of went along with each other. Why they chose that particular down-sizing was not at all obvious. They have taken on an enormous task to review the entire Charter which they are addressing in ultimate detail. I think they would serve the City better if they re-focused and held a debate in full view of the public with half of them arduously debating on the affirmative and half on the negative side of this profound choice. Then…a straw vote might be appropriate and the observers would be able to see what sways them. If they recommended no other changes, but only changes to the size and composition of the Council after a lot more discussion, they might instill more confidence in their decision. If they also put in a Charter Review provision every ten to fifteen years, the dust could be removed more frequently if necessary. I think fatigue may be playing a part here. The group is not at all lazy, but may be suffering from not having a gadfly among them to challenge their thinking. In a way…they are suffering from being ONLY NINE PART-TIME COMMISSIONERS, doing an enormous amount of work that 24 might be able to do much easier!
Adam: I was there when they voted. They went around the table and each made a couple of short remarks. No real debate took place. The only thoughtful questioning of her own decision was Brooke Lipsitt. The others kind of went along with each other. Why they chose that particular down-sizing was not at all obvious. They have taken on an enormous task to review the entire Charter which they are addressing in ultimate detail. I think they would serve the City better if they re-focused and held a debate in full view of the public with half of them arduously debating on the affirmative and half on the negative side of this profound choice. Then…a straw vote might be appropriate and the observers would be able to see what sways them. If they recommended no other changes, but only changes to the size and composition of the Council after a lot more discussion, they might instill more confidence in their decision. If they also put in a Charter Review provision every ten to fifteen years, the dust could be removed more frequently if necessary. I think fatigue may be playing a part here. The group is not at all lazy, but may be suffering from not having a gadfly among them to challenge their thinking. In a way…they are suffering from being ONLY NINE PART-TIME COMMISSIONERS, doing an enormous amount of work that 24 might be able to do much easier!
Ours is a representative democracy form of government. In theory, there should be no difference between a councilor elected within a ward or district and one elected at large. And in practice, that ought to be the case.
Some who advocate for ward vs. at-large representation seem to be arguing for the election of delegates as opposed to representatives. A delegate simply follows the expressed preferences of his/her constituents. A representative, on the other hand, is elected to exercise his/her independent judgment in deciding what is the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke described the role of a delegate versus a representative best, in his speech to the electors of Bristol:
Burke, as you may recall from your history classes, went against his constituents’ expressed preferences on more than one occasion, opposing trade restrictions on on Ireland and supporting the grievances of the American colonists against King George III.
Ours is a representative democracy form of government. In theory, there should be no difference between a councilor elected within a ward or district and one elected at large. And in practice, that ought to be the case.
Some who advocate for ward vs. at-large representation seem to be arguing for the election of delegates as opposed to representatives. A delegate simply follows the expressed preferences of his/her constituents. A representative, on the other hand, is elected to exercise his/her independent judgment in deciding what is the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke described the role of a delegate versus a representative best, in his speech to the electors of Bristol:
Burke, as you may recall from your history classes, went against his constituents’ expressed preferences on more than one occasion, opposing trade restrictions on on Ireland and supporting the grievances of the American colonists against King George III.
I think the rationale is still the missing point in this discussion. If it is to reduce the number of councillors since that was a recommendation of the LWVN that is OK as the rationale. If it is to get more contested races, moving to Ward could be more helpful since it is easier to talk to a smaller population, where going door to door has proven to be an effective means to get known and elected. Folks may be pushing back since the proposal seems arbitrary at the moment.
I still think the bigger issue is not taking on the task of defining the duties of the city council, leaving that to the city council to decide.
I think the rationale is still the missing point in this discussion. If it is to reduce the number of councillors since that was a recommendation of the LWVN that is OK as the rationale. If it is to get more contested races, moving to Ward could be more helpful since it is easier to talk to a smaller population, where going door to door has proven to be an effective means to get known and elected. Folks may be pushing back since the proposal seems arbitrary at the moment.
I still think the bigger issue is not taking on the task of defining the duties of the city council, leaving that to the city council to decide.
I think the problem maybe that they have learned no charter in the state assigns the Special Permit Granting Authority within its Charter believing correctly that this is a proper function of the community’s legislative authority be it town meeting or city council. The function;s location might vary according to Chapter 40 A of the Mass. General laws if amended.
With this key function probably not within the prudent purview of the Commission, the issuses of size and electoral accountablity seem less clear.
And Ted
Thanks for that Great quote from Edmund Burke to put us also in our proper places less than that giant of the legislative function.
I think the problem maybe that they have learned no charter in the state assigns the Special Permit Granting Authority within its Charter believing correctly that this is a proper function of the community’s legislative authority be it town meeting or city council. The function;s location might vary according to Chapter 40 A of the Mass. General laws if amended.
With this key function probably not within the prudent purview of the Commission, the issuses of size and electoral accountablity seem less clear.
And Ted
Thanks for that Great quote from Edmund Burke to put us also in our proper places less than that giant of the legislative function.
Sallee,
I was explicit at the meeting that accountability to the voters was a very high priority for me, that every elected official should be accountable to every voter in the city. I believe that every elected official should be accountable to every resident for his/her votes onissues, demeanor at a public meetings, efforts on behalf of all residents in the city, and judgement.
I’ve spoken to many people who represent the full range of opinions. If I’d made my decision based on a tally of opinions, I’d have had to vote for a council of 8-11 representatives. However, I didn’t think that size was well suited to Newton.
Sallee,
I was explicit at the meeting that accountability to the voters was a very high priority for me, that every elected official should be accountable to every voter in the city. I believe that every elected official should be accountable to every resident for his/her votes onissues, demeanor at a public meetings, efforts on behalf of all residents in the city, and judgement.
I’ve spoken to many people who represent the full range of opinions. If I’d made my decision based on a tally of opinions, I’d have had to vote for a council of 8-11 representatives. However, I didn’t think that size was well suited to Newton.
@Ted
“In theory, there should be no difference between a councilor elected within a ward or district and one elected at large. ”
Extending that logic– there should be no difference between a Congressman for the MA 4th district and the country at-large.
Are you saying that the structure of our Congress is wrong and we should only have at-large representatives for the US?
If not, where is the difference?
@Ted
“In theory, there should be no difference between a councilor elected within a ward or district and one elected at large. ”
Extending that logic– there should be no difference between a Congressman for the MA 4th district and the country at-large.
Are you saying that the structure of our Congress is wrong and we should only have at-large representatives for the US?
If not, where is the difference?
@Councilor Yates, of the 351 cities and towns in MA. only approximately 40 give SPGA to elected officials.
@Councilor Yates, of the 351 cities and towns in MA. only approximately 40 give SPGA to elected officials.
IDK, Paul, I guess I don’t think that Congress functions so well when every single Congressman (who wants to get reelected after all) earmarks pork (bringing home the bacon, I think it is called)for his/her district that results in publicly funded bridges to nowhere and museums of bad art (sincere apologies to Jerry Reilly). Not to mention federal affordable housing funds for Westchester County, which for many years blatantly has ignored its legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
James Madison argued for the delegate model. And of course at first there was not even direct election of Senators, to say nothing of the fact that women, native Americans and people of color had no vote at all–but white men who owned land did. Had some of the founders had their way, we could well have ended up with both houses represented based on population, which would have given an indominatible advantage to Virginia, New York and other populous states that would have had superior representation. And the electoral college–what the hell is that all about? Same thing as it turns out.
So, different challenges, different solutions. And, no, the solutions they came up with (black slaves were 3/5 of a person so that slave states could exploit their slaves yet another way) were not inevitable nor the best of all possible worlds (reference to Candide there, which I highly recommend as a good read). Rather, they were practical, political solutions. Politics is the art of the possible, and at the time our system of government was created, that was the best we could come up. And, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.
IDK, Paul, I guess I don’t think that Congress functions so well when every single Congressman (who wants to get reelected after all) earmarks pork (bringing home the bacon, I think it is called)for his/her district that results in publicly funded bridges to nowhere and museums of bad art (sincere apologies to Jerry Reilly). Not to mention federal affordable housing funds for Westchester County, which for many years blatantly has ignored its legal duty to affirmatively further fair housing.
James Madison argued for the delegate model. And of course at first there was not even direct election of Senators, to say nothing of the fact that women, native Americans and people of color had no vote at all–but white men who owned land did. Had some of the founders had their way, we could well have ended up with both houses represented based on population, which would have given an indominatible advantage to Virginia, New York and other populous states that would have had superior representation. And the electoral college–what the hell is that all about? Same thing as it turns out.
So, different challenges, different solutions. And, no, the solutions they came up with (black slaves were 3/5 of a person so that slave states could exploit their slaves yet another way) were not inevitable nor the best of all possible worlds (reference to Candide there, which I highly recommend as a good read). Rather, they were practical, political solutions. Politics is the art of the possible, and at the time our system of government was created, that was the best we could come up. And, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.
@Paul asked the right question. And I haven’t seen an answer to it. If we should eliminate ward councilors, then why shouldn’t Weymouth and Dalton get to weigh in on Senator Creem and Reps. Khan and Balser?
There are many good arguments in support of ward councilors. But the suggestion that eliminating them would be akin to electing congressmen or even state legislators nationwide or statewide isn’t one of them.
Newton is 18.22 square miles. Representing both Auburndale and Chestnut Hill is not akin to, say, representing both New York’s 15th and Texas 13th Congressional districts, or even Newton and Weymouth.
@Paul asked the right question. And I haven’t seen an answer to it. If we should eliminate ward councilors, then why shouldn’t Weymouth and Dalton get to weigh in on Senator Creem and Reps. Khan and Balser?
There are many good arguments in support of ward councilors. But the suggestion that eliminating them would be akin to electing congressmen or even state legislators nationwide or statewide isn’t one of them.
Newton is 18.22 square miles. Representing both Auburndale and Chestnut Hill is not akin to, say, representing both New York’s 15th and Texas 13th Congressional districts, or even Newton and Weymouth.
@ Emily- still waiting for an answer on Cabot.
@ Ted Sigh.
@ Emily- still waiting for an answer on Cabot.
@ Ted Sigh.
The short answer to Emily’s and Paul’s question is that the larger the population that is represented, the better the argument for election of a representative by a district. The question the Charter Commission is struggling with, I think, is whether less than 2% of our registered voters should be able to elect representatives who can be officers or chairs of important committees on the City Council. Because both zoning and special permits require approval by at least 2/3 of the City Council, the Commission is also struggling with whether representatives elected by such a small number of people have an inherent conflict that has undue influence on their votes when development that is controversial is proposed within a particular ward. The consequences for the city could be dire, including losing federal funding for housing if actions or inaction by the City Council cause the city to fail to fulfill its duty to affirmatively further fair housing under state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The decade long litigation over that issue in Westchester County is a cautionary tale. Last fall, the federal court of appeals upheld HUD’s authority to withhold federal funds from Westchester County, which, to date, has lost over $22 million in CDBG funding intended for housing for low to moderate income households because of its continuing resistance to analyzing and addressing impediments to fair housing.
The short answer to Emily’s and Paul’s question is that the larger the population that is represented, the better the argument for election of a representative by a district. The question the Charter Commission is struggling with, I think, is whether less than 2% of our registered voters should be able to elect representatives who can be officers or chairs of important committees on the City Council. Because both zoning and special permits require approval by at least 2/3 of the City Council, the Commission is also struggling with whether representatives elected by such a small number of people have an inherent conflict that has undue influence on their votes when development that is controversial is proposed within a particular ward. The consequences for the city could be dire, including losing federal funding for housing if actions or inaction by the City Council cause the city to fail to fulfill its duty to affirmatively further fair housing under state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The decade long litigation over that issue in Westchester County is a cautionary tale. Last fall, the federal court of appeals upheld HUD’s authority to withhold federal funds from Westchester County, which, to date, has lost over $22 million in CDBG funding intended for housing for low to moderate income households because of its continuing resistance to analyzing and addressing impediments to fair housing.
@Ted Hess-Mahan – Federal funding “for museums of bad art”? Count me in.
@Ted Hess-Mahan – Federal funding “for museums of bad art”? Count me in.
@Jerry Reilly: 😀
@Jerry Reilly: 😀
And yet Greg, Newton is big enough that running citywide as a newbie is a daunting challenge and without a smaller sampling (ward counselors), the advantages of incumbancy and the suport of the big rolodexes- LWV, Dem commitee, etc, perpetuates the status quo. It would severely limit new blood into the system.
And yet Greg, Newton is big enough that running citywide as a newbie is a daunting challenge and without a smaller sampling (ward counselors), the advantages of incumbancy and the suport of the big rolodexes- LWV, Dem commitee, etc, perpetuates the status quo. It would severely limit new blood into the system.
Many years ago, Cambridge adopted proportional voting for the reasons Terry Malloy (love the hair) and others have suggested, to ensure minority representation with majority control of city government. In other words, “[a]ny group of voters that number more than one-tenth of the total population can be sure of electing at least one member of a nine-member Council, but a majority group of voters can be sure of electing a majority of the Council.” This has worked fairly well over the years, ensuring that dissenting voices in the minority were represented on the city council and school committee but not giving them a disproportionate share of seats. And since Cambridge computerized the process in 1997, it has become far less cumbersome to determine the outcome of elections.
Exactly.
Question for charter commissioners or city councilors: Where is it decreed that special permits must pass with 2/3 vote? I haven’t been able to find it in the Charter. One of the biggest arguments against ward commissioners (in a 24-person council) is that they can facilitate NIMBYism in special permit votes, yet their representation on the City Council is only one vote short of enough to block a special permit. I’m not familiar enough with the permitting process to know what the consequences would be if a majority were required instead of 2/3. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment?
Many years ago, Cambridge adopted proportional voting for the reasons Terry Malloy (love the hair) and others have suggested, to ensure minority representation with majority control of city government. In other words, “[a]ny group of voters that number more than one-tenth of the total population can be sure of electing at least one member of a nine-member Council, but a majority group of voters can be sure of electing a majority of the Council.” This has worked fairly well over the years, ensuring that dissenting voices in the minority were represented on the city council and school committee but not giving them a disproportionate share of seats. And since Cambridge computerized the process in 1997, it has become far less cumbersome to determine the outcome of elections.
Exactly.
Question for charter commissioners or city councilors: Where is it decreed that special permits must pass with 2/3 vote? I haven’t been able to find it in the Charter. One of the biggest arguments against ward commissioners (in a 24-person council) is that they can facilitate NIMBYism in special permit votes, yet their representation on the City Council is only one vote short of enough to block a special permit. I’m not familiar enough with the permitting process to know what the consequences would be if a majority were required instead of 2/3. Maybe someone more knowledgeable could comment?
As the Leagues’ history for protection of municipal affluence, citing values relevant to cultural stewardship through zoning, dominance in the special permitting process, peddling influence of the 19th amendmenters, and the continued sidestep of fair unbiased quasi-judicial government, one cannot help but study the lack of ethical values of a number of CC members.
Does any one not see a COI that the chair of ZBA (special permitting default) is reviewing and asserting influence upon that by which the very rules pertain? – and yet Golden Circle Kool-aid recipients continue the diluted mind wash.
Let us gauge the appetite of CC members by their individual quality of character, not by their individual penchant for an alleged ethical propensity. Actions speak louder than words, recusal always an option.
@Harry Sanders:
Actually, one can. Please speak for yourself if you are going to suggest unethical behavior from elected officials.
I’d probably be more annoyed with Harry if I could understand what the [bleep] his point is — or even what evil deed he believes people who volunteer their time to make our city a place to live are allegedly engaged in.
As the Leagues’ history for protection of municipal affluence, citing values relevant to cultural stewardship through zoning, dominance in the special permitting process, peddling influence of the 19th amendmenters, and the continued sidestep of fair unbiased quasi-judicial government, one cannot help but study the lack of ethical values of a number of CC members.
Does any one not see a COI that the chair of ZBA (special permitting default) is reviewing and asserting influence upon that by which the very rules pertain? – and yet Golden Circle Kool-aid recipients continue the diluted mind wash.
Let us gauge the appetite of CC members by their individual quality of character, not by their individual penchant for an alleged ethical propensity. Actions speak louder than words, recusal always an option.
@Harry Sanders:
Actually, one can. Please speak for yourself if you are going to suggest unethical behavior from elected officials.
I’d probably be more annoyed with Harry if I could understand what the [bleep] his point is — or even what evil deed he believes people who volunteer their time to make our city a place to live are allegedly engaged in.
Gail – Chapter 40, Section 9 of the GLM: “A special permit issued by a special permit granting authority shall require a two-thirds vote of boards with more than five members, a vote of at least four members of a five member board, and a unanimous vote of a three member board.”
Thanks Jane.
Gail – Chapter 40, Section 9 of the GLM: “A special permit issued by a special permit granting authority shall require a two-thirds vote of boards with more than five members, a vote of at least four members of a five member board, and a unanimous vote of a three member board.”
Thanks Jane.
@Jane,
Whats the plan for 3/4 vote?
@Jane,
Whats the plan for 3/4 vote?
@Ted: the 2% argument is most misleading. It implies that a large number of voters elect at-large Councilors, while only 2% elect Ward Councilors. By extrapolation of 2% per Ward, the at-large rep is elected, at most, by 16% of the electorate. (And that percentage would likely be much smaller). Hardly a mandate from the 84% of registered but “non-voting” voters distributed across the eight wards. There’s the real problem. And the CC is not really addressing that. Having 13 names or even 8 will not inform the voter any more than 24 unless there is something done to address VOTER IGNORANCE AND APATHY. Dumbing down the ballot is not the answer. Doing something to encourage voting is. Maybe allowing some incentive for renters and taxpayers at the polls; maybe a $100 tax credit if every eligible voter in a household votes?; maybe a lottery ticket to each voter who attends (with ID) a campaign debate? There has to be something…maybe it should be losing the RIGHT to vote if a voter misses 3 elections (allowing absentee voting). Or maybe online voting? We are all missing something fundamental here. Civic responsibility should raise our behavior to a higher level.
@Ted: the 2% argument is most misleading. It implies that a large number of voters elect at-large Councilors, while only 2% elect Ward Councilors. By extrapolation of 2% per Ward, the at-large rep is elected, at most, by 16% of the electorate. (And that percentage would likely be much smaller). Hardly a mandate from the 84% of registered but “non-voting” voters distributed across the eight wards. There’s the real problem. And the CC is not really addressing that. Having 13 names or even 8 will not inform the voter any more than 24 unless there is something done to address VOTER IGNORANCE AND APATHY. Dumbing down the ballot is not the answer. Doing something to encourage voting is. Maybe allowing some incentive for renters and taxpayers at the polls; maybe a $100 tax credit if every eligible voter in a household votes?; maybe a lottery ticket to each voter who attends (with ID) a campaign debate? There has to be something…maybe it should be losing the RIGHT to vote if a voter misses 3 elections (allowing absentee voting). Or maybe online voting? We are all missing something fundamental here. Civic responsibility should raise our behavior to a higher level.
Hi Simon-I not exactly sure what your question is but I assume you’re asking about Article 3 and 4. We have at least 2 issues to discuss related to these two Articles on May 18. We’ll have a thorough discussion of the form of government for Article 3 and review the length of School Committee term limits.
Terry-If you look at Newton’s election history over the last 15 years, it tells a different story. Steve Siegal, Margaret Albright, Jake Auchincloss, Ruthanne Fuller, David Kalis, Diana Fisher Gomberg, and famously, Geoff Epstein – none of them were well connected to either the LWV, Newton Dems, or any other large group and three were actively NOT involved with those groups, if that makes sense. However, each one had been involved in and had a history of contributing to city/school life in some significant way.
Gail-This is my reading of the state law and a lawyer should weigh in on it. If the state law allowed for a simple majority vote on special permits and large capital projects, I’d be way less concerned with a configuration that included ward Councilors. If special permits weren’t in the hands of the Council, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with the concept of ward Councilors.
Hi Simon-I not exactly sure what your question is but I assume you’re asking about Article 3 and 4. We have at least 2 issues to discuss related to these two Articles on May 18. We’ll have a thorough discussion of the form of government for Article 3 and review the length of School Committee term limits.
Terry-If you look at Newton’s election history over the last 15 years, it tells a different story. Steve Siegal, Margaret Albright, Jake Auchincloss, Ruthanne Fuller, David Kalis, Diana Fisher Gomberg, and famously, Geoff Epstein – none of them were well connected to either the LWV, Newton Dems, or any other large group and three were actively NOT involved with those groups, if that makes sense. However, each one had been involved in and had a history of contributing to city/school life in some significant way.
Gail-This is my reading of the state law and a lawyer should weigh in on it. If the state law allowed for a simple majority vote on special permits and large capital projects, I’d be way less concerned with a configuration that included ward Councilors. If special permits weren’t in the hands of the Council, I wouldn’t have much of a problem with the concept of ward Councilors.
@Gail wrote: “One of the biggest arguments against ward commissioners (in a 24-person council) is that they can facilitate NIMBYism in special permit votes, yet their representation on the City Council is only one vote short of enough to block a special permit.”
This is the clearest explanation I’ve heard for the Charter Commission’s vote. Thank you Gail.
@Emily: That reasoning comes from me. I have no idea what the Charter Commissioners were thinking.
@Ted: Am I correct that the ward councilor conflict-of-interest situation would be resolved if special permitting were the responsibility of the city professionals rather than elected officials? If that change were made, I would support keeping ward councilor. Eight at-large from each ward and 8 ward councilors. Is there any reason 16 would not be a workable number for the City Council?
@Gail wrote: “One of the biggest arguments against ward commissioners (in a 24-person council) is that they can facilitate NIMBYism in special permit votes, yet their representation on the City Council is only one vote short of enough to block a special permit.”
This is the clearest explanation I’ve heard for the Charter Commission’s vote. Thank you Gail.
@Emily: That reasoning comes from me. I have no idea what the Charter Commissioners were thinking.
@Ted: Am I correct that the ward councilor conflict-of-interest situation would be resolved if special permitting were the responsibility of the city professionals rather than elected officials? If that change were made, I would support keeping ward councilor. Eight at-large from each ward and 8 ward councilors. Is there any reason 16 would not be a workable number for the City Council?
@Gail, Jane Frantz is spot on. Chapter 40A Section 5 requires a two-thirds majority for zoning changes (except in limited circumstances where a three-quarters vote is required) and Section 9 requires a two-thirds majority for all special permit granting authorities with more than 5 members.
@Sallee, bribing voters to get out the vote? Seriously? In Australia, voting is mandatory, and registered voters can be fined for failing to exercise their franchise. But that just strikes me as . . . un-American.
I think that Jane hits the nail on the head when she says she would have no problem with Ward Councilors if the Council did not have the quasi-judicial function that comes with the special permit granting authority. Ward Councilors, who could easily be defeated in a contested re-election if they vote in favor of a controversial project in their Ward, have an inherent conflict of interest between their political interests and their obligation to be fair, objective and unbiased in deciding on a special permit. That doesn’t mean if they vote against a project that their vote was influenced by the inherent conflict of interest, if they are able to rise above their own interests and exercise their independent judgment. But there is no doubt in my mind that in states where judges are elected, they always have it in the back of their minds when they decide a controversial case.
I will reiterate my belief that a reasonable compromise would be to reduce the number of councilors to 12 and keep the same proportion of at large to ward representation, by combining wards and or precincts into 4 “districts” from which Councilors from each respective district would be elected. I think that reduces the inherent conflict of interest, albeit does not eliminate it entirely, of running in a ward where a relatively small percentage of the citywide electorate can decide your fate. And I don’t really see a need to have an odd number of Councilors, since the failure to get more than 6 votes would mean that a measure would not pass whether the number of councilors was 12 or 13. Moreover, having 13 actually makes the math harder for special permits and zoning amendments, since they would require 9 out of 13 votes instead of 8 out of 12 to pass.
@Gail, Jane Frantz is spot on. Chapter 40A Section 5 requires a two-thirds majority for zoning changes (except in limited circumstances where a three-quarters vote is required) and Section 9 requires a two-thirds majority for all special permit granting authorities with more than 5 members.
@Sallee, bribing voters to get out the vote? Seriously? In Australia, voting is mandatory, and registered voters can be fined for failing to exercise their franchise. But that just strikes me as . . . un-American.
I think that Jane hits the nail on the head when she says she would have no problem with Ward Councilors if the Council did not have the quasi-judicial function that comes with the special permit granting authority. Ward Councilors, who could easily be defeated in a contested re-election if they vote in favor of a controversial project in their Ward, have an inherent conflict of interest between their political interests and their obligation to be fair, objective and unbiased in deciding on a special permit. That doesn’t mean if they vote against a project that their vote was influenced by the inherent conflict of interest, if they are able to rise above their own interests and exercise their independent judgment. But there is no doubt in my mind that in states where judges are elected, they always have it in the back of their minds when they decide a controversial case.
I will reiterate my belief that a reasonable compromise would be to reduce the number of councilors to 12 and keep the same proportion of at large to ward representation, by combining wards and or precincts into 4 “districts” from which Councilors from each respective district would be elected. I think that reduces the inherent conflict of interest, albeit does not eliminate it entirely, of running in a ward where a relatively small percentage of the citywide electorate can decide your fate. And I don’t really see a need to have an odd number of Councilors, since the failure to get more than 6 votes would mean that a measure would not pass whether the number of councilors was 12 or 13. Moreover, having 13 actually makes the math harder for special permits and zoning amendments, since they would require 9 out of 13 votes instead of 8 out of 12 to pass.
@Gail, Section 1A of Chapter 40A provides that a ”special permit granting authority” may include the board of selectmen, city council, board of appeals, planning board, or zoning administrators as designated by zoning ordinance or by-law for the issuance of special permits. Under Section 6, the City Council may also delegate its special permit granting authority to more than one municipal body for different kinds of special permits.
I think that if the size of the City Council is reduced we ought to maintain the same balance of at large and ward councilors. So long as each ward must have at least one at large councilor I do not see the overwhelming need for lso having a ward councilors from each ward. The converse argument is also true–the reason people oppose the reduction or elimination of ward councilors is because the City Council is the sole special permit granting authority.
Is 16 workable? It is certainly smaller than 24, but larger than most city councils which range in size from 9 to 13. Personally, I would rather see fewer councilors who get compensated well enough to dedicate full-time to public service. Otherwise, the only people who could serve effectively would be those who are retired or well off enough not to have to also work a day job full-time to support themselves and their families. Maybe then you would get more people willing to run.
@Gail, Section 1A of Chapter 40A provides that a ”special permit granting authority” may include the board of selectmen, city council, board of appeals, planning board, or zoning administrators as designated by zoning ordinance or by-law for the issuance of special permits. Under Section 6, the City Council may also delegate its special permit granting authority to more than one municipal body for different kinds of special permits.
I think that if the size of the City Council is reduced we ought to maintain the same balance of at large and ward councilors. So long as each ward must have at least one at large councilor I do not see the overwhelming need for lso having a ward councilors from each ward. The converse argument is also true–the reason people oppose the reduction or elimination of ward councilors is because the City Council is the sole special permit granting authority.
Is 16 workable? It is certainly smaller than 24, but larger than most city councils which range in size from 9 to 13. Personally, I would rather see fewer councilors who get compensated well enough to dedicate full-time to public service. Otherwise, the only people who could serve effectively would be those who are retired or well off enough not to have to also work a day job full-time to support themselves and their families. Maybe then you would get more people willing to run.
Just to clarify, are we part of a shadowy Republican conspiracy or Democratic City Committee conspiracy now? I can’t keep track anymore.
PS @Adam I enjoyed your attempt at levity, even if it inevitably was going to turn into a continuation of the important substantive debate
Just to clarify, are we part of a shadowy Republican conspiracy or Democratic City Committee conspiracy now? I can’t keep track anymore.
PS @Adam I enjoyed your attempt at levity, even if it inevitably was going to turn into a continuation of the important substantive debate
Gail-Thank you for clarifying where your thinking comes from.
As evidence for what happens to a ward alderman when s/he does not toe the party line, remember what happened to the ward 5 alderman who proposed (gasp) putting parking meters in Waban.
Gail-Thank you for clarifying where your thinking comes from.
As evidence for what happens to a ward alderman when s/he does not toe the party line, remember what happened to the ward 5 alderman who proposed (gasp) putting parking meters in Waban.
@Ted
“I think that if the size of the City Council is reduced we ought to maintain the same balance of at large and ward councilors.”
Why?
@Ted
“I think that if the size of the City Council is reduced we ought to maintain the same balance of at large and ward councilors.”
Why?
Jane,
Over the last fifteen years you can come up with TWO or three candidates that succeeded in an era where you have two At-Large and a ward counselor per Ward? (You mixed in SC. You are forgiven). Thank you for proving the point. It’s very difficult to fight the status quo.
Regarding your comment about the alderman putting parking meters in Waban: it wasn’t that simple, but yes, it’s a great example of having a constituency able to respond when they feel they are abused. In that case, if all we have are Ward Counselors we are impotent. Another great example. Thank you for making the point that we need Ward Counselors.
Jane,
Over the last fifteen years you can come up with TWO or three candidates that succeeded in an era where you have two At-Large and a ward counselor per Ward? (You mixed in SC. You are forgiven). Thank you for proving the point. It’s very difficult to fight the status quo.
Regarding your comment about the alderman putting parking meters in Waban: it wasn’t that simple, but yes, it’s a great example of having a constituency able to respond when they feel they are abused. In that case, if all we have are Ward Counselors we are impotent. Another great example. Thank you for making the point that we need Ward Counselors.
Paul, the City Council has the legal authority to delegate its special permit granting authority (SPGS), or not. I do not expect that the Council will give up the SPGA, at least not for major projects, no matter how many councilors there are and whether they are elected at large or by ward. I have already said that there is an inherent conflict of interest for ward Councilors when they must vote on controversial projects in their ward. I would not want to tilt the balance in favor of more parochialism. So, I offer this as a compromise between the straw vote of the Charter Commission to reduce the size of the Council to 13 and eliminate Ward Councilors entirely or leave the size and composition of the City Council as is.
This is not a new discussion. I have co-docketed charter amendments to reduce the size of the board of aldermen twice and both times, our efforts to downsize the board failed because there was no consensus about what would be the ideal size and composition the board. Ultimately, it was decided that the issue should be left up to a Charter Commission to review and decide and then put it on the ballot.
Paul, the City Council has the legal authority to delegate its special permit granting authority (SPGS), or not. I do not expect that the Council will give up the SPGA, at least not for major projects, no matter how many councilors there are and whether they are elected at large or by ward. I have already said that there is an inherent conflict of interest for ward Councilors when they must vote on controversial projects in their ward. I would not want to tilt the balance in favor of more parochialism. So, I offer this as a compromise between the straw vote of the Charter Commission to reduce the size of the Council to 13 and eliminate Ward Councilors entirely or leave the size and composition of the City Council as is.
This is not a new discussion. I have co-docketed charter amendments to reduce the size of the board of aldermen twice and both times, our efforts to downsize the board failed because there was no consensus about what would be the ideal size and composition the board. Ultimately, it was decided that the issue should be left up to a Charter Commission to review and decide and then put it on the ballot.
I can’t wait to vote on it!
I can’t wait to vote on it!
When the council is at 24, it’s current state, I can vote in 9 races for 17 candidates.
.
So I have my ward, my 2 at-large from my ward, and the two at-large from every other ward (7 races, 14 candidates).
.
( And then the mayor. And the 8 members of the school committee.
.
So at the local level I have to have opinions on 26 people – because I will bullet vote, or withold my vote in uncontested races.
.
Let’s imagine EVERY race is contested – with just one contender – in a mayoral election year.
.
Yay! I have to vote in 18 local races and research 26+18 = 44 candidates. That is completely reasonable to ask all voters to do (and the other adults in my house have NEVER asked for the “who should I vote for” cheat sheet. Never. Mmm-hmm.))
.
Now let’s consider an alternate structure: 8 ward councillors, 4 (or 5) at-large councillors,
.
9 races reduces to 2: one for my ward, and one for at-large with a number of candidates. Even contested I’m looking at 8 candidates across 2 races.
.
I hate to say this, but it’s really hard to figure out a council-persons stance on anything through official documents. They are usually like “Thing X was proposed. The council recommended changing it to X’. The petitioner agreed with the change. X (as X’) was passed 24-0).
.
When I first arrived in Newton I based my voting off of the 2 contested votes I could find. One concerned if the town should pay for a compost turning attachment. given the rumsford compost caught on fire becasue it wasn’t turned 9After the vote) … yeah.
.
TL;DR – Right now there are a lot of races a voter needs to be informed about, and it’s hard to find information even if you want to. Reducing the size of things but keeping all of the “at-large” from a paticular ward does not address this, and requires candidates to campaign town-wide (which can discourage challenges, or cause informal “parties” to form with the network to bak a candidate). I do not like the “from ward N, but elected by all” format AT ALL.
When the council is at 24, it’s current state, I can vote in 9 races for 17 candidates.
.
So I have my ward, my 2 at-large from my ward, and the two at-large from every other ward (7 races, 14 candidates).
.
( And then the mayor. And the 8 members of the school committee.
.
So at the local level I have to have opinions on 26 people – because I will bullet vote, or withold my vote in uncontested races.
.
Let’s imagine EVERY race is contested – with just one contender – in a mayoral election year.
.
Yay! I have to vote in 18 local races and research 26+18 = 44 candidates. That is completely reasonable to ask all voters to do (and the other adults in my house have NEVER asked for the “who should I vote for” cheat sheet. Never. Mmm-hmm.))
.
Now let’s consider an alternate structure: 8 ward councillors, 4 (or 5) at-large councillors,
.
9 races reduces to 2: one for my ward, and one for at-large with a number of candidates. Even contested I’m looking at 8 candidates across 2 races.
.
I hate to say this, but it’s really hard to figure out a council-persons stance on anything through official documents. They are usually like “Thing X was proposed. The council recommended changing it to X’. The petitioner agreed with the change. X (as X’) was passed 24-0).
.
When I first arrived in Newton I based my voting off of the 2 contested votes I could find. One concerned if the town should pay for a compost turning attachment. given the rumsford compost caught on fire becasue it wasn’t turned 9After the vote) … yeah.
.
TL;DR – Right now there are a lot of races a voter needs to be informed about, and it’s hard to find information even if you want to. Reducing the size of things but keeping all of the “at-large” from a paticular ward does not address this, and requires candidates to campaign town-wide (which can discourage challenges, or cause informal “parties” to form with the network to bak a candidate). I do not like the “from ward N, but elected by all” format AT ALL.