The democratically-elected Charter Commission has been, more or less, accused of being a nefarious, secret agenda-driven, power-grabbing, little-guy-loathing, wholly-owned subsidiary of the League of Women Voters by some commentators here on Village 14 and elsewhere for doing, well, what we elected them to do; which is consider and propose changes to Newton’s Charter.
Now you can see this “nefarious” group in person — and offer a public comment — when they meet, as they always do, in public at Newton City Hall, starting at 7 p.m. tonight (Wednesday) in room 211. Agenda is here.
Be there or stop complaining.
“Be there or stop complaining” – umm, no. People work, people have children, people have mobility issues, people have health issues… if the Charter Commissioners are interested in what their constituents have to say, they will find ways to reach out to them, same as every elected official should be doing.
“Be there or stop complaining” – umm, no. People work, people have children, people have mobility issues, people have health issues… if the Charter Commissioners are interested in what their constituents have to say, they will find ways to reach out to them, same as every elected official should be doing.
Emily’s point is fair, but this process seems no less exclusive and non-inclusionary as every city council meeting, planning, zoning, development etc. meeting. Young people won’t be there (I am nearly 30 and consistently I am the youngest in the room and usually the only one in my age bracket at any public meeting I attend), families won’t be there, some minorities may, but many won’t be (our non-english speaking Chinese neighbors here in Newtonville for one), service workers etc.. What you get at almost all public meetings is white, older, retired, home-owners. They have every right to representation of their specific issues but it tends to be the only voice in the room, and that is not fair at all. This is a problem across the country and I don’t have a solution to it. But the criticism of the charter commission meetings is only fair if you also criticize the fact that folks are being left out of every other city-run public meeting (which I don’t see much of at all, just complaints that the decision is pre-determined…).
Emily’s point is fair, but this process seems no less exclusive and non-inclusionary as every city council meeting, planning, zoning, development etc. meeting. Young people won’t be there (I am nearly 30 and consistently I am the youngest in the room and usually the only one in my age bracket at any public meeting I attend), families won’t be there, some minorities may, but many won’t be (our non-english speaking Chinese neighbors here in Newtonville for one), service workers etc.. What you get at almost all public meetings is white, older, retired, home-owners. They have every right to representation of their specific issues but it tends to be the only voice in the room, and that is not fair at all. This is a problem across the country and I don’t have a solution to it. But the criticism of the charter commission meetings is only fair if you also criticize the fact that folks are being left out of every other city-run public meeting (which I don’t see much of at all, just complaints that the decision is pre-determined…).
I’m very confused councilor Norton about the emails you are circulating –
“Want me to keep working for you? In Nov. 2017 VOTE NO on charter commission recommendation to eliminate Ward Councilors!”
The commission took a preliminary straw vote to have 13 at-large Councilors. This process has only recently begun. No decisions have been made. This message, along with your other longer ones, has people asking if the process is over and is this a done deal and has led to a get out the vote no campaign. Why start and continue this hullabaloo? Why not explain the continuing process and encourage parcipation.
I’m very confused councilor Norton about the emails you are circulating –
“Want me to keep working for you? In Nov. 2017 VOTE NO on charter commission recommendation to eliminate Ward Councilors!”
The commission took a preliminary straw vote to have 13 at-large Councilors. This process has only recently begun. No decisions have been made. This message, along with your other longer ones, has people asking if the process is over and is this a done deal and has led to a get out the vote no campaign. Why start and continue this hullabaloo? Why not explain the continuing process and encourage parcipation.
John, I am not able to attend many council or commission meetings but I don’t feel I’m underrepresented. I get the Friday docket emails, determine if there are concerns I’m interested in. If I can’t go to a public meeting, I email my concerns to David Olson to distribute to the City Councilors. I read the minutes of the meetings, including the notes on who said what, or listen to the audio. If land use or development is being discussed I read the previous live tweets from the NVA.
I’m on the email list for the Charter Commission and know theirs to send them my thoughts.
Oh and I read Villiage 14.
You don’t have to attend to contribute or know what is happening.
John, I am not able to attend many council or commission meetings but I don’t feel I’m underrepresented. I get the Friday docket emails, determine if there are concerns I’m interested in. If I can’t go to a public meeting, I email my concerns to David Olson to distribute to the City Councilors. I read the minutes of the meetings, including the notes on who said what, or listen to the audio. If land use or development is being discussed I read the previous live tweets from the NVA.
I’m on the email list for the Charter Commission and know theirs to send them my thoughts.
Oh and I read Villiage 14.
You don’t have to attend to contribute or know what is happening.
Marti,
Are you saying that Counselor Norton is already circulating those emails? You won’t find anyone more pro-ward counselor than I, but really, are we campaigning already? Should we not wait and see what recommendations the Comission makes? Can you or Counselor Norton clarify?
Marti,
Are you saying that Counselor Norton is already circulating those emails? You won’t find anyone more pro-ward counselor than I, but really, are we campaigning already? Should we not wait and see what recommendations the Comission makes? Can you or Counselor Norton clarify?
On April 25th, I received my usual email newsletter from Emily Norton. In this edition she argued strongly that in her opinion, the Commission’s vote to eliminate direct local ward representation was a mistake. And, that an implementation of same would not help direct democracy in her opinion.
Near the end, she wrapped it up with this statement of fact:
“All the voters will get to vote on the Charter Commission proposal in November 2017.”
Followed by:
“If you are interested in saving the Ward Councilor seats, please send me an email.”
The latter sentence also seems reasonable. If one is inclined to agree with her, she’s asking for support and conversation. Beyond that, who knows, but asking for input at this stage is pretty standard.
If she has sent out emails other than the above, I have not seen them.
On April 25th, I received my usual email newsletter from Emily Norton. In this edition she argued strongly that in her opinion, the Commission’s vote to eliminate direct local ward representation was a mistake. And, that an implementation of same would not help direct democracy in her opinion.
Near the end, she wrapped it up with this statement of fact:
“All the voters will get to vote on the Charter Commission proposal in November 2017.”
Followed by:
“If you are interested in saving the Ward Councilor seats, please send me an email.”
The latter sentence also seems reasonable. If one is inclined to agree with her, she’s asking for support and conversation. Beyond that, who knows, but asking for input at this stage is pretty standard.
If she has sent out emails other than the above, I have not seen them.
Terry, yes the quote I posted above is the shortest of the emails Councilor Norton is presently circulating which is why I posted the question to her.
I agree with you and support Ward representation but I am very disappointed in the the campaigning.
Terry, yes the quote I posted above is the shortest of the emails Councilor Norton is presently circulating which is why I posted the question to her.
I agree with you and support Ward representation but I am very disappointed in the the campaigning.
When did it become bad form to exercise one’s First Amendment rights? I’ve got no problem with any of the quotes attributed to Councilor Norton.
Again, I commend the Charter Commission for the job they’ve done thus far. They’ve gone about their business in a transparent and engaging way, that in my opinion has already set a new standard for government in Newton. Some may disagree with their current suggestion of eliminating ward representation. And I personally believes ward representation is essential to preserving Newton’s unique, village-centric structure. But I applaud the CC putting the concept out there for public debate, just as I support Emily’s right to voice her opinion on the topic.
When did it become bad form to exercise one’s First Amendment rights? I’ve got no problem with any of the quotes attributed to Councilor Norton.
Again, I commend the Charter Commission for the job they’ve done thus far. They’ve gone about their business in a transparent and engaging way, that in my opinion has already set a new standard for government in Newton. Some may disagree with their current suggestion of eliminating ward representation. And I personally believes ward representation is essential to preserving Newton’s unique, village-centric structure. But I applaud the CC putting the concept out there for public debate, just as I support Emily’s right to voice her opinion on the topic.
@John my post was in response to Greg saying “Be there or stop complaining.” We have to get out of the mindset that people must attend night meetings in person in order to have a voice.
@Marti I think it is fair to assume this straw vote is where the Charter Commission is leaning, since it’s how they voted – unanimously I should add. I feel very strongly eliminating ward-specific representation is bad for democracy and bad for Newton and I am going to be advocating for what I believe is best for Ward 2 and for Newton, as I always do.
@Terry I would be happy to add you to my distribution list if you’d like to email me at [email protected]. My newsletters can also be accessed from my website.
I remain genuinely undecided about the ward councilor seat issue. Sometimes I feel like the only undecided person left in Newton.
I know I support a smaller council and that requires making a difficult decision as to how those seats should be allocated. I see both the pros and the cons of eliminating the ward seats vs. at large seats to accomplish this.
It becomes especially daunting to think about eliminating seats when you attach names and faces to any decision. We have some really terrific public servants in those seats.
But any decision about how we should structure our city government must not be about John Rice, Lisle Baker, Alison Leary, Emily Norton etc. but about future generations, i.e. long after City Councilor (insert your favorites here) and the rest of us have moved on.
What I object to, and have consistently objected to over the years is the vilification of citizens who volunteer to serve our community by sitting on a board or commission. And vilification is exactly what some of our fellow residents have been doing of late to our nine unpaid, democratically elected, Charter Commissioners when they accuse them of being nefarious, power grabbers, beholden to a secret agenda, etc. etc.
No, they just happen to favor a different vision for how our city should best be structured.
When I wrote “Be there or stop complaining” it was in reference anyone who is shocked that the commission came to this position and have all but accused Sue Flicop of whispering directions into their 18 ears.
No, they just happen to favor a different vision for how our city should best be structured.
I did not mean to suggest that you need to attend meetings to have a voice (in fact I started a separate discussion on that very issue here and hey that’s why we have this blog!) and I apologize to anyone who read it that way.
It’s easy to see why Councilor Norton might feel threatened enough to start campaigning to save her job now. But how about if the rest of us discuss this on the merits rather than as the plot of an Oliver Stone movie.
@John my post was in response to Greg saying “Be there or stop complaining.” We have to get out of the mindset that people must attend night meetings in person in order to have a voice.
@Marti I think it is fair to assume this straw vote is where the Charter Commission is leaning, since it’s how they voted – unanimously I should add. I feel very strongly eliminating ward-specific representation is bad for democracy and bad for Newton and I am going to be advocating for what I believe is best for Ward 2 and for Newton, as I always do.
@Terry I would be happy to add you to my distribution list if you’d like to email me at [email protected]. My newsletters can also be accessed from my website.
I remain genuinely undecided about the ward councilor seat issue. Sometimes I feel like the only undecided person left in Newton.
I know I support a smaller council and that requires making a difficult decision as to how those seats should be allocated. I see both the pros and the cons of eliminating the ward seats vs. at large seats to accomplish this.
It becomes especially daunting to think about eliminating seats when you attach names and faces to any decision. We have some really terrific public servants in those seats.
But any decision about how we should structure our city government must not be about John Rice, Lisle Baker, Alison Leary, Emily Norton etc. but about future generations, i.e. long after City Councilor (insert your favorites here) and the rest of us have moved on.
What I object to, and have consistently objected to over the years is the vilification of citizens who volunteer to serve our community by sitting on a board or commission. And vilification is exactly what some of our fellow residents have been doing of late to our nine unpaid, democratically elected, Charter Commissioners when they accuse them of being nefarious, power grabbers, beholden to a secret agenda, etc. etc.
No, they just happen to favor a different vision for how our city should best be structured.
When I wrote “Be there or stop complaining” it was in reference anyone who is shocked that the commission came to this position and have all but accused Sue Flicop of whispering directions into their 18 ears.
No, they just happen to favor a different vision for how our city should best be structured.
I did not mean to suggest that you need to attend meetings to have a voice (in fact I started a separate discussion on that very issue here and hey that’s why we have this blog!) and I apologize to anyone who read it that way.
It’s easy to see why Councilor Norton might feel threatened enough to start campaigning to save her job now. But how about if the rest of us discuss this on the merits rather than as the plot of an Oliver Stone movie.
As long as Councilor Norton is using her campaign email account to campaign against the Charter Commission’s straw vote, there is nothing wrong with what she is doing. Using city email to campaign, however, is a violation of the campaign finance laws.
As long as Councilor Norton is using her campaign email account to campaign against the Charter Commission’s straw vote, there is nothing wrong with what she is doing. Using city email to campaign, however, is a violation of the campaign finance laws.
@Ted- (or anyone else with good information)
I’d be interested to know what the rules are on the Charter Commission using some of the $7500 + $45000 in public funds to advertise and “sell” their new charter proposal. If you can shed light, it would be appreciated.
Generally on a ballot, space is given for a yes position and a no position. (does that apply here?)
But I’m really talking more about the months leading up to the vote.
I would have no problem with a message that says “Vote ON the new Charter proposal”
I would have a HUGE problem with a message using public funds that said “Vote FOR the new Charter proposal”
@Ted- (or anyone else with good information)
I’d be interested to know what the rules are on the Charter Commission using some of the $7500 + $45000 in public funds to advertise and “sell” their new charter proposal. If you can shed light, it would be appreciated.
Generally on a ballot, space is given for a yes position and a no position. (does that apply here?)
But I’m really talking more about the months leading up to the vote.
I would have no problem with a message that says “Vote ON the new Charter proposal”
I would have a HUGE problem with a message using public funds that said “Vote FOR the new Charter proposal”
Charlie-The public funds pay for clerk/consultant costs as well as printing costs. Absolutely not one penny of public funds will go to any campaign of any kind.
Charlie-The public funds pay for clerk/consultant costs as well as printing costs. Absolutely not one penny of public funds will go to any campaign of any kind.
Just to get it out of the way, At this time I continue to support Ward representation of some kind (8 or 4 if consolidated in some way) and keeping the balance the way it is now with at-large representation. I think the tie breaker should continue to be the president of the city council, a title to be held by an at-large representative.
I find it a complicated issue and think it needs further investigation. My knee jerk reaction was in strong support of Ward representation but I’m not as confident as I was before.
I did not and do not dispute Councilor Norton’s right to speak as she wishes or question her right to use any email address. I never at anytime time said she did anything wrong. I was questioning Councilor Norton’s reasoning.
I understand she wants to keep her job. I anticipated pleas from Ward Councilors for residents to inform the commission of their strong support for Ward representation including not eliminating their jobs by contacting the commission by any means possible. That is productive and asking residents to be a part of the process. I think that Councilor Norton’s method is counterproductive and divisive rather than inclusive.
I am disappointed in her choice to begin her campaign, so early in the process, by telling voters to vote against the Charter Commission’s recommendations in November 2017 leading some to believe the process is over and that those recommendations can be voted on individually.
This method has also spurred a flurry of activity among recipients, including those to whom it was forwarded. It has done nothing but feed beliefs that the elected Charter Commission is somehow a puppet of some powerful organization and stir up anxieties and speculation among the groups who were adamantly opposed to the Austin Street project and others.
All people are entitled to their opinions and should definitely let the commission know your thoughts. I am not questioning or indicating otherwise.
Below is the complete email containing the tag I posted above. I have posted it so those above who apparently haven’t seen it will see the truth of its existence.
Thanks for posting Marti. This line does seem to be a little over the top:
The Charter Commission did not vote to eliminate Emily Norton. It voted to eliminate all eight ward seats (oh and it was only a straw vote, not a final decision). Councilor Norton would be doing a service to her constituents to clarify that in her next communication or risk losing credibility to her reputation as someone who likes to tell it like it is.
Just to get it out of the way, At this time I continue to support Ward representation of some kind (8 or 4 if consolidated in some way) and keeping the balance the way it is now with at-large representation. I think the tie breaker should continue to be the president of the city council, a title to be held by an at-large representative.
I find it a complicated issue and think it needs further investigation. My knee jerk reaction was in strong support of Ward representation but I’m not as confident as I was before.
I did not and do not dispute Councilor Norton’s right to speak as she wishes or question her right to use any email address. I never at anytime time said she did anything wrong. I was questioning Councilor Norton’s reasoning.
I understand she wants to keep her job. I anticipated pleas from Ward Councilors for residents to inform the commission of their strong support for Ward representation including not eliminating their jobs by contacting the commission by any means possible. That is productive and asking residents to be a part of the process. I think that Councilor Norton’s method is counterproductive and divisive rather than inclusive.
I am disappointed in her choice to begin her campaign, so early in the process, by telling voters to vote against the Charter Commission’s recommendations in November 2017 leading some to believe the process is over and that those recommendations can be voted on individually.
This method has also spurred a flurry of activity among recipients, including those to whom it was forwarded. It has done nothing but feed beliefs that the elected Charter Commission is somehow a puppet of some powerful organization and stir up anxieties and speculation among the groups who were adamantly opposed to the Austin Street project and others.
All people are entitled to their opinions and should definitely let the commission know your thoughts. I am not questioning or indicating otherwise.
Below is the complete email containing the tag I posted above. I have posted it so those above who apparently haven’t seen it will see the truth of its existence.
Thanks for posting Marti. This line does seem to be a little over the top:
The Charter Commission did not vote to eliminate Emily Norton. It voted to eliminate all eight ward seats (oh and it was only a straw vote, not a final decision). Councilor Norton would be doing a service to her constituents to clarify that in her next communication or risk losing credibility to her reputation as someone who likes to tell it like it is.
@Greg. You know I disagree with the conclusions drawn by the Charter Commission on their choice of all At-Large representation (some with Ward residency requirements). And…I have attended (and spoken) at many of their meetings. Nonetheless, I truly believe that they are approaching their decisions openly through study and discussion. Their discussion last night on term length and term limits was thoughtful and open…with some members actually saying they were persuaded to change their minds by other Commissioners and some saying they needed more time to think about the issue. Their discussion and explanation and interaction on the Commission regarding the straw vote to change from direct Ward plus At-Large representation to all At-Large representation was not as well articulated and didn’t argue the points that a real debate would raise. Without having a seat at the table, I and others have tried to offer arguments that might persuade them to reconsider that choice. Whether they do or not remains to be seen. I certainly would like to advise them to form a mock debate with 2 of them honestly debating for mixed representation of Direct and at-Large and 2 of them honestly debating for all At-Large. They are now offering a fundamental change to our governance without (IMHO) the same attention that they displayed last night on term length and limits. They are not villains…they are extremely hard working…I, for one, am grateful that we have nine Commissioners who volunteer so much of their time to take on this task.
As to whether the straw vote was meaningfully a final vote…the next steps that the Commission will take, as they did last night, will depend on their determination of the number of Councilors as 13, all elected At-Large. If they were to reconsider this decision at a later date, they would have to alter many of the decisions coming up in the remaining Charter Articles. I hope they will have back-up strategies for that possibility…for example, how Councilors would be elected (staggered terms?) if the Council has 16 members (8 at-Large and 8 direct Ward) in their final determination.
Good comment Sallee.
@Greg. You know I disagree with the conclusions drawn by the Charter Commission on their choice of all At-Large representation (some with Ward residency requirements). And…I have attended (and spoken) at many of their meetings. Nonetheless, I truly believe that they are approaching their decisions openly through study and discussion. Their discussion last night on term length and term limits was thoughtful and open…with some members actually saying they were persuaded to change their minds by other Commissioners and some saying they needed more time to think about the issue. Their discussion and explanation and interaction on the Commission regarding the straw vote to change from direct Ward plus At-Large representation to all At-Large representation was not as well articulated and didn’t argue the points that a real debate would raise. Without having a seat at the table, I and others have tried to offer arguments that might persuade them to reconsider that choice. Whether they do or not remains to be seen. I certainly would like to advise them to form a mock debate with 2 of them honestly debating for mixed representation of Direct and at-Large and 2 of them honestly debating for all At-Large. They are now offering a fundamental change to our governance without (IMHO) the same attention that they displayed last night on term length and limits. They are not villains…they are extremely hard working…I, for one, am grateful that we have nine Commissioners who volunteer so much of their time to take on this task.
As to whether the straw vote was meaningfully a final vote…the next steps that the Commission will take, as they did last night, will depend on their determination of the number of Councilors as 13, all elected At-Large. If they were to reconsider this decision at a later date, they would have to alter many of the decisions coming up in the remaining Charter Articles. I hope they will have back-up strategies for that possibility…for example, how Councilors would be elected (staggered terms?) if the Council has 16 members (8 at-Large and 8 direct Ward) in their final determination.
Good comment Sallee.
I think the process is on going and make no assumptions about the final vote. These commission members are continuing to deliberate, listen to the public and have the capability of considering more information before making a final decision. It’s far from a done deal.
I applaud the Charter Commission’s transparency. It’s turning out to be courageous as each straw vote leads to wild speculation about their integrity.
I think the process is on going and make no assumptions about the final vote. These commission members are continuing to deliberate, listen to the public and have the capability of considering more information before making a final decision. It’s far from a done deal.
I applaud the Charter Commission’s transparency. It’s turning out to be courageous as each straw vote leads to wild speculation about their integrity.
There should be no speculation about their integrity. I am a huge critic of what I see as public bodies with special interests on the side. (Example: the MA State Legislature that applies the OML to us ‘umble local servants, but not to themselves.) And I am a full-fledged cynic! All my idols walk on feet of clay! Not with the Charter Commission at all.
There should be no speculation about their integrity. I am a huge critic of what I see as public bodies with special interests on the side. (Example: the MA State Legislature that applies the OML to us ‘umble local servants, but not to themselves.) And I am a full-fledged cynic! All my idols walk on feet of clay! Not with the Charter Commission at all.
Hopefully over time people will realize how much all members of the Commission value transparency, communication, and outreach. Bryan Barash has emphasized many of these points before, but I will re-post this information and provide a full recap/overview for anyone who is interested:
Our City Council website “shortcut” is newtonma.gov. This site includes an introduction page (and link to Newton’s current charter), our agendas, minutes, audio, and supporting documentation such as an Article 2 Discussion Guide. Those on our mailing list receive our emails and meeting reminders. The mailing list does require a “direct subscribe”~ so please go to http://www.eepurl.com/bKbp1D (or to our site) to sign up.
Our Facebook page is facebook.com/newtonchartercommission, and please follow us on Twitter~twitter.com/NewtonMACharter.
Emails sent to “[email protected]” will reach all members of the Commission.
We encourage everyone to please share this information with others who may be interested. We value your input and feedback regarding our deliberations and communications.
Hopefully over time people will realize how much all members of the Commission value transparency, communication, and outreach. Bryan Barash has emphasized many of these points before, but I will re-post this information and provide a full recap/overview for anyone who is interested:
Our City Council website “shortcut” is newtonma.gov. This site includes an introduction page (and link to Newton’s current charter), our agendas, minutes, audio, and supporting documentation such as an Article 2 Discussion Guide. Those on our mailing list receive our emails and meeting reminders. The mailing list does require a “direct subscribe”~ so please go to http://www.eepurl.com/bKbp1D (or to our site) to sign up.
Our Facebook page is facebook.com/newtonchartercommission, and please follow us on Twitter~twitter.com/NewtonMACharter.
Emails sent to “[email protected]” will reach all members of the Commission.
We encourage everyone to please share this information with others who may be interested. We value your input and feedback regarding our deliberations and communications.
Please note a
correction (to the above) re: our city website shortcut, which is newtonma.gov/charter.
Thank you!
Please note a
correction (to the above) re: our city website shortcut, which is newtonma.gov/charter.
Thank you!
On the issue of staggering elections, with a four year term, it would inherently unfair to always have some councilors running only in Mayoral election years and some only in non-Mayoral election years, in terms of turnout, etc.
Former President Emeritus of the Board Verne Vance and I once docketed a charter amendment to make the terms 3 years and have staggered elections of one-third of the board each year. So no more than eight races on the ballot in any given election, and no seat’s election year would always fall in an off year election or a Mayoral, Gubernatorial or Presidential election year. There were some complications, however, with having municipal and state elections on the same ballot, so it was ultimately NAN’d.
This Charter Commission is a thoughtful group that has studied the issues, as they should. I don’t happen to agree with everything they have come up with, but I admire them for trying.
On the issue of staggering elections, with a four year term, it would inherently unfair to always have some councilors running only in Mayoral election years and some only in non-Mayoral election years, in terms of turnout, etc.
Former President Emeritus of the Board Verne Vance and I once docketed a charter amendment to make the terms 3 years and have staggered elections of one-third of the board each year. So no more than eight races on the ballot in any given election, and no seat’s election year would always fall in an off year election or a Mayoral, Gubernatorial or Presidential election year. There were some complications, however, with having municipal and state elections on the same ballot, so it was ultimately NAN’d.
This Charter Commission is a thoughtful group that has studied the issues, as they should. I don’t happen to agree with everything they have come up with, but I admire them for trying.
I agree with you, Ted!
There’s a lesson there.
I frequently don’t agree with THM on many issues. But I do not believe he is a villain. We all have to realize that opinions are just that, opinions, and we have to do our best work to persuade others by legitimate means that our thinking is the most reasoned and acceptable to them.
I agree with you, Ted!
There’s a lesson there.
I frequently don’t agree with THM on many issues. But I do not believe he is a villain. We all have to realize that opinions are just that, opinions, and we have to do our best work to persuade others by legitimate means that our thinking is the most reasoned and acceptable to them.
What fun! I get to agree with both Ted and Sallee.
What fun! I get to agree with both Ted and Sallee.
I’m getting scared! There’s way too much agreeing going on around here 😉
I’m getting scared! There’s way too much agreeing going on around here 😉
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name!
Pleased to meet you, hope you guess my name!
There should be no questioning of their integrity…but pre-disposition, judgement, and agenda are well within bounds.
For example, an all at large council makes it easier to ram through an agenda of increased density, construction, and more centralized decision making, while giving voters the least amount of say about what happens in their neighborhood.
This is not an example of lack of integrity (unless its denied by the proponents), but you could easily say its a bad agenda and poor judgement.
There should be no questioning of their integrity…but pre-disposition, judgement, and agenda are well within bounds.
For example, an all at large council makes it easier to ram through an agenda of increased density, construction, and more centralized decision making, while giving voters the least amount of say about what happens in their neighborhood.
This is not an example of lack of integrity (unless its denied by the proponents), but you could easily say its a bad agenda and poor judgement.
@Charlie, or you could say is a “different agenda” and an “other judgment.”
There are at-large members of the City Council who are just as anti-density, etc., as your idealized ward Councilors (some of whom support smart growth), and they frequently vote that way on special permits and zoning amendments. They don’t distinguish between wards or villages, and, if the public is as much opposed to development as you and others seem to think, why can’t a slate of anti-development candidates win? This is a sincere question, not a taunt (Even Sallee Lipshutz says I am not a villain).
@Charlie, or you could say is a “different agenda” and an “other judgment.”
There are at-large members of the City Council who are just as anti-density, etc., as your idealized ward Councilors (some of whom support smart growth), and they frequently vote that way on special permits and zoning amendments. They don’t distinguish between wards or villages, and, if the public is as much opposed to development as you and others seem to think, why can’t a slate of anti-development candidates win? This is a sincere question, not a taunt (Even Sallee Lipshutz says I am not a villain).
I have a cynical bent too which is the main reason doubt is my first reaction to a posited conspiracy theory.
I’m skeptical about many things right off the bat particularly when a person or large group of people are trying to convince others that 9 locally elected members of a commission who are civic minded, intelligent people are actually puppets for a powerful organization. What nefarious reason would each one of these specific people have to come together to make decisions that would be a power grab? For whom? How would each of them benefit? Has ALEC taken over the charter commission? Was the vote somehow rigged so this precise group would be elected? Did they secretly, behind the backs of Newton voters, run together on a slate controlled by a special interest group? Did they do some Jedi mind trick to get elected as a group? Or were all of the candidates focused on the same agenda so it did not matter who was elected? Are they connected in some way that would cause them, as a group, to benefit from making decisions that run counter to what many people want? Are they secretly trying to keep the charter from changing by making decisions that would defeat their entire body of work? I suspect none of these are true, so I’m a long way from believing there is a conspiracy.
Their integrity is being loudly questioned. They each brought with them their own opinions, or agendas, (not the same opinions or agendas) but as individuals they each have one vote – not a controlling interest. It’s possible to disagree with their conclusions or question their reasoning or even their judgement and still believe they are legitimately trying to come up with the best charter for Newton to put before voters. It would be hard to convince me otherwise.
I have a cynical bent too which is the main reason doubt is my first reaction to a posited conspiracy theory.
I’m skeptical about many things right off the bat particularly when a person or large group of people are trying to convince others that 9 locally elected members of a commission who are civic minded, intelligent people are actually puppets for a powerful organization. What nefarious reason would each one of these specific people have to come together to make decisions that would be a power grab? For whom? How would each of them benefit? Has ALEC taken over the charter commission? Was the vote somehow rigged so this precise group would be elected? Did they secretly, behind the backs of Newton voters, run together on a slate controlled by a special interest group? Did they do some Jedi mind trick to get elected as a group? Or were all of the candidates focused on the same agenda so it did not matter who was elected? Are they connected in some way that would cause them, as a group, to benefit from making decisions that run counter to what many people want? Are they secretly trying to keep the charter from changing by making decisions that would defeat their entire body of work? I suspect none of these are true, so I’m a long way from believing there is a conspiracy.
Their integrity is being loudly questioned. They each brought with them their own opinions, or agendas, (not the same opinions or agendas) but as individuals they each have one vote – not a controlling interest. It’s possible to disagree with their conclusions or question their reasoning or even their judgement and still believe they are legitimately trying to come up with the best charter for Newton to put before voters. It would be hard to convince me otherwise.
Dear Greg:
“I know I support a smaller Council”. then you must know why you do so. Please share.
You go on to say that any decision about how we structure our government should not be about the quality of our present office holders but about the decades ahead. Well excuuusse me as Steve Martin used to say, the performance of current and previous office -holders should in fact be a primary source of data for how their successors would probably do. It certainly is more solid data than the vague, almost mystical reasons that opponents of the current structure offer.
What’s wrong with the current structure and how would the Straw Vote positions make it better. I’ve asked and asked and basically gotten no clearcut response though some brave Commissioner have offered explanations, but only with unfathomable reasons. What’s so attractive about the NINE committees of the Waltham Council all meeting the same night.
As I’ve outlined on other threads, I can see a case for the elimination of SC term limits because they’ve made some past SC’s painfully shortsighted. I can also see a case for four year staggered terms for Councilors at large to improve accountability for officials like more Both of these speculative rationale are speculation on observation of the way the officials elected under the current Charter have acted or the way the citizens of decades ago reacted. I wouldn’t go to all the trouble of enacting a new Charter based on these observations.
What I can’t fathom is why the Charter Commissioners went to so much trouble to propose a new one without comparable reasons that objective observers can at least understand. The legal doctrine” res ipso loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself ) is not in play here unfortunately.
And Greg, why are you so upset about Councilor Norton’s humorous shortening of the Commission’s vote as a vote to eliminate her. That’s not all it would do, but it sure would do that. Is the next Straw Vote going to be to be to eliminate humor and brevity in public discourse?
Maybe such a Straw Vote would be preferable to spending much of the next 18 months hearing about drastic changes to the Charter that are proposed without sound reasoning backing them up. Hard Work and Transparency are good things, but sound positions based on the performance of the city Charter since 1873 would be better.
The members of the Constituional Convention sure did a better job of pointing out the flaws of the the Articles of Confederation than has happened here.
@Councilor Yates: I’ve answered your question about why I’m upset about Councilor Norton misleading her constituents. I’m eager to answer your question about board size and will do so as time permits over the weekend.
Dear Greg:
“I know I support a smaller Council”. then you must know why you do so. Please share.
You go on to say that any decision about how we structure our government should not be about the quality of our present office holders but about the decades ahead. Well excuuusse me as Steve Martin used to say, the performance of current and previous office -holders should in fact be a primary source of data for how their successors would probably do. It certainly is more solid data than the vague, almost mystical reasons that opponents of the current structure offer.
What’s wrong with the current structure and how would the Straw Vote positions make it better. I’ve asked and asked and basically gotten no clearcut response though some brave Commissioner have offered explanations, but only with unfathomable reasons. What’s so attractive about the NINE committees of the Waltham Council all meeting the same night.
As I’ve outlined on other threads, I can see a case for the elimination of SC term limits because they’ve made some past SC’s painfully shortsighted. I can also see a case for four year staggered terms for Councilors at large to improve accountability for officials like more Both of these speculative rationale are speculation on observation of the way the officials elected under the current Charter have acted or the way the citizens of decades ago reacted. I wouldn’t go to all the trouble of enacting a new Charter based on these observations.
What I can’t fathom is why the Charter Commissioners went to so much trouble to propose a new one without comparable reasons that objective observers can at least understand. The legal doctrine” res ipso loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself ) is not in play here unfortunately.
And Greg, why are you so upset about Councilor Norton’s humorous shortening of the Commission’s vote as a vote to eliminate her. That’s not all it would do, but it sure would do that. Is the next Straw Vote going to be to be to eliminate humor and brevity in public discourse?
Maybe such a Straw Vote would be preferable to spending much of the next 18 months hearing about drastic changes to the Charter that are proposed without sound reasoning backing them up. Hard Work and Transparency are good things, but sound positions based on the performance of the city Charter since 1873 would be better.
The members of the Constituional Convention sure did a better job of pointing out the flaws of the the Articles of Confederation than has happened here.
@Councilor Yates: I’ve answered your question about why I’m upset about Councilor Norton misleading her constituents. I’m eager to answer your question about board size and will do so as time permits over the weekend.
Thanks Brian! I was trying to make it entertaining — but it’s also accurate, the Charter Commission’s vote WOULD eliminate my position. I don’t plan to be a lifer in any case, as it’s quite a toll to lose so many weeknights, so I’m in awe of my colleagues who have done this for decades, rather I’m planning to oppose this with every fiber in my being because I truly believe eliminating local representation is bad for democracy and bad for Newton.
@Councilor Norton: No it’s not accurate. Nor is it particularly “entertaining,” unless you believe deliberately misleading your constituents is “entertaining.”
You told your constituents via email and on your website that the Charter Commission voted to “eliminate me.” It implies the there was a motion along the lines of “All in favor of eliminating Emily Norton say ‘aye.'” We all know that’s not what happened.
Furthermore, even if all eight ward seats were “eliminated” as proposed by the straw vote, you would continue to exist. And you would still have the opportunity to run for the at-large Ward 2 seat or one of five city wide seats.
So no. Not accurate. No entertaining.
Thanks Brian! I was trying to make it entertaining — but it’s also accurate, the Charter Commission’s vote WOULD eliminate my position. I don’t plan to be a lifer in any case, as it’s quite a toll to lose so many weeknights, so I’m in awe of my colleagues who have done this for decades, rather I’m planning to oppose this with every fiber in my being because I truly believe eliminating local representation is bad for democracy and bad for Newton.
@Councilor Norton: No it’s not accurate. Nor is it particularly “entertaining,” unless you believe deliberately misleading your constituents is “entertaining.”
You told your constituents via email and on your website that the Charter Commission voted to “eliminate me.” It implies the there was a motion along the lines of “All in favor of eliminating Emily Norton say ‘aye.'” We all know that’s not what happened.
Furthermore, even if all eight ward seats were “eliminated” as proposed by the straw vote, you would continue to exist. And you would still have the opportunity to run for the at-large Ward 2 seat or one of five city wide seats.
So no. Not accurate. No entertaining.
@Greg: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Not for the first time!
@Councilor Norton: You are right about that! Have a good weekend.
@Greg: We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Not for the first time!
@Councilor Norton: You are right about that! Have a good weekend.
And some of us live in Newton because we were priced out of Brookline and would love a denser more urban environment. I miss living without a car. My first son will ALWAYS stop at a crosswalk; he learned to walk with traffic around. My second seems to think that streets are just freeways for play. I like the schools, I like my house, the transportation is OK (I have to drive to the train), but to assume that all of Newton is anti-development is a little … odd.
– – –
I wish I had a choice of restaurants I could walk to, have a glass or three of wine, maybe a bar with live music, and then head home. I’d happily give up my yard to have my kids play with others in the park. (The constant bustle of the playground and rose garden off St. Paul St. is a stark contrast to the deserted structures I’ve seen at Burr and the Cove) … but a single family here was cheaper than a three bedroom condo there. So here we are. And it’s fine
– – –
But my ideas about what an ideal living place look like are a lot different than many of those around me.
And some of us live in Newton because we were priced out of Brookline and would love a denser more urban environment. I miss living without a car. My first son will ALWAYS stop at a crosswalk; he learned to walk with traffic around. My second seems to think that streets are just freeways for play. I like the schools, I like my house, the transportation is OK (I have to drive to the train), but to assume that all of Newton is anti-development is a little … odd.
– – –
I wish I had a choice of restaurants I could walk to, have a glass or three of wine, maybe a bar with live music, and then head home. I’d happily give up my yard to have my kids play with others in the park. (The constant bustle of the playground and rose garden off St. Paul St. is a stark contrast to the deserted structures I’ve seen at Burr and the Cove) … but a single family here was cheaper than a three bedroom condo there. So here we are. And it’s fine
– – –
But my ideas about what an ideal living place look like are a lot different than many of those around me.