Anne Borg and Sue Flicop, co-presidents of the League of Women Voters of Newton, wrote a column in this week’s TAB* in about the league’s signature drive to create a ballot question about whether Newton should set up a charter commission to review the city charter. If the league collects the necessary 8,400 signatures, this question would go to the voters at the next municipal election. At the same time, the nine representatives for the commission are selected by voters.
First and foremost: Kudos to the League of Women Voters of Newton for trying to make this happen. There have been so many conversations about charter review over the past several years, and it’s good to see a well-organized effort behind the mission.
There’s a lot to discuss here. I’m sure there are people on this blog who can tell stories about the last charter commission. Can the league collect enough signatures to make this happen in time for the March 12 override vote, assuming the board approves said vote? (If not, it would be on the 2013 ballot and each voter could potentially vote for 35 people for elected positions in the city of Newton!).
Most importantly, does the charter need reform?
* This post has been updated to include a link to the column.
I’ve expressed support for Charter review in the past, as one available method to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen. It’s not my preferred means to that end, and I do have serious reservations about opening up the Charter to other potential changes. Specifically, I’m worried about tinkering with our “strong mayor” form of government, and altering the balance of power between a mayor and BOA. As a 50 year resident of Newton, it’s my opinion that the city is best served by a mayor empowered to make decisions, who is held accountable for them. Given that there are other ways to reduce the size of the BOA, and considering the lack of specific stated objectives beyond downsizing the Board, I’m not in favor of Charter review at this point in time.
The League won’t have the signatures in time for the special election in March. The signatures must be certified 100 days before the election, which is in early December, and we won’t be finished by then. But I think that’s a good thing for voters–Newton residents will have a big enough task just making an informed decision about the override without piling on charter reform. But you make a good point, Gail…it’s ironic that the path to reducing voter fatigue requires ramping up the demand on voters in the short run.
Mike, realistically, there is no other way to change the size of the BoA. There are two other paths besides a charter commission to change a city charter, but both paths go through the BoA. Under a home rule petition, the BoA petitions the state legislature for a change, but this path is never used for such significant changes as altering the size or composition of the city council. Under a home rule amendment, a 2/3 vote of the BoA could put a proposed charter change on the ballot at a local election, but it is highly unlikely that 2/3 of the BoA would ever agree on a proposal to downsize.
As far as a charter commission proposing changes for the worse, Newton voters must approve whatever changes the commission proposes.
Specifically on the topic of city manager, the LWVN’s 2010 study supports your position. Our study concluded with the League deciding to support our current strong mayor form of government. Study members interviewed officials from 11 benchmark towns that had a mix of mayors and city managers. We found widespread agreement that the success of either model comes down entirely to the individual in the executive role. Officials also agreed that the idea that a poorly performing city manager is easier to remove from office than a poorly performing mayor is without merit—removing a city manager is usually a highly political process involving the city council. And having a mayor puts more power directly in the hands of voters.
Rhanna, thank you for responding to my post.
I believe it is possible to obtain a 2/3 vote of the Board of Aldermen to downsize, and that such a measure would be easily approved should it reach Beacon Hill. The voters of Newton must make clear that a smaller Board is a priority, and only vote for aldermen who commit to downsizing.
As I’m sure you know, The League of Women Voters has successfully placed this issue on the ballot before, where it was supported by a majority of voters. Unfortunately, our mayor at the time refused to support the voters, and the voters themselves failed to hold individual aldermen accountable.
When voters vote in favor of an initiative at the ballot box, then don’t hold their elected representatives accountable for implementing their wishes, that is a failure of the electorate, not a shortcoming of the Charter.
Gail,
I’d like to make a correction on your thread. The league doesn’t need 8400 signatures. It needs 8400 signatures minus the signatures we got several years ago (roughly 2,000 signatures) or 6400 signatures, give or take.
Mike,
A plan to downsize the BoA by voting out anyone who doesn’t support reduction requires three things:
1) that Aldermen actually have opponents (not always the case),
2) that Newton residents become single-issue voters and ignore all other qualifications for the job (which is a frightening thought) and
3) that candidates who run in support of downsizing don’t change their position once in office.
Given all of that, I disagree with you on the viability of that path.
However, electing a charter commission is not about downsizing the Board of Aldermen. It is about undertaking the discipline of examining our charter and looking for opportunities to improve our government, something that should happen at least every 40 years. I find that the history of Newton’s last(1971) charter commission is a great illustration of the kinds of positive change a charter commission can bring, so pardon my for repeating what I said already on another thread, but it is relevant to this disucssion.
Prior to the 1971 charter commission, vacancies on the Board of Aldermen were filled by a vote of the Board of Aldermen, regardless of remaining term. In practice, Aldermen would sometimes run for re-election and then resign, allowing the Board to control its membership. The 1971 charter commission ended that practice. It also changed the mayor’s term of office from two years to four and instituted an override of the mayor’s veto…all in all, the charter adopted in 1971 gave more power to the voters, and created a stronger executive branch and stronger checks and balances. A year-long League of Women Voters study of Newton’s charter that concluded in 2010 found that we have opportunities for improvement to our government.
@Rhanna
I get that, and yet, when it comes to choosing the nine member commission it’s easy to imagine that some of the candidates will campaign pledging to reduce the board, and potentially other issues.
Here’s the link to Sue and Anne’s latest guest column in the TAB:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1890067634/Anne-Borg-and-Sue-Flicop-All-about-the-Leagues-signature-drive#axzz2Ac6NjjcR
@Rhanna, can you clear up how many signatures still need to be collected? The league’s guest column cites 8,400. Is that number right, or is Tom correct to say the “old” signatures are still valid?
Thanks Emily.
I agree with the initiative to establish a Charter Commission but I do have one very significant sticking point: how can the voters both establish the commission and choose it’s membership in one election? Logically the decision to establish the commission should precede the the choice of who comprises the the body.
Emily, To put the question on the ballot, we do need almost 8,400 signatures (15% of registered voters as of the last state election.) The signatures collected by Tom Sheff will count toward the total if they are not duplicates of the ones we collect now. I was told by the Elections Department that 1,800 of those are still valid. But we won’t know until our signatures are certified how many overlap with Tom’s.
Lisap, The ballot question will ask voters to vote yes or no on whether Newton should have a charter commission. Then voters will be able to vote for up to 9 commissioners on the same ballot. If the “no” vote carries on the question, the selection of the commissioners is nullified. If the “yes” vote carries, the top 9 vote-getters become the commission.
Greg, You raise an important question about the challenges of electing a charter commission. I agree with you, it’s likely that some candidates would run with a specific stance on the hot button issues (term limits, size of the BoA, etc.) My personal opinion is that Newton will fare better if voters focus on electing individuals with strong leadership characteristics and open minds rather than with committed positions. A commission should have with the freedom to explore optimal solutions, rather than begin as a polarized group with members who have already committed to one thing or another.
Again, I think the history is relevant here. One of the flaws of the 1971 charter commission was that 5 of the 9 commissioners were sitting elected officials (2 School Committee reps, 2 state legislators, and 1 Alderman) who had too much interest in the status quo. Even the state legislators avoided some controversial changes because they didn’t want to lose the support of the 24 Aldermen.
Wouldn’t it be a conflict of interest for an elected official to serve on the charter commission?
Gail, It is permitted by law.
I don’t understand this. The article says: “In 2010, the League of Women Voters of Newton completed a comprehensive, yearlong study of Newton’s charter, which concluded that we need structural changes to our form of government that can only be achieved through a charter commission.”
Then, the only thing that is pointed out is that: “Currently, a Newton voter must decide in 25 contests every two years, which leads to voter confusion and apathy. By considering issues such as the size of the Board of Aldermen, as well as term lengths and staggered terms, we could improve voter engagement and candidate accountability.”
Unless there are more compelling reasons, which perhaps there are but are not being mentioned for some reason, this seems like a waste of time, money and effort. Are there other issues in the charter that are problematic?
Voting every two years is pretty easy since most of the time the Aldermen run unopposed. Staggered terms seems more confusing, like with US Senators. And term lengths are not a problem, unless you consider the term of a US Congressman a problem.
Good luck. Without the help of the Newton League of Men Voters to muscle the male BOA members your efforts will fall on diplomatically deaf ears. Voters have non bindingly spoken twice, BOA members for the most part are self serving ego-centered pension-building vestigial holdovers from a pre-internet society capable of rationalizing ‘make work’ need for the community.
But Schlock, please tell us how you really feel???
Barry, there are literally hundreds of issues that maybe lookid into.
For instance what form of Government we want. ie Strong mayor, weak mayor or city manager. Since the school committee has term limits and the BOA doesn’t, does it make sense to have all elected officials have term limits or none at all (all the same). Etc.
Gail, my understanding is that as long as an elected official runs unopposed in his/her election, he/she can run for the charter commission. The key is to make sure everyone has an opponent (atleast in name only) so he/she has an opponent and can’t get on the commission.
Tom, I understand that there could be literally hundreds of issues. But, are those the reasons we should undertake to review the charter? And, if so, why are only the issues of the terms of the Aldermen mentioned in the article? If there are other reasons, then I’d like to know what they are, i.e., what does the LWV think is wrong currently that needs to be fixed. Otherwise, how can a voter make an informed decision about how to vote?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to go into charter review without identifying the exact issues? If someone wants to be on the commission because of one particular item on his or her agenda, how open-minded will that person be? Let’s say Joe Citizen wants to be on the Charter Commission because he thinks Newton should have a city manager instead of a mayor, or that we should have 16 aldermen instead of 24, then he’s entering the process with an agenda.
I’d rather see a Charter Commission comprising 9 smart open-minded people who have nothing to gain from the process (no conflict of interest) and have no pre-determined agenda.
@Gail: Are you declaring your candidacy?
Me? I’m still trying to decide if I’m going to challenge Mayor Warren.
If the League of Women Voters had followed through after the results of their last ballot initiative indicated a majority of voters wanted a smaller BOA, we would now have a smaller BOA. The League put that specific question on the ballot, then completely dropped the ball after the vote.
We don’t need Charter review to downsize the Board. We need to prioritize downsizing as THE issue in the next aldermanic election. Force each candidate to state their position, and run opposing candidates against those who do not favor reducing the Board.
I understand there may be other issues, like term limits that some people would like to address. But I’ve not heard Newton residents clamoring for term limits, or any other changes besides downsizing the Board. One can imagine what might happen if we opened up the US Constitution to this type of review. Why take that chance with our Charter, when there is really only one Charter issue a majority of Newton voters have expressed a desire to change?
Barry, I can’t speak for the LWV, but I would imagine they didn’t talk about other issues, due to space needs. They probably picked the most popular issue and went with that.
How I envisioned the process is that after we elect the 9 person commission, the commission would have open meetings with the citizens to hear their opinions/concerns and then the commission would convene. They would have a person from the adminstration to obtain information for them, ie information from other cities/towns to benchmark and research regarding specific issues. After 18 months pull together a new charter and have a vote for it in 2014. Note, after the commission works for 18 months and put together a new charter, the people have an opportunity to vote for or against it. If you don’t like it, you can campaign against it.
This is a perfect community building exercise. It allows us to dictate what type of city we want to live in and it allows us to leave something to the next generation (until the next review).
Gail, I agree 100%, I know a lot of people who do want to see candidates with an open platform, though. I always tried to argue against that, but there was a group of people who felt that if people didn’t go in with an agenda, things wouldn’t get changed (I can’t remember their exact logic).
Mike, thats why it’s extremely important as to who gets elected. For instance, (No offense to Alderman Baker, but…) Alderman Baker, while I was involved, opposed charter reform every step of the way. If he gets on the commission I know he’d do everything he can to prevent progress.
@ Mike, The League is strictly non-partisan and never supports candidates (and never seeks out candidates who will run with a specific position on an issue.) For that reason, the mechanism you advocate for could never be League-led…but also because the League is not driven by downsizing the Board. The League’s motive is to promote better government by undertaking the discipline of examining our charter and looking for opportunities for improvement. I’m not sure Newton residents were clamoring for a 4-year term for mayor in 1971, but the change has benefited our city.
Mike, sounds to me like you get it. The natural ordering of a NLWV charter reform process distracts focused objectives and protects status quo of the BOA boys club. Reverse discrimination by default process for generations is hardest to detect in the political process. What the LWV doesn’t see is that they are the victims of their own well-meaning efforts in a day where the founding values of 100 years ago are no longer relevant to the enlightened 21st century Newton citizen mindset.
Mike, I agree with you.
Tom, personally I don’t have a problem with the structure of city government or how it’s run. It’s the people there who can be a problem, or excessive or misplaced spending. Mike’s analogy to getting a committee to review the US Constitution is a good one.
If you open this up, regardless of the issues, it’s going to be a messy fight. I believe in the old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I don’t see what’s broke.
@Rhanna– I understand that the League is non-partisan. But the League put forth a ballot initiative to reduce the BOA that passed by a wide margin, then failed to speak out in support of the change and the people who voted for it. The net effect was to embolden a group of elected officials who did not want to downsize the Board, because they were allowed to ignore the ballot box vote. I would argue that the League’s failure to follow through, is the reason we still have 24 aldermen in Newton.
Now the League is proposing the equivalent of exploratory surgery on our Charter, that would open up the document to a range of potential changes that no one seems to be looking for. In my opinion, there is as much likelihood of doing damage as there is of improvement.
Mike, The non-binding resolution on reducing the size of the BoA took place 12 years ago, so at this point it is just a part of Newton and League history. That referendum has not resulted in government reform, but I’m not sure why you see that fact as an argument against government reform. I would see it the other way around. The referendum passed by a 2:1 margin, which does seem to constitute “clamoring for change”, and the referendum seems to have demonstrated that certain paths to reduce the BoA are not viable. (I’m not saying that this is a driver of the League’s charter petition drive, just that it doesn’t really argue against the charter petition drive.)
Rhanna –
What’s the process after the Charter Commission makes its recommendation? Do those recommendations go before voters as separate items? What the timing? The following municipal election?
Rhanna– The resolution to reduce the size of the Board that your organization sponsored, was in fact “non-binding.” Legally, there was no way to make that initiative a binding one. But the League put it on the ballot, then dropped the ball after the vote. At least that’s my impression. I’ll change my opinion if you can cite a single written criticism from the League, of the mayor or any individual alderman for failing to act on the voter’s expressed will. What was the point of putting it on the ballot, if the League was not prepared to support the outcome?
Now the League is suggesting we open up our Charter to the potential of major changes, without a specific purpose. While I agree that a large majority of people want a smaller Board of Aldermen, we do not need Charter review to make that change. It’s my opinion that the Charter we have is a good one. The only change I’m interested in, is reducing the size of the Board. Personally, I’m not prepared to put the rest of the document at risk, when we can address Board size in another manner.
@Mike Striar – In what other ways can the board size be changed? I thought it could only be changed via a change to the city charter.
Gail,
The charter commission, once elected, has 18 months to submit it’s final report (i.e. the proposed charter). The charter would then be voted on at the next regular election 6 months later (which allows voters time to read it and make a decision.) So the whole process is 2 years.
Voters can only vote the entire charter up or down, there is no voting by line item…which is why I think concerns like Mike’s are overblown. A successful commission will have to pick their battles carefully or risk having all of their effort voted down over one controversial element. At the risk of making foregone conclusions, it’s hard to imagine that proposing city manager would be worth the risk.
Jerry– The Board can vote to downsize themselves. That measure would go before the Legislature as a Home Rule Petition, where it would easily pass.
It’s fair to ask if the Board would actually vote to reduce their own ranks. I believe they would, IF the voters make an issue of it prior to the next election, through an organization that demands it.
That’s my problem with the League of Women Voters. They put this on the ballot, then left voters hanging out to dry. This was a major issue when I ran for Mayor in 2005. I wanted to reduce the Board. Mayor Cohen did not. The League never once spoke up in defense of their own ballot initiative, which had already passed by a large margin.
Worth noting; there’s no guarantee that a Charter revision would result in a smaller BOA. Should a revision fail to reduce the size, it’s likely the 24 member Board would remain in place for many years to come. I’d sooner take my chances by applying political pressure, rather than open up the Charter to all sorts of potential changes.
Mike Home Rule Petition takes a 2/3rds vote. As of right now the majority of the BOA is opposed to it, so you would have to knock down approximately 13 down to 8. Good Luck with that….it’s been tried.
People need to vote on more coherent issues than making the board smaller.
and Mike the third option as proposed by the illustrious Dick McGrath is by running a slate of 8 at large pledging a Shermanesque rebellion. Remember 2005…
@schlock– Ah yes, 2005, when revolution was in the air. Gotta also say, I miss Alderman McGrath. He was one of my all time favorites.
@Tom– I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I’m curious. How do you know that a majority of the BOA is opposed to downsizing? Also, you seemed to suggest it’s “been tried” before to reduce the Board by their own vote. Is that what you’re saying? When did that take place?
I have to say that I just don’t understand why the size of the BoA concerns so many people. To me, the fewer members of the Board, the more people each one represents – i.e., fewer members = a less representative and less responsive BoA.
Now if people are interested in form of government (say Council/Manager vs. strong Mayor), and/or redistributing powers (we seem to be pretty screwy in this regard), then I’m all for charter reform. But if all anyone cares about is making the BoA smaller – that’s just silly.
Mike, When I attempted to get the signatures, roughly 4 years ago, I asked an unofficial poll as to who favored a smaller Board. I can’t speak for the new aldermen from the past two elections, but back then the poll was atleast a slight majority.
This issue consistently comes up, atleast since I’ve been around, and people have attempted to make this a real campaign issue, but issues like infrastructure, budget, etc. come way ahead of a smaller board. Go figure.
@Miles– I would argue that fewer members = accountability and efficiency.
@Tom– I think a large part of the problem is exactly as you put it, “people have attempted to make this [size of the Board] a real campaign issue…” Just my opinion, but I think it takes more than random “people.” It takes an organizational effort to bring about this change. The same coordinated level of effort that goes into an override campaign. Is it worth it? I think so! It’s certainly a faster, more focused means to that end than a Charter review.
If you support reducing the size of the Board, are you also suggesting a salary increase to compensate? Or will you also recommend ways in which work in the City done by the BoA can be streamlined to reduce the workload?
Well OK then, if one were to look at the savings per year which could have been yielded had the 1971 charter minimized Boa to 16 (self reduction of one at large seat from each ward) , and secured those funds into a dedicated account for say infrastructure needs, we would not be needing overrides for schools. There seems to be a tendency in this City to overlook the obvious, relegating our leaders into a theme of groupspeak, go along to get along so long as no one notices the club effectuating change. So alright do the math, then check my numbers, 1.2 million of free cash per year while the NLWV spins its charter reform wheels going nowhere but status quo support for dilapidated schools. The parents of Newton should be livid. thank you Treasurer Grossman for recognizing the underlying political deviancy of Newton politics..
@Mike, the last time the BOA took this up in 2007, there were 10 aldermen (myself included) who co-docketed the item through a Home Rule petition. We were advised that the legislature would be likely to ask the BOA to put the issue on the ballot as a condition of approval. Unfortunately, there was very little agreement as to how to reduce the size of the board and by what amount between and among the aldermen, even among the 10 of us who had filed the proposal. So, ultimately, most of us (myself included) concluded that it would be better to have a Charter Commission review the issue and come up with a proposal to put on the ballot.
@Schlock, just wondering how you came up with $1.2 million a year in free cash. I don’t know what aldermen were paid in 1971, but currently they only get paid $9750 a year plus $9436 each in benefits on average (five-year average for FY2008-2012). So, at most, the city might save a little over $150,000 a year by cutting the size of the board by 8 aldermen. Not nothing, but not $1.2 million a year either.
Actually, the benefits I listed were for all personnel in the Clerk’s office, and not just the aldermen. So actually, the savings per year would be even smaller. Sorry about that.
Ted– I’m not in favor of Charter revision as a means to reduce the BOA. I’m worried about the unintended consequences that may result from the process. I do recognize and very much appreciate your advocacy for a smaller Board. I think the 2007 attempt you cite, would have benefited considerably from an organizational effort originating outside of the BOA, which would have put forth a specific objective in terms of the makeup of the Board and the number of aldermen. I have no issue with the structural changes being subject to voter approval.
@Mike, I don’t disagree with you. Getting 10 aldermen just to agree to a reduction of some size was hard enough, but we didn’t all agree on how many or which aldermen to eliminate. Some wanted to reduce the size to 16 by eliminating 8 at large aldermen, some wanted to reduce the size to 12 or 13, by eliminating some combination of ward and at large aldermen. The remaining aldermen who did not cosponsor the docket item had diverse points of view ranging from no reduction to cutting the size of the board by half. The only thing anyone seemed to agree on is that a reduction in number would mean that there would also have to be some reduction in the scope of the board’s responsibilities. Needless to say, not everyone agreed about that either.
Given the lack of consensus about reducing the size of the board, I reluctantly concluded that it would be better to have a Charter Commission review the Charter as a whole to thoroughly review and recommend a redistribution of responsibilities between the administration and the board along with a proposal to reduce the size of the board rather than rely upon the aldermen to has it out. There are, of course, risks that come with that approach too, since there is not guarantee that the Charter Commission would recommend reduction of the board and the entire Charter would be up for review, in which case some of the recommendations might not be so palatable or passable.
While I still think the board could be reduced in size and be just as if not more effective as a legislative body, the constituents who have contacted me about this over the years are more or less evenly split between those who would like to downsize the board and those who would not want to lose representatives at the local level.
Ted– If you don’t mind, I’m interested in your opinion about how the BOA should be configured, and how many aldermen there should be. Personally, I’d like the Board to reflect and support the unique village structure of Newton, rather than wards. I know that would create some imbalance, as not all villages are the same size. I just happen to think that’s what would work best for Newton. I’d like to know your opinion.
@Ted, Sorry for repeating myself, but this is a very long thread, I’m sure no one has time to go back and read it all. There is a significant mitigating factor to the argument that a commission might make unpalatable recommendations, and that is the fact that voters can only vote the entire charter up or down, there is no voting by line item. A successful commission will have to pick their battles carefully or risk having all of their effort voted down over one controversial element. The downside risk is no change at all–the risk of implementing something “worse” than what we have today is minimal.
@Mike, personally, I would like to see 12 aldermen, all at large, geographically dispersed around the city. I have to admit I am not sure whether aldermen could be required to come from specific neighborhoods as opposed to specific wards, but I certainly have no objction to it. It makes as much sense as having aldermen from each of 8 wards instead of 12 or 13 villages (or 14 if you count this blog).
@Rhanna, a Charter Commission would certainly have all of the incentives to come up with a proposal that would pass. But if I may play Devil’s advocate (and why not, since I am a lawyer in my spare time), it would depend on who was elected to the commission and what changes are proposed. For the sake of argument, let’s say that there is a strong consensus that the city should reduce the size of the board and also convert to a city manager form of government, like Cambridge. I think those are both good ideas, and independently each might be passable but you might not be able to get a majority to vote for both, in which case, the proposal would lose. You are correct that the worst case scenario would be “no change” but to some that would be less palatable than approving one or the other.
@Ted
At last someone’s thinking about political representation for our virtual villagers. I think you’d be a natural choice as the V14 alderman Ted.
LOL, Jerry.
I’m thinking that before we talk about just reducing numbers, or while we’re talking about reducing numbers, some thought must be given to how the duties and responsibilities of the current aldermen will be modified. Will fewer aldermen be on each committee or board or council? How will that be decided? What about, for my example, modifying the Traffic Council, as a means of making it and issues of safety run more efficiently? If each alderman is doing more work, then wouldn’t the salaries be expected to increase? Yes, I would think so. Or how would the number of aldermen be reduced without requiring more work of each alderman?
I’ll second Jerry’s motion. Thanks for responding, Ted.
I think one of the strengths of a Charter Commission is that there is a group of nine people whose job is to think about how our city government works, what the citizenry finds good and bad, and what other communities do that works. You can’t make a change in one area (i.e. the size of the Board of Aldermen) without understanding the implications on workload and compensation, response to the public, appropriate representation, etc. For 18 months, a commission will delve into all these areas and become experts. But their final recommendation will be a combination of what they want to see change, what they as a committee can all agree on, and what they think the community will support.
Sue, then aren’t you putting the cart before the horse?
As a side note, I requested from the BOA for them to set up a committee of all types (technology experts, process experts, etc) and figure ways to streamline their workload and study the overall workload of the BOA. Their response was met with little enthusiasm (outside of THM) and they felt the Citizens Advisory Group already looked at that. I was told that Scott Lennon and Co. were already looking to streamline measures as well.. My goal was to give the charter commission a headstart in investigating their responsibilities. My commission is stuck in Programs and Services since 2009. Some (THM) blames me for not pushing it forward. I felt that the lack of enthusiasm from the last charter reform movement and the lack of enthusiasm from the BOA it wasn’t worth my time. I’m fairly busy. But, it’s there for anyone who wants to take it over, sitting in P&S committee.