The Board of Aldermen is currently discussing putting the override questions on the ballot. It doesn’t look like there will be a vote tonight of the full board.
Here are the big surprises to me:
1. Aldermen Lisle Baker and Ruthanne Fuller are concerned that the override isn’t large enough. They think that the city has additional needs that should be funded. Must be a Ward 7 thing.
2. Baker said that Mayor Warren told him that technology in all the elementary schools would be brought up to par with this override. But that has never been part of the override. Baker sounded angry. I’ve emailed the mayor to ask if it’s true, but it’s a safe bet he’ll say no. I’ve heard him explain this override in detail several times and I’ve never once heard him talk about technology.
School Superintendent Fleishman’s answer was that there would be more money to spend on technology for the schools because Angier, Cabot and Zervas would get new technology when they are renovated/rebuilt which would free up that money for other schools. But, he said, there still isn’t enough money to bring technology up to where he’d want it. Still, his number one priority is adding classrooms and adding teachers.
I’m not advocating for a larger amount in the override. I’m pointing out that there will continue to be a lot of unmet needs even if the override passes (OPEB, roads, personnel in planning, public buildings, schools & legal, tehnology, etc.).
Ruthanne Fuller
There is a (relatively) easy solution to the problem: put two operating override questions on the ballot. One for x and another for y (some amount greater than x). By the rules of Prop 2-1/2, alternative questions are permissible. Whatever question gets > 50% of the vote succeeds. If more than one question gets more than 50%, the larger(est) amount prevails.
There should be a Warren question and a Fuller/Baker question. The latter starts with three votes: Ruthanne’s, Lisle’s, and mine. (I like our chances for success!)
I didn’t see Ruthanne’s comment. Apparently, we start with two votes (unless Lisle bails on me, too).
@Sean, I think a more accurate analysis would be that a number of the aldermen at last night’s meeting seemed to agree that the override would not be sufficient to meet the needs of the city. I learned last night, for the first time, that the estimated cost to renovate one of the fire stations included in the operating override (instead of a debt exclusion, which is a whole other can of worms) had gone up by 40% in the last 24 hours. Forty percent. And Maureen Lemieux walked back her statement about Zervas being renovated with students in the building and had to admit (as I already knew) that it might not be possible to do so because it might be impracticable to add a second floor and that, in fact, it might even be preferable to vacate the building to allow the builders to just go in, demolish the building and start with a clean site. Naturally, swing space will be needed for the 18 months or more that it will take to do the project and, since Zervas is included in the operating override (and not a debt exclusion, see my comments above about the fire station), obtaining a second swing space while Angier is being replaced will result in added costs. But the administration is not going to add to the amount of the override. Moreover, the administration admitted that if the override does not pass, there will be no revenue for a stabilization fund so the school projects might be delayed, even if the debt exclusions pass.
As I said last night, I was bemused by the fact that a number of my colleagues were damning the override proposal with faint praise (or tepid support) while saying they would support putting it on the ballot. I agree with Ald. Fuller that this override is not going to meet all of the needs of the city. I also agree with Ald. Baker that the override will probably not even be enough to meet the needs identified by the administration.
I am still undecided about what to do. I was taken aback by the surprise announcement about the spiraling fire station cost estimates, and the numerous disclaimers coming out of the administration about other possible cost increases and shortfalls did not exactly five me a lot of comfort. I have already shared my misgivings about not doing all of the capital projects (except the ongoing work on streets and sidewalks) via debt exclusions, and putting both Angier and Cabot on the ballot before we have a better estimate of the true costs. By the end of the evening, I was beginning to feel like Cassandra, a tragic figure from Greek mythology. Apollo cursed her with the gift to foresee the future. Her curse was that no one ever understood or believed her prophesies until it was too late. It finally drove her insane.
Ted –
You did not learn last night that the cost estimate has increased on the fire station included in the override. You learned that the cost of Fire Station 10 has increased. It’s reasonable to be concerned that the estimate on Station 3 might be off — which is why Maureen Lemieux said they are looking at it. It is wrong to confuse the two.
Ted,
I want to cry.
I would be willing to bet that, if you plumbed their souls, not a single elected official in Newton thinks that the override will be sufficient. But, that’s probably not an interesting exercise. The amount is almost certainly set by what various officials, most notably His Honor, think is politically viable in the current environment. Which is why alternative override questions make a ton of sense. Here’s what we think we need. Here’s the bare minimum that will keep us limping along. Please vote for both.
I grant that it adds some political complexity and risk. You have to make sure that everyone in favor of the larger number makes sure to vote for the smaller number. But, from a policy perspective, it’s a no-brainer.
As for claiming the Cassandra mantle, I think you have to get in line behind Alderman Sangiolo. The city would have a ton more flexibility if more folks who know that a debt-exclusion override for NNHS is still possible and still a good idea were willing to get out there and convince the portion of the electorate that’s supposedly too sensitive for such a divisive issue. Like Amy has, with Ted an early adopter.
Whether or not tax revenues or over-rides are sufficient depends upon what is desired. That was the point of Proposition 2 1/2, to force people to keep their desires within a reasonable budget. Probably no-one thinks his/her personal income is sufficient, since there are always unmet desires, but most of us, not all of us, live within our means. The city should do that as well.
@Ted– I’m a bit confused. A 40% increase to renovate “one of the fire stations”? I thought there was only one station [Newton Centre] specifically addressed by the override proposal, along with fire headquarters. If the increase it attributable to either of those buildings, it underscores the need for Mayor Warren to take another look at the Firefighters Triangle proposal. It seems ridiculous to spend million$ renovating a fire station, when we could have gotten a new one for free.
Regarding the administrations backpedaling on Zervas, I’m going to reiterate my earlier opinion. None of our elementary schools should be renovated while occupied. The safety of our students and faculty, has got to be the top priority.
Most troubling, the apparent failure of the Warren Administration to do their homework, before floating these override proposals out there for public consumption. Every misstep gives some people another reason to vote against any override. In my opinion, the need for a properly constructed override is desperate. When I see changes in financial projections being made at this point, it implies the process was rushed to begin with. I think in his rush, Mayor Warren made a critical error by not at least challenging the MSBA rule that requires separate overrides for different projects.
Has there been any discussion of renting additional school space to deal with the overcrowding? It seems to me the overcrowding is probably a cyclical thing (ie school population going up and down). The US birth rate just hit an all time low and has been going down for the past 4 years.
Thanks, Gail. In my defense, I was hearing about all of this for the first time last night. There was an awful lot of information presented and I found some of the discussion very confusing.
Mike, I was mistaken. Gail is correct that the cost estimate for Fire Station 10 went up by 40%, not Fire Station 3. I misheard.
What was different from the first estimate to the second that caused a 40% increase?
did someone multiply something incorrectly, did that price of bricks go up 40% in one day, or did someone add some frills that weren’t in the first estimate, like David Cohen did with NNHS?
To be specific, the newest estimate of the construction costs for Fire Station 10 (on Dedham Street in Ward 8 — not part of the override) came in 50% higher than the estimate done 6 or 9 months ago. The overall costs (construction costs, design costs, site costs, etc.) came in 30% higher (going from approx. $2.9m to approx $4m). What I heard is that it’s not clear yet why the latest estimate is so much higher. The scope of the project did not change. Some of the increase can probably be attributed to higher demand for building projects with little increase in supply. The administration is trying to understand the differences (including seeing if the original estimate was simply too low ….)
“By the end of the evening, I was beginning to feel like Cassandra, a tragic figure from Greek mythology. Apollo cursed her with the gift to foresee the future. Her curse was that no one ever understood or believed her prophesies until it was too late.”
I’m having a little trouble with this quote, given Ald. HM’s support for a past capital project that didn’t even have a budget. Why has he suddenly seen the light? Could his loyalty to a past administration and lack of support for the present administration be clouding his perspective?
There’s nothing tragic about what’s happening in Newton right now, but we do have capital improvements that need to be addressed: several elementary schools need to be rebuilt and we need to address the problem of overcrowded facilities at the elementary level. Like that of any capital project, the cost isn’t set in stone but we have reasonable estimates and a tight timeline for completing these projects with the least disruption to the education of kindergarten-5th grade students.
I, too, agree that this override will not address all the needs of the City. But, in the wisdom of the Mayor and his Administrative leadership staff, they feel that this is enough for a good start for the next five years. As I said (and I believe Alderman Sangiolo said as well) on Thursday, this is still a huge ask.
This Administration inherited a huge problem and is doing an admirable job trying to bring it under control, but the reality is that an $8.4M operational override with approx $3M of debt exclusion to kick in within the next two years is a pretty big annual hit for many of the residents of Newton. We, in Newton, pride ourselves in valuing affordable housing, but a hit like this (let alone a bigger one) will indeed kick out many of our native moderate income families which we still have in our city.
I will go further to say that there are also still residents that are smarting from all the financial waste of the past, despite it being “water under the bridge”. It’s their “water” that was washed under the bridge, very much against their wishes and despite their efforts to fight it and it still stings. The option not being explored is to let the city suffer the consequences of previous poor decisions, make difficult cuts in programs and personnel (or possibly salaries) until we are finally “righted” again and simply focus on not repeating the errors again rather than punishing the current populace who has at least had the wisdom of electing the current administration.
However, as I said, that is not was is being proposed. For those who did not attend the meeting on Nov 29th, the approx 2:45 min audio of the meeting can be found here. Judge for yourself, but I don’t agree that what I heard from my colleagues to be only “tepid” support of the current Administration. I heard great admiration for our Mayor , COO and CFO and out of respect for their work, my colleagues asked insightful and well thought out questions that needed to be asked. This is healthy discussion and can only make our actions and policies stronger.
In fact, it is because this administration has demonstrated its willingness and ability to give substantive and informative responses to our questions that so many constructive questions and queries were asked.
That said, increasing the amount asked for the override is not a sentiment that I support. We MUST take this one step at a time.
Greer,
A big “pish” to you too.
I defy you or anyone else to find a family prepared to move out of town to escape the override. It’s fear-mongering. The approximate tax increase on a family living in the median home ($686,000) is $343. Sorry, but that just doesn’t add up to a crushing additional burden.
We are living in a time of anti-tax fervor, while, paradoxically, the average tax burden (federal, state, and local) is lower than it was in the 80’s.
I realize that the burden falls easiest on the wealthier. I yield to no one in my concern that state and local taxes are too regressive and that property taxation is a fundamentally unfair way to fund public education. But, even a regressive tax burden is offset by the progressiveness of the programs. Who gets hurt worst by the cuts in school services? The wealthy parents can supplement on the private market: private schools, private math programs, private sports, private social services, private, private.
As for making difficult cuts until we are righted again, part of our problem is a failure to invest in basic maintenance. Continuing to defer restoration of our roads and buildings just adds to the cost of continued maintenance, reduces the effectiveness of continued maintenance, and adds to the cost of fixing things when things are “righted” again. I’m sure you’ve seen the charts. The cost of fixing a mile of road, for instance, goes up exponentially as its condition deterioriates.
Money is as cheap as it is ever going to get. The carrying cost of borrowed money is far less than the cost of deferred maintenance and repair. Taking things one step at a time just insures that each additional step is going to cost us more and more.
One of the favorite aphorisms of our most prolific alderman: “Perfect is the enemy of the good.”
What a great warning for all those who wish to improve our city. Many of us in general support of override financing prefer an override construct different than the Mayor’s. Ted wants to wait for more evolved pricing information. Lisle wants a bigger ask. Greer wants to shift the capital projects onto debt exclusions. Sean wants alternative questions to share the ballot. Mike wants Newton to challenge the MSBA ruling. I am sympathetic to all of these positions.
Regardless, Mayor Warren has made a proposal blend that he believes best responds to city needs, taxpayer sensitivity, and the likelihood of passage. I have a different blend but my bottom line is that the Mayor has done a terrific job improving city finances, rebuilding trust in Newton government, and identifying and prioritizing need. For this his judgment has earned my respect. I am personally convinced that the identified override targets represent vital improvements to our school system, city services, and infrastructure…. and they’ll come not a moment too soon.
So I sincerely hope that all of us perfection-seekers will get behind this very good override proposal of our mayor’s.
@Steve, I agree about the perfect being the enemy of the good (I said that myself recently). As I said the other night, no one in the chamber doesn’t think we need to do these projects and that the city must raise additional revenue to do them. Myself included.
What I have struggled with, from the beginning, is the level of uncertainty about the plans and costs involved. I have no intention of proposing an alternative, and despite my serious misgivings, I will probably vote to put this on the ballot. But I want to be on record as saying that the operating override and debt exclusions proposed by the Mayor may not cover the costs of what is by all accounts an ambitious capital improvement plan for both city and school buildings, as well as increased enrollment at the schools and other operating costs.
This administration has done a good job controlling costs and taming (not eliminating) the structural deficit (e.g. OPEB). Despite its best efforts, however, it has encountered significant, unanticipated cost increases for the expansion of Day, modulars at the elementary schools, Carr, and now Fire Station 10. In addition, whether the city renovates or replaces Zervas, given the space crunch the Superintendent talked about, I believe it is more likely than not we are going to need additional swing space to keep both the Angier and Zervas projects on track. The administration says the proposed override will be enough to absorb all of the cost increases that cause me concern. I sincerely hope the administration is right. But I am still skeptical. Not cynical, just skeptical.
Ultimately, what I think is unimportant; rather, it is what the voters think. All I seek at this point is is full disclosure.
@Steve– It’s only a “very good override proposal” if it passes. Otherwise it will be known as a “failed override proposal,” and those of us who recognize this urgent need, will be left scrambling for a Plan B. To my mind, the best override proposal would be the one that has the best chance of passing. I believe the structure of this override package makes passage in its entirety unlikely, particularly the debt exclusions.
I’ve asked this question on Village 14 before. Why is the average resident who lives in Chestnut Hill or Nonantum, going to vote to raise their taxes exclusively for an elementary school in Waban, when it has no apparent benefit to them? The responses I get are generally along the lines of “we’re all in this together,” or “people will vote for the best interest of their city.” I’m not buying it! The last override proposal was a general override that would have benefited even those who voted against it, but it went down to defeat. Here we are, a few years later, trying to fix the same old problems.
Success is not measured by ideas, it’s measured by accomplishments. Failure is simply not an option in this case. It’s is going to be a battle, and we better be ready to fight. So when the Mayor started this mission by caving in to the MSBA without displaying any willingness to fight, I find that extremely troubling, the result problematic, and the outcome far more questionable than I’d like.
@Mike –
That is a real concern of course, but I think you’re being a bit too pessimistic. As someone else pointed out, by that logic no school override could ever pass since a minority of tax payers have kids in the schools. I don’t disagree with your concern – the more broad based any proposal, the better chance it has of passing. However, I (and I’m sure you) support all manners of public spending at every level of government that I don’t get any direct benefit from.
I think the biggest determinate of whether a specific override will pass is the level of confidence that the public has that their money won’t be squandered and will be spent wisely, prudently and effectively. That to me is the crucial element needed to get sufficient public support. Clearly Mayor Warren’s administration has made big progress on that score. Will it be enough? I hope so
As usual, Mike has it right.
I give the mayor credit for being politically astute. If he thought he could ask for more (and still have a chance to be successful) he would have.
Those who don’t think it’s enough are, in fact, correct. Unfortunately many of those same people have also been proponents of increased housing resulting in overcrowding of schools.
One other little item that irks many voters and puts ANY override at risk of passing is when the wealthiest among us are the loudest voices leading the charge for higher taxes. It’s counterproductive and reinforces the stereotype of the very wealthy being tone deaf to the struggles of the more middle income Newton residents.
As we see this process unfold, there will be plenty of opportunity for the executive office to explain their plan for sensible and long term infrastructure upgrades. Schools, water, sewer, roads, unfunded HR liabilities…the list goes on. Why? the answer is uncomfortable, but clear. The city was financially mismanaged for years and unlike the Fed, we can’t just print and borrow.
It took us 20 years to get into this mess and it’s going to take us 20 years to dig out of it — assuming future “do-gooder” aldermanic votes regarding housing do not exacerbate the problem.
So let’s pass the debt exclusion override(s) that makes sense to fix our capital assets, make some cuts in operations and programs that are not highly subscribed to, and sell it all to the public on the fiscal merits.
Charlie,
Multiple pishes.
Schools, roads, sewers, are going to crumble at a rate that is independent of past administrations and, indeed, future administrations. Every day we delay fixing them raises the cost of fixing them. Explain why we should irrationally make today’s policy decisions based on frustration with past administrations.
We can’t borrow money? In fact, we can, and at a cost that is much less than the cost of continued deferred maintenance.
The state requires a threshold of affordable housing. That’s going to require additional school capacity. Schools are overcrowded because we haven’t prepared for that responsibility and invested in infrastructure and programming. Name calling isn’t going to change that equation.
Focusing on the demographics of override supporters strikes me as simple class demagoguery. Is there a cabal of Newton’s rich who can determine who among them should publicly support the override? “Okay, Buffy, Trey, and Whitney are enough for this override. The rest of you just write checks, and see if you can get the help to say a few kind words.” Of course not.
@Charlie:
These kinds of class warfare statements always make me uneasy. About 25,000 people voted in the 2008 override special election. Are you saying that those voters knew the economic status of the people running the pro-override campaign? Highly doubtful. What you are referring to is inside baseball. People are not basing their decisions on other people’s bank accounts.
@Jerry– Admittedly it’s somewhat uncomfortable to debate with people whose position I essentially agree with. My sense is that a majority of bloggers here on Village 14 are override supporters. I’m planning to vote for any [or all] of the overrides that are currently being considered. It’s just that I’ve been down this road before. And here we are, years later, with our kids still going to school in buildings that are an absolute disgrace. [Actually, two of my three kids have already gone through their entire K-12 education, while this problem has been much talked about, but largely unresolved].
If we lose this override battle, the situation will continue for years to come. I find that entirely unacceptable. So to me, the most important part of your comment was this… “the more broad based any proposal, the better chance it has of passing.” That’s exactly why I believe the Mayor should have pushed back on the MSBA rule requiring separate overrides for each school.
That rule is new, and has yet to be challenged. For all we know the MSBA might have backed down, or the City may have been able to obtain summary judgement. At the very least [given the enormity of the stakes] I would have expected Newton’s Mayor to call out the MSBA and Treasurer Grossman on this issue.
You also wrote something I largely agree with, [but I’m afraid you’ve framed it in the wrong context]… “I think the biggest determinate of whether a specific override will pass is the level of confidence that the public has that their money won’t be squandered and will be spent wisely, prudently and effectively.” While that likely holds true for a general override, and even for certain debt exclusions, I do not believe it is as accurate measure of public sentiment for a debt exclusion that addresses 1 elementary school in a city with 15. Here’s why…A homeowner without children in public school, can justify [in their own mind] voting for a school construction project within their elementary school district, because it will have a positive impact on their home value. To expect an out-of-district homeowner to vote in favor of a project on the opposite side of the city that has no impact on the value of their home, is, I believe, overly optimistic.
Steve,
Pish.
“Perfect is the enemy of the good”? Nobody is proposing anything remotely resembling perfect. And, many of us don’t think that the override is particularly good.
Here’s my nomination for a new cliche (to replace PITEOFTG): Safe is the enemy of quality.
“Pish”?
Why that’s a fighting word. But I was just quoting Ted. Ted, are you going to take that from Sean? Why don’t you two fight it out, and I’ll talk with the last guy standing. 🙂
Steve and Sean, if I were king, I would have been asking for very modest overrides on a regular basis and asking for debt exclusions for capital projects as and when needed for many years. That would be both perfect and good. Two and one-half percent is a purely arbitrary limit that has nothing to do with anything. Many other cities and towns put Prop 2/5 questions on the ballot far more often. Some don’t pass, and probably shouldn’t, but there isn’t such a huge durm und strang every five years.
Ted, I hate to say it, because I agree with you, but anyone who does that probably wouldn’t last longer than one term.
I’m sorry for double posting. This city has yet to decide whether Newton is going to be a city or a town. If we are a town, we should have a series of these overrides (as Ted says and other towns do) turn down 90% of development (until a nice 40B comes along we can’t refuse) and everyone has to cough up more money in lieu of not accepting more development OR act like a city where we can vote against overrides (like in 2008) and accept a lot more development to make up for the lost revenue. We can’t reject overrides and developments. People have to understand it’s one or the other, not neither.
Well, Tom, when the charter commission gets together it should look at a city manager in lieu of a mayoral form of municipal government.
I, like Steve Siegel, have come to know and respect Setti’s judgment since he assumed office almost 3 years ago. And that includes his leadership team too.
I’ve had the same debate with Setti and his team on the many issues raised by the Board’s deliberations. And with the benefit of his thinking on these issues, I have concluded that on balance his proposed approaches are workable, and can be effectively presented to Newton’s voters in a way that will lead to passage. That’s so for me, even where I think my views on a particular component are “better.”
Passing an override shouldn’t be easy, and this one won’t be either. But the present state of our city, even with all Setti’s administration has done, is still not satisfactory, given the manifold problems identified by this override request.
Frankly, were we seeking a larger override number, I’d probably have a harder time getting on board. I’m impressed that Setti isn’t satisfied that we have wrung out all available cost efficiencies, that more can and will be done. If those added efficiencies don’t do the trick as he hopes, then, and only the, should we be looking for more. [I exclude some projects from that statement, such as additional schools needing renovation or replacement & the whole OPEB issue.]
@Ted – why do you think a city manager model would be better for Newton?
@Charlie – it’s not just high income people who see the need for the over-ride. I’m at the low end of the Newton income scale and will vote for these over-rides.
It’s not class warfare. It’s a fact. Optics matter. Even if only 5% uses it as a factor in their decision making process.
Charlie said, “So let’s pass the debt exclusion override(s) that makes sense to fix our capital assets, make some cuts in operations and programs that are not highly subscribed to, and sell it all to the public on the fiscal merits.”
Am I correctly reading you to say that you’re in favor of the DE overrides but opposed to the operating override?
My take, for what it’s worth, is that not passing the operating override would be a killer, and probably makes the passing of the DE’s for the schools moot.
The growth in school population that has already occurred has us in difficulty, and the projected near term growth will exacerbate that. We need both more teachers and more space even short run, and the DEs for Angier and Cabot won’t help for several years.
The general override helps NPS immediately with additional teachers and short-term space to handle our exploding enrollment. Its failure would be felt across the school system starting this fall.
The debt exclusions are to address the physical conditions of the first two of our many long-neglected elementary schools. The impact of these construction projects will not be felt until the fall of 2016, when our hope is that students will be moving into a fixed Angier.
As a school supporter, I find it hard to justify supporting the DEs but not the general override. In truth, failure of any of the three questions will seriously compromise the strong school system improvement plan we are now following.
Do we have any idea how many schools need to be replaced or renovated in total, and what the price tag would be in today’s prices? Are we going to be facing this each year as people feel the need to have their schools updated since other schools have already been updated?
Also, are the estimates based upon competitive bidding or on speculation, and will the eventual work be done by competitive bidding? I could be wrong, but my impression was that David Cohen gave the architectural work to Graham Gund and the construction to Demeo without competition. Is this correct?
Ted, I do believe that city manager will be an issue that thew charter commission will look at. I am sure they’ll also look at Cambridge’s form of govt as well…city manager/part time Mayor (weak Mayor). I’m not sure they will feel it’s the best for newton, but it’s an issue that I’m sure people will bring up to review.
Ted, what’s you’re position on charter reform? If memory serves, you were in favor of it, but that was years ago. What’s you’re position now?
I was out getting signatures today with the LWV and in all of my time gathering signatures, today was the first time I met someone adamently opposed to charter reform. Go figure.
Tom, I am in favor.
See Ted, we agree on something, we found commonground…we can expand on that:).
@Barry: At present, pricing is being estimated based upon a range provided by the MSBA for recently completed school projects of various sizes. Our estimates are within but near the top of the MBSA range since our sites are small, are in dense residential neighborhoods, and are previously built upon; all these factors raise construction complexity as compared to large, open, virgin sites. Experience tells us to be (appropriately) conservative in our estimates. I don’t know the specifics of the process followed at NNHS, but the Angier process will essentially be run under close MSBA watch and will use competitive bidding.
Regarding our other school needs: Three Tier One renovation projects completed around 2000 updated Williams, Memorial Spaulding, and Bowen, so these buildings do not require major updates in the foreseeable future (Bowen is a target for minor expansion due to enrollment increases). Some other schools identified in the 2007 Long Range Facilities Plan have received new roofs, windows, boilers, plumbing upgrades, etc. since the report came out but this document should still give you a sense for the scope of additional work. Also refer to the the City’s CIP page to view projected school and other projects across Newton. There is a lot of information here but I hope it helps.
Steve
Thanks, Steve. I’ll check out your information.
Tom– I need to point out that although in the distant past I supported Charter reform in the hope it would lead to a smaller BOA, I have changed my position, am very much opposed, and have previously stated that on this blog. My opposition is primarily based on the issue you mentioned, the potential of changing our form of government to anything other than Strong Mayor. I firmly believe Strong Mayor is right for Newton, and don’t want to take the chance of it being replaced by something else. I also believe it’s not in the city’s interest to open up the Charter, without a very specific purpose for doing so. [I know this is off topic, but I want it on the record].
I stand corrected. In all my time collecting signatures, there are 2 people who are adamently opposed to the charter reform.
Mike, you have no faith in people. I seriously doubt that the commission would make that change. It would take a ton of courage and evidence to make that proposal and it would take a ton of campaigning and explaining to get people to vote for it.
I’m more in Mike’s camp on this one, Tom. Is the current arrangement perfect, certainly not. No arrangement is: there are pluses and minuses. Is it broken: I think not.
As some others have pointed out, IF we want a change, I believe it incumbent to be able to offer up a vision of those changes, and why that would be believed to be better than the current. That’s not the process being outlined.
Is the BOA too big: probably. Is it unworkable; I don’t think so.
Finally, I find the whole process for charter reform to be so unwieldy and lengthy as to not be worth it absent horrific problems with the current structure.
Hi Dan,
There’s a reason why the process is so difficult. The law is covered by state law and the state didn’t want people to change the charter or examine the charter very often.
The charter hasn’t been reviewed in 41 years from 1969-1971, inplemented 1972). Let’s look at 1971:
Year End Close Dow Jones Industrial Average 890
Average Cost of new house $25,250.00
Average Income per year $10,600.00
Average Monthly Rent $150.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas 40 cents
Datsun 1200 Sports Coupe $1,866.00
United States postage Stamp 8 cents
Ladies 2 piece knit suites $9.98
Movie Ticket $1.50
Popular Films
•Love Story
•Summer of ’42
•Ryan’s Daughter
•The Owl and the Pussycat
•The Aristocats
•Carnal Knowledge
•The Andromeda Strain
•The French Connection
Popular Musicians and songs
•James Taylor
•The Doors
•Bob Dylan
•Tony Orlando and Dawn with ” Knock Three Times ”
•Janis Joplin with ” Me and Bobby Mcgee ”
•The Who
•Mungo Jerry
•John Lennon
•The Jackson 5
•Ike and Tina Turner
•Marvin Gaye
•Rod Stewart with ” Maggie Mae ”
•The Osmonds
•Michael Jackson
•The Rolling Stones with ” Brown Sugar ”
Popular TV Programmes
•All My Children
•Mary Tyler Moore
•McCloud
•The Odd Couple
•The Partridge Family
Get the picture???
Also,
Nixon was President
The 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution was formally certified by President Richard Nixon which lowers the voting age from 21 to 18.
Libertarian Party was established
DB Cooper made his famous jump
Charlie Manson was convicted
What technology?????….transistor radio, handheld calculator
All fascinating stuff about 1971, but what has that got to do with charter reform?
Tom,I wasn’t a fan of charter reform in 2008, when I first met you, because i felt Newton had much bigger fish to fry then, and because I felt there was no vision for what was wrong with the existing system. I remember debating with you then about the need to have a viable option to discuss with folks when you wanted them to be a signatory to a petition.
I stil feel the same way.
Hey, you may be right, but that’s not the way i see it.
Dan and Mike,
I’m trying to understand why you are opposed to charter reform. I assume that both of you think the Board of Aldermen should be smaller and you know that charter reform is the only way to make that happen. Do you think there’s too high a risk in opening up the charter with not enough gain (smaller BOA)?
While I’d like to see a smaller BoA, I question whether it’s worth focusing time and effort on charter reform right now. I’d hate to see a charter commission take up time and energy that could be spent on more urgent needs facing us.
Just a thought, but it might be easier to deal with some of our issues if we had a smaller BOA. Then the BOA could focus on policy issues and delegate specific issues relating to traffic/safety, zoning, land use, etc. to the city staff. That may allow the city to move forward in an efficient manner with the more pressing issues facing the city.
I’d like to get something straight here. There is no reason why we can’t have some people working on the day to day operations of the city, while others can concentrate on charter reform. One group doesn’t negatively impact the other. Matter of fact, as Jane points out, the charter reform may make things easier for the remainder of the city.
I know, I know, nothing is written in stone…it might be a disaster. If this is the case, then the electorate can vote against the new charter and we will be right back to where we are today. No harm, no foul. I see only positives for the movement.
My comments on the override were rejected by Spam 3 times – twice last night and once five minutes ago. Earlier today I called Greg Reibman who told me to write a Word document and paste it on this blog. I did so – and was rejected again! What is going on?
Mike,
As you know, the most popular sentiment of Newtonians have been and still is the reduction of the BOA. This can only strengthen the role of the mayor. Do you oppose this sentiment also?
what’s the deal with the ‘Spam Free WordPress”? Won’t post my comment either. something about a password.
@Barry: I have no idea. Will check into it. Anyone else having any problems?
Ive had 3 or 4 posts that haven’t made it through this week, along with some sort of “spam-free” note.
Gail– My previous comments were pretty specific about why I’m opposed to Charter reform now. I like our Strong Mayor form of government, and don’t want to see it tinkered with. I also think we should know what we’re trying to achieve, before we open up the Charter to all sorts of potential changes. So yes, I think there’s too much risk for an ambiguous gain. As far as downsizing the BOA, which is something I’m in favor of, there are other ways to approach that without putting our entire Charter at risk.
Mike, you keep saying that there are other ways to downsize the BOA, but I’m not familiar with any of them. Can you elaborate?
@Greg– I also have experienced a lot of problems with “spam free word press.”
We think the problem has been fixed, let us know.
Now back to the your previously scheduled override thread that had become a charter commission thread.
I don’t get it. What’s so contentious about the issue?
What’s wrong with having 24 aldermen for 80,000 people, that it’s worth a charter review to change it? Assuming the aldermen reflect the will of their constituents, why is 8 or 16 better than 24? Fewer of them means more individual power in each of their hands, which doesn’t seem so great.
I’m assuming that their salaries and benefits are a pretty small part of the city budget.
Gail– Sure, I’d be glad to elaborate. The Board of Alderman can vote to downsize the board themselves. That measure would then go before the State Legislature as a Home Rule Petition for approval. Granted, this approach would require a great deal of public pressure. It would also be helped considerably by a mayor who was committed to a smaller board, and was willing to use the power of that office to accomplish the goal.
Off topic:
Patrick cuts spending by $225 million, will seek power to cut local aid.
(He is cutting SPED, which is fine if he found away to do more with less, but I don’t think thats the case.)
Read more: Patrick cuts spending by $225 million, will seek power to cut local aid – Newton, Massachusetts – Newton TAB
Tom,
From the gov’s press release, about local aid cut:
A couple of years ago, the League of Women Voters Newton asked Marilyn Contreas to speak to us about Charter Commissions. She said that, according to Mass state law, some structural changes can be accomplished ONLY through a charter commission. One of those changes is the size, composition or terms of the legislative body. So, if people are focused on that particular change then a charter commission is necessary. A home rule petition by the Board of Aldermen can’t be used for this kind of comprehensive change. (See the article by Marilyn Contreas in the Municipal Advocate, Vol. 22, No. 2, for all the details.)
Actually, when we looked at this a few years ago, the law department advised the BOA that the size of the board could be reduced by (1) Charter Commission, (2) by way of special legislation pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment (Mass. Const. Amend Art 2, Section 8) or by (3) voters pursuant to the initiative provisions of the Charter.
Ted –
Does #3 mean that there could just be a ballot question to reduce the size of the board? I’m trying to remember exactly what happened with the League’s question several year’s ago. I know it passed. Perhaps it was non-binding. Can someone remind me?
Thanks for clarifying Ted …
Anybody want to take a crack at explaining WHY we need to reduce the number of aldermen, since everyone seems to have an opinion about HOW to do it?
Michael, you want the foxes to walk away from the chicken coop? You got to be kidding! You want to rely on public pressure? The public voted twice to downsize the BOA, at about 70% against 30%. Did the aldermen listen? Of course not! I know one alderman, Hess-Mahan, who ever publicly expressed the will to downsize the BOA but even he didn’t docket that item for the past 7 years. Forget it!
Barry, I’m surprised by your last comment I thought you, a republican, would oppose a big government. Let me inform you:
The aldermen divided the city into 8 principalities/wards. In addition, evet ward has several neighborhood associations who have competing interests. Every alderman surrenders him/herself with favorite constituents who GIVE THEM MONEY, ostensibly for their election campaigns every 2 years.
Then the aldermen argue with each other ad nauseum pushing those local agendas against each other. This Board is as dysfuntional as the US Congress, only in miniature. None of them have guts to go agaist the will of their money-giving favorites. So if we reduce their number, they will at least think of the entire city more than now.
Anatol,
First of all, as I’ve said many times here, I’m not a Republican. I’m just not oriented the way you described yourself on another blog, close to a socialist.
Second, representative government is supposed to represent the people’s interests. So, if the objective is to interfere with that, it needs some thought. And argument is how politics of competing interests gets done. Maybe you’d like a dictator?
Anybody have a better reason for reducing the number of aldermen?
@ Gail, the League-led ballot question (which was in 2000) was non-binding. It passed by a 2/3 margin.
@ Ted, Under Home Rule charter procedures (MGL section 43B), only a charter commission can change the composition, mode of election or appointment, or terms of office of the legislative body (so Home Rule Amendment is not a viable mechanism). And as Ruthanne mentioned, according to the state charter expert Marilyn Contreas, Home Rule Petition is not a path for change of this magnitude, since the state legislature prefers a charter commission to drive such significant change. So, that leaves only the charter commission as a viable mechanism to downsize a city’s legislative body.
I should also mention…the charter revision procedures are outlined in Article 89 of the state constitution (Home Rule Petition) and under MGL Section 43B (Charter Commission and Home Rule Amendment). 43B is very clear, and taking Home Rule Petition provisions in context with Marilyn Contreas’ remarks, that does not appear to be a path. This question comes up frequently with respect to charter reform…I’d love to know if anyone else’s review leads to a different conclusion.
Barry,
In the old days (and to some extent now) there was a ton of grandstanding and everyone had to get up and speak. Very often, meetings went for 3-4 hours when they could have been done in 2. Everyone said the samething over and over again. Theoretically, the process would go more smoothly if we had a smaller board. Things can get passed a lot quicker and the city can run more efficiently. If you take a look at numbers, a city as large as Boston, has 7 or 9 fulltime (selectmen or aldermen). Newton has the most or the second most elected body in all of New England.
I hesitate to give an exact number to reduce the Board until a study is done as to how much work the Board does and how much of it can be passed to others (administration or volunteers). Yes volunteers. In many cities the responsibility of special permits go to volunteers who meet once per month (or week) and they all have experience in special permits, they take the politics out of the process and they streamline the process. While I’d be surprised if more than 5 people on the board had experience of special permits before they become aldermen. That isn’t to say they can’t learn, but they still have to deal with the politics.
As far as the charter commission, if we do it by home rule petition it would still have to pass the BOA by super majority (2:1 or 16 votes) and I think we all agree it would be difficult to get just a simple majority from the Board.
@Rhanna, I would be happy to share with you legal memos from Newton’s law department with an alternative point of view.
@Anatol, I co-sponsored a docket item proposing home rule legisation to reduce the size of the board in 2006:
We held a number of meetings on the item, and at the end there was no consensus about the number of aldermen, how many ward vs. at-large aldermen, etc. Ultimately, I and a number of my colleagues concluded that it would be better for a Charter Commission to study the issue to determine the best way to reduce the size of the board. As others have pointed out, the board has numerous responsibilities that would have to be taken over by other bodies or handled administratively.
Personally, I would change the zoning ordinance to allow more development to be done administratively or by right rather than going through the special permit process. But I would not necessarily remove all special permits from the board, and certainly not without a body that could carry out this important quasi-judicial function. No such body currently exists. Many communities give the special permit granting authority to the Zoning Board of Appeals. But our ZBA currently handles variances, which involves a different legal standrad (i.e., hardship) and different processes. There is nothing to prevent the SPGA from being split between say the BOA and the ZBA, with the BOA retaining major projects with citywide or area wide impacts and the ZBA handling non-major projects that primarily affect abbuters and neighbors.
But many of my colleagues, and other members of the community, actually want elected rather than appointed officials to handle special permits, despite the fact that it is supposed to be a quasi-judicial, non-political, objective review process. While it is difficult to take off our hats as representatives and put on our hats as quasi-judicial officials, i.e., unbiased arbiters, it is not impossible. I continue to believe that a Charter Commission, duly elected, has a better chance of arriving at a consensus determination based on careful study and deliberation.
Barry,
So you’re not Republican, I’m not Socialist – and no – I don’t like dictators. Can we drop this name-calling nonsense and discuss the matter at hand?
Yes, a representative government is SUPPOSED to represent the people’s interests. But, as you may know, “some people are more equal than other people”, especially those who donate lots of money to politicians. Thus, Newton government represents only rich Newtonians who buy their favors, just like the US Congress. That’s why only 30% of Newtpn’s registered voters typically vote in the municipal elections and the Congress has only 7% of approval rating.
Read more: http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2012/11/baker-and-fuller-want-a-larger-override/#ixzz2E97FpA9X
@ Ted, Thanks for the info. Paths #2 and #3 of the legal opinion (that you reference in your post above) both amount to the city council petitioning the state legislature, which must approve the petition by a 2/3 majority. (Their approval can also be contingent on the initiative being subsequently approved by Newton voters.) This is the path that the state charter expert indicated was technically legal but probably not viable in reality.
@Rhanna, understood. But consider that Newton has a history of non-binding votes to reduce the size of the Board, and adopting special legislation and affirming it by a popular vote would be the best assurance that it is, indeed, what the voters want. The advantage over the charter review process is that the reduction of the size of the board would be the only issue in the election and would give the Board an opportunity to restructure the roles and responsibilities of the Board to accommodate fewer members.
I would be less than candid if I did not say that I sincerely doubt that a charter review would necessarily recommend a reduction in the size of the BOA, without reducing its roles and responsibilities as well particularly around land use and zoning. And that might not pass. From 9 years on the Board, 7 on the Land Use committee and 3 years as its chairman, I can tell you that all politics is local. Many residents who have never set foot inside city hall come out for a public hearing and deliberations on a project that affects their neighborhood in some way.
Just last night, the committee voted to approve a project in my neighborhood for which the planning department would have supported more intense development, but my neighbors were dead set against. One complaint was that the developer never came to the neighbors until after filing for a special permit. While this project was not “major” in the technical sense, it was certainly major to these neighbors. Ultimately, because of the public hearing and the review process in the BOA, the developer and the neighbor reached consensus on a much less ambitious project (decreased from 5800 to 4500 square feet, pulled back from the property lines, reduced in height, restricted to specific uses).
Had this gone through an administrative process, the neighbors might well have never had an opportunity to work with the developer to arrive at a project that everyone could live with, including the developer. That is not to say that giving the special permit granting authority to another body, like the ZBA, would have led to a different result. But in my time on the Board, I have seen many similar projects which, at first blush, do not seem to have much of an adverse impact on a neighborhood, until we hear from neighbors who demonstrate why it does.
Neighborhood opposition does not necessarily mean a project won’t be approved. The special permit process is, as I said before, a quasi-judicial process in which the Board must weigh all of the facts to determine whether the special permit criteria have been satisfied. But, the argument goes, before the Board cedes that authority to an appointed, un-elected body consisting of five members or so, who are not accountable to the voters, we ought to think long and hard as to whether that will better serve Newton residents.
BTW, I thought this thread was about the override.
Tom,
Lengthy meetings may be a problem, but sometimes that’s what it takes to get all sides represented. IMHO, the ones who suffer the most are the aldermen who sit through those meetings. I can switch the channel on my television if I get bored. But in spite of this, the aldermen appear at the meetings and talk too much.
However, if that’s the objective, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. The BOA could establish for itself a kind of procedural rule that limits the time allowed except in highly charged or complex issues. Changing the size wouldn’t necessarily help.
And Anatol,
You want to eliminate the desire to help one’s own neighborhood at the expense of other neighborhoods, and thinks that fewer aldermen would help? I think not. What would happen is that more of what you don’t like would go on behind closed doors instead of through debate at a BOA meeting. And I think that local effects should be part of how the BOA considers things, as Ted pointed out above.
I’m in favor of dropping the issue, unless there is a more compelling reason, like we pay them a lot in salaries and benefits, and maybe per alderman operating costs, and it would save the city a significant amount of money. I don’t think that’s the case.
Ted,
Can’t the Charter Commission say we give abc responsibilities to the ZBA. As part of their responsibilities they need to have an open hearing listening to the neighbors? Or does that put the politics back into the process??
What would you’re recommendations be if you were to advise the Commission?
@Tom, I am a little unclear as to whether the Charter Commission could amend the charter to allocate the special permit granting authority to another body. I am almost certain it cannot amend the zoning ordinances or rules of the board of aldermen, which would have to be amended. State law requires a public hearing on all special permit applications, so that will not change.
I think what would have to happen is that if the voters were to approve a reduction in the size of the board based on the recommendations of the Charter Commission, the Board of Aldermen would be forced to accommodate the reduced number of its members. I have some thoughts on how that should happen, but it would depend a lot on the size of a reduced board and whether and what legislative and quasi-judicial functions would be most affected.
@Gail– Despite the cloud of dust that’s now been raised regarding an alternative [to Charter reform] that would reduce the BOA, I believe my response to your question was accurate. Since reducing the BOA is the reason most frequently mentioned by Charter reform supporters, it’s not in their best interest to fully acknowledge that there is an alternative. Does anyone seriously think the Legislature would block a Home Rule Petition from Newton seeking to reduce our Board of Alderman? These types of initiatives that affect a single municipality pass routinely when proposed.
Oops, Board of AldermEn, not AldermAn.
@Anatol– The problem with the last ballot initiative to reduce the Board, was that it was non-binding. Those who proposed it [League of Women Voters] were not prepared to fight for implementation after it passed. And it was not an issue that Mayor Cohen was interested in pursuing. I believe if an organization were formed around reducing the size of the Board, in the same way one has formed around the proposed overrides, sufficient pressure could be applied to effectuate the change.
@Mike, two things: 1) the BOA had never been able to reach consensus on whether to seek special legislation let alone how and by how much to reduce the size of the board; and 2) an awful lot of signatures are required to get a binding initiative on the ballot (more than for a Charter Review, I believe).
@Ted– Am I correct that if the Board could reach a consensus, the process could move forward [to the Legislature] without a ballot initiative?
Barry,
The behind-the-door bargaining is what goes on NOW with all the 24 aldermen. With fewer aldermen there will be fewer bargaining and scheming. The fewer aldermen would be easier to follow and control. After several years of studying this issue I proposed the following:
1. Eliminate Ward Aldermen. That would do the following:
– Bring the total number of aldermen to 16 with President of the Board breaking ties;
– Reduce the influence of special local interests on our government;
– Reduce the cost of elections and increase donations to the aldermen;
– Reduce the aldermen’s salaries and health care expenses.
2. Transfer the functions of zoning, land use and transportation to a board of professional experts insulated from political influence. This would do the following:
– Free the aldermen from scientific learning (city planning is a science, not a political bargain);
– Reduce the cost and time of special permitting;
– Reduce the influence of aldermen on Inspectional Services;
– Increase city tax revenues from private enterprises.
Oops, a typo in my #1 proposal. Change the word “increase” to “decrease” in this sentence:
“Reduce the cost of elections and DECREASE donations to the aldermen.”
@Mike, yes. However, the board was advised that the legislature might require a popular vote to affirm the special legislation.
Thanks for the clarification, Ted. It’s just my opinion, but I think the Legislature would easily approve a Home Rule Petition to reduce the size of the board, without a ballot initiative. I believe the best way to reduce the size of the board, is a combination of public pressure and a mayor who prioritizes the issue.
Mike, you’re missing the point. Even if it does get to the legislature, it requires a super majority from the board to change the charter. You can’t get a simple majority to vote in favor of the Board reducing themselves. I know, I know, have future aldermen campaigns, campaign on it make it the sole issue…which isn’t going to happen, either. Getting a Mayor to campaign for a smaller Board won’t happen, either. (Endorse, yes…campaign no). It can’t be done.
Please, prove me wrong.
Mike, Jeff, Dan come to the dark side. I am you’re faaaaather:):).
Yes, come to the dark side. We have cookies.
Tom is right. A mayor should stay out of the issue of reducing the size of the board. The charter requires the mayor to stay out of the legislative biz and requires the board to stay out of the executive biz.
Tom, the “I am your father” stuff? Extra creepy. But it made me laugh. Out loud. Really.
Ted, I am you’re faaaather, too. Cookies, not too good.
Tom– You’re suggesting the Board can’t reach a consensus on a contentious issue, when just a couple of days ago [at the Mayor’s urging], they voted 23-0 to put three overrides on the ballot. I know it’s not the same thing, but I think it shows what is possible with leadership from a mayor. I do agree with Ted’s point to some degree. Certainly Mayor Warren should not inject himself in the size of the Board debate at this point. That would be counter-productive on a number of fronts. But I do believe this should be an issue in the next mayoral election.
Mike, I didn’t say that at all. The board reaches consensus on almost every issue (one side or the other). They will not support a side that lessens the board, nevermind a super majority. It’s that simple. It’s been tried and it’s failed several times.