Activist Jeff Seideman smells trouble in the Newton League of Woman Voters interest in forming a Charter Commission. There’s too many juicy tidbits in his TAB column to just excerpt one. Read the whole thing then come back and tell us what you think.
I’ll start it off.
They want to start the Charter Commission ball rolling without doing the hard work up front…telling us specifically what they want to change, and figuring out a way to make it happen.
They’re unbelievably naive to think that the type of people who will be elected to the Charter Commission — unless the League does something right — will implement the reform changes, e.g., cutting the size of the BOA. After all, it’s almost certain those elected will be Aldermen and Newton’s political power elite. They’re not about to vote themselves out of a job, or reduce the power of the city Democratic committee.
The League appears to be in lala land. They think people will be elected, they’ll sit around, share their feelings, and do what’s right. And politics will never raise its ugly head. Get real.
I want the League to first draft a revised Charter, or at least give us detailed bullet points as to what they want, shop it around to local civic organizations and get their input/buy-in, and pull together candidates who will be committed to implementing the reform changes.
Except for the slate, that’s exactly what was done 41 years ago, the last time the Charter was revised. The League then made out a list of what it wanted to change. Of course, as I’ve described it above, the politicians didn’t do half the wish list, like reducing the size of the BOA, but they did make some changes.
That approach is what we need now.
Jeff,
Let’s start with your first point: No Study. There have been two studies on the charter. People keep telling you this and you refuse to listen. Jon Stewart had a study group and the league had their own study f=group and came up with issues (as you suggested) I don’t know why you keep refuting the facts.
Second point: Charter Commission. Obviously, nobody can predict the future. Elected officials can get on the commission, there’s no doubt, but I have a plan to prevent that (atleast for specific alderman). Elected officials can’t run for their political office and the charter commission at the sametime. This means if we find candidates to run against them they will have to choose between the Board and the Commission. My money is on the elected officials choosing their current position. All we have to do is find people to get on the ballot and we’ll be in good shape.
Third Point:????: I hope people will elect hard working conscientious commissioners. I don’t know how you come up with the la la land comment. It’s a lot of hardwork and people need to recognize it when they run for office.
Fourth point: coordinating charter study. as was stated previously, study has been conducted. I personally disagree with you on this point (as in the others). I don’t want the charter to be predetermined. There’s no way the league would have access to all the information that the charter commission would have. I am assuming the administration will give them access to an intern/helper to retrieve all kinds of information and benchmarking material that the commission needs that the league may not have thought of. If you want bullet points, OK…I’ll go there. A bullet point to me is an issue to look into in the future.
We need an open, honest and accountable process. We need people who will listen to the citizenry and take any and all recommendations seriously. I guess we totally disagree on this one.
Regardless of how we feel, atleast stop telling people that there hasn’t been a study on the charter since 1972.
Man, does this pain me, but Jeff makes some important points. (Though, for the life of me, I don’t understand why he seems compelled to wrap his arguments in distracting and demeaning rhetoric.)
Structure matters.
What Jeff is proposing is, in effect, that the League run a charter commission process before kicking off the charter commission process. On the face of it, why bother? The whole point of the charter commission process is to evaluate options. No need to do the work twice, and in a less transparent manner in the first place.
To which Jeff replies, if you go in to the charter commission process with a blank piece of paper, who you elect as commissioners will dictate the outcome. (This might be a good point to ding Greg for the unnecessarily provocative headline. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize structural realities.) Elected officials protect their prerogatives. Some prerogatives are healthy policy outcomes. Some elected officials are better at protecting. No judgment, just fact.
To which Jeff adds, if you don’t know what the possible outcomes are, there is no way to mobilize around the “right” candidates. Without a slate or other organizing structure, you give established political figures (and their prerogatives) an advantage. Established political figures are just better at winning votes.
Obviously, Jeff will correct any misconstruction I’ve made of his arguments.
Ironically, Jeff’s argument applies to the larger problem with municipal government in Newton. Non-partisan elections prevent us from organizing around our policy preferences. And, with a 24-member board, it is very hard to know which candidates share your policy preferences. Simply making it possible to run as an R or D won’t help things, because a) what organizes parties at the national level don’t apply at the municipal level and b) just about everybody in Newton is a D, so there’s no way to meaningfully distinguish among the D’s. The first point is referred to in political science as “salience.” As an example, what people think about what those in the top income bracket should pay in taxes (salient at the national level) doesn’t correspond to what those same people think about density around transit hubs (salient at the municipal level).
That said, I’m not as skeptical as Jeff. I think there may be some mechanisms to identify important charter opportunities and limit charter commissioners exercise of personal prerogative. More on that another time. (If Jeff or the cabal Jeff fears hasn’t had me silenced in the mean time.)
There are a lot of changes I’d like to make to our Charter… I’d like to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen.– I’d like to strengthen the language that keeps a sitting mayor from engaging in outside activities.– I’d like residents of Newton who are not US citizens to be allowed to vote in municipal elections.– I’d like public school students to be able to vote in School Committee elections from the age of 16.– I’d like to require the City to clear snow from sidewalks as well as streets, and explicitly prohibit the aldermen from transferring that or any other municipal responsibility to residents.– But the one thing I’m not willing to put at risk, [even if I could get all those other things], is our Strong Mayor form of government. As a 50 year resident of Newton, I’m convinced that changing the Strong Mayor structure, would ultimately change the nature of our city forever. I simply don’t want to take that risk.
My good friend Tom appears to be missing the point. It’s not hard to find problems with the current Charter. Yes, the League has been studying it, as have others.
The difficult part is proposing SOLUTIONS, which the League refuses to do.
If there are no proposed solutions, there’s no way candidates can get behind necessary reforms. Then it’ll be like before, with every reform candidate proposing something different and the insiders, who have the discipline to stand united and say nothing controversial until they’re elected, laughing their heads off that the silly reformers have handed them the keys to the Charter Commission.
(And the Charter Commission law makes it clear anyone can serve, including elected officials.)
Take, for example, the Election Commission. Currently it has two Democrats and two Republicans. And the deciding vote goes to the city solicitor, who will be in step with the Mayor, who will be a Democrat for decades to come. Under this system we got Jonathan Yeo for two more years even though by any rational reading of the intent of the residency laws, he wasn’t qualified to run again — no matter what he intended. Are Democratic Aldermen elected to the Charter Commission going to change that balance? Will they add an Unenrolled member and take the tie vote away from the City Solicitor? In your dreams! They like it just the way it is, thank you.
I take no position on Mike’s concern about changing from a Strong Mayor form of government. But unless the League takes a position on it, he has no idea whom he should vote for, or whether he should sign the League petition and place that, and all other issues, in play.
This is important. We deserve answers from the League. If it wants to play in the governmental big leagues, it’s time it started acting like it and dealing with the political realities.
I consider myself dinged. Or is it dung?
I’m ready to buy that the “structural realities” of the process could be debate worthy (I always shop locally first for arguments) .
But I’m not buying implication that this a some sort of scheme by a cabal of insiders to push a hidden agenda (i.e. “We want Claire Sokoloff to be School Committee Chair for life, so let’s reform the charter!”).
This feels like a genuine effort by the league to create an opportunity to rethink and reevaluate the way our city government is structured. Are there risks doing that without knowing who the commissioners are and what they’d do first? You bet. But democracy is messy.
BTW, I genuinely hope both Jeff and Sean run to be on the commission if it ever gets that far. We’ll need smart, passionate, folks at that table.
The League wrote a comprehensive response to Jeff’s column in an op-ed that was published this week. I hope you’ll post the link as soon as it is up.
Jeff’s column was persuasive because he used sensationalism and omitted relevant facts. The whole argument that “we could end up with a worse charter than we have today!” falls apart when you know that voters must approve the charter that is proposed by a charter commission. Any commission that hopes to get their charter passed by voters will be judicious about what changes they propose. In Massachusetts, only about 50% of charters proposed by charter commissions have been adopted by voters.
Also, Jeff implies that the League has broken from its standard discipline of study before action on this initiative, which is not true. The League completed a comprehensive study of the charter in 2010. The study was conducted by 34 members who spent 9 months studying Newton’s charter and the charters of 11 benchmark communities and interviewing officials from Newton and the benchmark communities. The study also examined the Model City Charter published by the National Civic League, met with a charter expert employed by the Commonwealth, studied the 1971 Newton charter commission, and studied Mass. charter commissions going back to 1999.
The study found significant issues with our current form of government. The biggest issue is that in Newton we must elect 25 officials every two years, leading to voter fatigue and apathy, which in turn lead to voters going to the polls uninformed. This issue could be addresses by creating 4-year, staggered terms for Alderman and School Committee, which would cut the number in half. Another issue was the inconsistency of having term limits for School Committee and not for Aldermen (it would seem that either term limits are a good idea or they aren’t). Also, the study found that a BoA of 24 members is not as effective as it could be. The study concluded that Newton should stick with its strong mayor system. Should a charter commission be elected, the League would advocate for our positions as with do with other legislative issues.
We do highlight these points in the flier that we hand out when collecting signatures, and explain in as much detail as people will to listen to. However, we make it very clear that the petition will do nothing more than put a question on the ballot…we would be misleading voters by handing out a proposed charter, as if we are petitioning for that charter. Signers should understand that no one can guarantee what the outcome will be and that they are only signing for a chance to vote on a charter commission.
Finally, the League never endorses candidates, and won’t do so if we are electing a charter commission, so we cannot promote a slate.
@ Sean…who you elect as commissioners WILL dictate the outcome, whether you go into the process with a proposed charter or a “blank piece of paper.” Anyone signing the petition should understand that. The League has positions (i.e. proposals), but they are just proposals.
In the 1971 charter commission, 5 of the 9 commissioners were sitting elected officials. 2 state representatives, 2 School Committee reps, and 1 Alderman. It is clear that they were too invested in the status quo to downsize the Board of Aldermen. The commission chair, Florence Rubin (a League member) said that even the state reps would not support the downsizing because they felt they needed the support of the Aldermen in their own re-elections. Given that we have the benefit of the history, and that we live in the information age, it seems unlikely that we would make the same mistake again.
My good friend Jeff said:”(And the Charter Commission law makes it clear anyone can serve, including elected officials.)”
Which is 100% correct, but what my good friend from ward 7 misses is if we put opponents, even paper opponents(as long as the signatures are collected), the elected officials that have opponents can not run for both BOA and the charter commission.
In other words, the elected officials that were on the charter commission in 1971 must not have had an opponent against them. Since they were free and clear of opponents in their local races they were freed up to run for the commission.
(This is how I remember it from 5 years ago…each candidate can run for 1 election at a time, including the elction for charter commission).
@ Tom, I don’t believe that’s true. I believe you can run for both local office and charter commission at once, according to the state’s charter expert whom we met with during the League study.
Hi Rhanna,
I’ll call city hall on Monday to see for sure. If not, I guess we need another plan.
When I first got involved politically in Newton 4 1/2 years ago, I recall someone approaching me to get on board with seeking to alter our charter. They wanted me to sign papers as i recall, and to think about getting behind the effort more directly.
I was pretty involved with the override vote back then, which had much more immediacy, but the first two questions that popped into my mind then were: “well, what’s wrong with the current charter?, and “what are the proposed solutions to fixing that?”
I wasn’t interested in signing papers if I couldn’t get reasonable answers to those questions.
Granted, I was new to a lot of issues, but even today I find those questions relevant.
Dan,
You raise the fundamental question created by Jeff’s column: where should the work of charter analysis be done? Jeff’s arguing that the charter analysis ought to be done before a charter commission is created and the result be brought to the public. In that scenario, the charter commission’s job is what? To present and tinker?
The alternative argument: there are enough concerns about the charter, including the size of the board, to justify a thorough re-examination. The re-examination should be done in the full light of day, led by duly elected notables on a charter commission. To which suggestion Jeff’s absolutely valid concerns about structure and prerogatives need to be addressed.
I’m actually a bit surprised that Jeff is carrying the flag for the propose-it-then-vote-it approach. It seems he’s uncharacteristically okay with what he might otherwise be described as backroom deliberations.
@Sean, I know what you’re saying.
My point was that when i was politically uninitiated with Newton politics, I described the 2 questions I had, and I’d submit the large majority of Newtonites are like I was back then. If true, then it may be difficult to gain much traction on any vote if folks don’t have enough to sink their teeth into.
Isn’t it possible to provide a framework for what one thinks might be a reasonable set of changes, while still allowing for an open process for selecting/electing commission members?
To me, the combination of a very lengthy process for changing the charter and a wishy washy mission will represent a dampening of enthusiasm for this whole exercise.
Just one man’s view.
Dan,
I think you are on the right track, and I’m cautiously optimistic. While the work of a charter commission seems unbounded and without a framework, I think that there are actually a discrete set of issues and, for each issue, a definable range of options. Legislature size — somewhere between 6 and 24. Executive type — Town manager to strong mayor. Charter objection — leave alone, do not apply to items with timed action (budget, special permits), eliminate. &c.
If we can articulate those issues (or the most important or likely to change) and the range of possible solutions, then we have a framework against which to evaluate candidates. It’s a happy midpoint between undefined mush and specific proposals.
Sean,
Please run for the commission.
Tom– No offense intended, and I respect the hard work and effort you’ve put into this, but obviously I’m hoping the League falls short with the signature drive. If the requisite number of signatures are in fact gathered, I’m curious about your priorities for change. I listed a few things in an earlier post that I would like to see changed. And it’s a good bet I’ll be pushing at least a couple of those changes if your effort really does gain traction. Aside from reducing the Board of Aldermen [which we both agree on], what are some of the other changes you personally would like to see?
Mike,
I’m not concerned on any particular issue. As long as the commission does their homework I’ll be OK with that…even if they determine that the current size of the Board is whats best for Newton. I think it’s totally unrealistic that any of us will get 100% of what we feel is currently best for Newton, since most of us have never done the necessary research. I wouldn’t want to burden anyone to do the research beforehand, either. The job is a huge chore and people have to recognize that the undertaking is like rewriting government, based upon what we know about government today (updating infrastructure needs, technology, etc). A group can’t have the resources that this commission will have with the administration’s support. The administration should back this and give the commission an intern/researcher to get information when needed. But, someone has to do it, if for no other reason than its been over 40 years since people have reviewed the charter.
Mike, in short, as long as the charter gets reviewed and the proper people are elected, I’ll support them. I guess I am more concerned about gathering the signatures and getting the right people in place than I am in issues…the issues will take care of themselves.
Mike, now that I have some time here’s a list of issues I’d like the committee research.
1. Size of the BOA (including doing the research to give some of the BOA’s responsibilities to the administration and/or volunteers).
2. Term limits
3. Researching our committees (seeing if there is anyway to subtract committees due to overlapping responsibilies, merging some, etc. I’d also like them to research the possiblity of adding a committee of construction personal to overlook any and all upcoming construction projects to make sure we don’t have another NNHS on our hands).
4. Research staggered elections.
5. Research technology. How could we use technology to make people’s life better at city hall, now and in the future (including schools). (This issue might not apply).
Thats a short list….I’m sure there are plenty of other issues other people would like to have researched.
Tom– That’s what I don’t understand. You’re in favor of seating a Charter Commission, but you don’t have any specific reason why. I just don’t get it. I’m not in favor of Charter review, but I have no problem listing the things I’d personally like to see changed. It’s just that I’m not willing to risk changing our Strong Mayor form of government to potentially get those other things.
Don’t you think you’re making Jeff’s point that opening the Charter without an expressed purpose could be opening a Pandora’s Box?
Honestly, I don’t think it’s the end of the world if we seat a Charter Commission, because any changes need ballot box approval. It’s my opinion though, there are far more pressing issues for Newton to be focusing on right now. We have three critical override votes coming up. Also a complete slate of local elections, including a mayoral election. I see those overrides and elections as a far better [and quicker] opportunity to effect change, than going through this cumbersome process of changing the City Charter.
Tom– Guess it was a case of simultaneous blogging. Glad to see you listed some issues in your follow-up post.
Mike,
Last thought before Pats game. I feel every once in a while we must review the way we do things. It might come to pass that we are in the forefront of everything and there’s no improvements we can make, but I don’t think thats the case. 40 years is too long.
I personally go to the doctors every 6 months for a check up whether there’s something wrong with me or not. I take my car in for a checkup every 3 months for a tuneup whether it needs it or not. Our charter needs to be reviewed more often than we have been. Just my thoughts…..Go Pats!!!!
I hope everyone read Rhanna’s comments all the way to the end. Whether she intended it or not, she made the argument better than I as to why we should be concerned about the League’s laissez faire attitude towards who gets on the commission. Here it is again:
Then she adds something that I assume is intended to assuage any concerns about it happening again:
Whew! That makes me feel a whole lot better (said VERY sarcastically). I not only don’t believe for a second that we won’t make the same mistake again, it’s almost guaranteed by the League’s naivete.
Jeff,
You’re concerns about our elected officials getting on the commission is legitimate and is a concern that can happen anytime. Does that mean, we should never try to review/reform our city government? Obviously, who gets on the commission is vital. It is vital today as it would be 10 or 30 years from now as it was back in 1971. It won’t go away, according to your logic, why bother?
Tom:
No, that does not mean we should never try to review/reform our city government. It means that we should have the common sense to understand that unless there’s a concerted effort to get the right people on the commission, it will be feckless. A waste of time.
So, knowing this, the League needs to make an effort to get reformers on the commission — people committed to making the necessary changes. What changes are those? They’re the ones the League should identify, so they can be endorsed by candidates. So far, the League has failed to do that, even though it’s been researching the charter for more than a year.
Being specific about the changes they want, which seems too difficult for Sue Flicop and Anne Borg, is EXACTLY what was done 41 years ago. How do we know? Because Sue Flicop told us so on Nov. 29th in a posting to the Newton Parents email list. She sent the list her notes from 2007 about the last Charter Commission, which was initiated by the League. Here’s what she wrote:
Jeff,
The league has the same outline, but different issues this year. There’s a 34 page report (thats 34 pages) online on their website.
Go To http://www.lwvnewton.org and go to the link where it says charter study report.
Jeff, I don’t know what the context was for Sue’s post to Newton Parents detailing old League charter-related positions (that pre-dated our 2010 study), but the League has very specific positions for charter reform resulting from our most recent study. We have not kept these a secret. We have blogged about them (in this thread, for example, but in many others), we have written about them in pieces in the Tab, posted them on our website, discussed them in an interview with Newton Patch, referred to them in our flier, and discussed them when collecting signatures.
To be sure, supporting a slate guarantees NOTHING. You must get at least 5 members of a slate elected to be sure of anything, and no one can guarantee that. So the League is not leading voters to believe that our positions are an expected outcome of signing the petition.
The League supports:
4-year staggered terms for Aldermen and School Committee
Retaining our strong mayor form of government
Reduction of the Board of Aldermen, with a mix of at-large and district representation or with at-large representatives with residency requirements
Elimination of the 2% charter maintenance provision
Abolishing SC term limits
Tom:
Any specifics in those 34 pages? Specifics aren’t, “addressing the voter apathy and confusion” because there are lots of candidates, or some other kumbaya nonsense.
Their op-ed said the Charter Commission “could propose such things as reducing the size of the Board or create four-year, staggered terms for Aldermen and School Committee members…” Yeh, and it could propose painting City Hall pink. It could do anything it wants. What does the League WANT it to do?
Rhanna:
Now you tell us that a few of the things Flicop and Borg said the commission could do, are things you actually think they should do.
You appear to be in direct conflict with Flicop and Borg who wrote “We are not advocating for our positions during the signature collection…” Do I have to dig through 34 pages to find out what else you want, or is there a list you can distribute of specific changes?
Looking at your mini-list, you say you want to “abolishing SC term limits?” Really? Have you actually spoken with anyone other than the ex-PTO Council people on your Board?
Most people I know think that’s one of the few rules that keeps the SC from being even more set in its ways than it already is.
Most people I know think some form of term limits should be applied to the BOA too.
Between what I assume is your anti-term limits position for the BOA and your support for extending the two-year terms to four-years, which will make it even harder to unseat incumbents, the League (if you speak for it) now reveals that it is actually trying to institutionalize the incumbents in both bodies and turn over more power to the Democratic City Committee.
Now I know why the League doesn’t want to put out any specifics. It’s shilling for Newton’s entrenched power elite.
Thanks Rhanna for giving us a peek behind the curtain.
Jeff:
Jeff said:”Any specifics in those 34 pages? Specifics aren’t, “addressing the voter apathy and confusion” because there are lots of candidates, or some other kumbaya nonsense.”
They wrote specifics for addressing voter apathy and confusion by increasing terms to 3 years and staggering elections so instead of a voter needing to know a potential 24 candidates it would be cutback to 8 every year. Maybe you were groggy when you read the doc.
Then Jeff wrote:”Their op-ed said the Charter Commission “could propose such things as reducing the size of the Board or create four-year, staggered terms for Aldermen and School Committee members…” Yeh, and it could propose painting City Hall pink. It could do anything it wants. What does the League WANT it to do.
The report lists atleast 15 issues and gives benefits and negatives of the issues. They recognize that the outcome will be determined by the commission. We have elections for charter commission, that is where we can discuss what each particular candidate views need changing. This would be useful criticism if a league member actually ran for the commission, but we haven’t crossed that bridge, yet.
Ona side note, I don’t know how you got into you’re head that the league back in 1971 was the perfect example of forming a charter commission. I don’t see it. They never paid attention to who got on the commission. There are glaring flaws.
Actually I see roughly 50 issues the league took up. I also see specific issues they have positions on example:
Major Issue- Comprehensive plan
Change considered: include charter language to improve the strategic use of the comprehensive plan
• Comprehensive plan is of value only if used strategically
League Position: Support the adoption of a Comprehensive Plan by resolution of the BoA
At Tom’s insistence I once again went to the League’s website looking for a 34-page study. I’d been there previously and couldn’t such a report.
It took a while due to all the broken links that led to Error 404 responses.
Eventually, I found it (after looking at it and exiting, I tried to go back to it and couldn’t find it again). The League’s webmaster needs to review the site.
Yes, the League has a 34-page report, with 15 proposed changes, including those reported by Rhanna. The report is 2 1/2 years old, so, obviously, all the research was done during the Cohen administration.
Since Setti Warren took office, there have been many changes to city government. None are included in the report (because it’s 2 1/2 years old).
As I reported above, two of its proposed changes are to extend the terms of office for both the Board of Aldermen and School Committee to four years. They also want to eliminate term limits. I’d be strongly opposed to this. The study itself makes it clear that this would make it harder to challenge incumbents and could lead to less turnover, which is already rare.
Nevertheless, if the League has this report and still believes in these proposed charter changes, why is it hiding them from the public? Why did Flicop and Borg say they’re not advocating for their positions? Do they have them, or not?
What are they afraid of?
Thanks, Jeff, for pointing our our website problem. I just tried accessing the info and did get the same error messages. We obviously thought that everything was working fine, and will attend to the problem as soon as possible.
Just to be clear, we do have positions and we are not hiding them (well, not intentionally, anyway!) But we feel that asking people to support a charter commission while pushing our own specific advocacy items at the same time gives the false impression that this is what a charter commission will do. We cannot promise what a charter commission will recommend and want to be clear with voters. We feel that this is important for the integrity of our organization, and are certainly not trying to hide anything. But this is a step-by-step process, and we are still at step 1–gathering signatures to put the question of a charter commission on the ballot. Once we get to the point where there is a charter commission, we will focus on our League positions.
The links are fixed now and should be working fine. If anyone has anymore League website problems, feel free to email me at [email protected] so we can fix it and get the info to you as soon as possible.