I’m sure somebody will correct me if my logic is flawed, but consider this scenario in Ward 1:
1. The city charter (section 2-5) states that a vacancy within the first 15 calendar months of the term requires a special election, which mean there has to be a special election to replace Alderman Carleton Merrill.
2. Presumably that special election won’t happen for at least another two months because there needs to be time to collect signatures, etc. And if city administrators are thinking cost-effectively, they might want to time this special election with the June 25 special election to replace U.S. Senator John Kerry.
3. Because the aforementioned special election would take place after the 15 calendar months that the city charter refers to in Number 1 (above), any Newton alderman who runs for and wins the Ward 1 alderman at-large seat would not have to be replaced.
4. Board of Aldermen President Scott Lennon knows that he needs to run at-large if he ever hopes to mount a successful mayoral bid. He needs to increase his name recognition by putting his name on the ballot citywide.
5. This is Scott’s chance to easily win the at-large seat without sacrificing anything. The ward seat can be left empty for six months or so without any huge ramifications.
So, the seat is Scott’s to lose. Am I missing something?
Why does he have to run at-large to eventually run for mayor? Setti Warren ran and won without ever being an alderman. In terms of raising name recognition, it doesn’t make a lick of difference between at large or ward. Being President of the BOA is more significant, and that doesn’t make much of a difference either. I do like Scott Lennon, and I think he’d be an excellent mayoral candidate. But a better strategy for name recognition would be to change his first name to “John.”
Did you miss this: http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1037503711/Newton-Elections-Commission-recommends-no-special-election-for-Merrill-s-seat#axzz2Jgitumm0
@Tricia: First time I’ve seen that. I’m sure it’s worthy of a separate thread.
I think Mike is right to challenge the notion that being at at-large alderman would make Lennon more electable in a mayoral contest. I suspect the vast majority of Newton voters couldn’t tell you if he was a ward alderman or an at-large aldermen (and a big slice of those same voters also wouldn’t even know that we have two different classifications of aldermen). The rest of us know who Lennon is and would decide he’d be a good mayor, or not, regardless.
I believe Lennon should be an at-large alderman because it seems more appropriate the our board presidents be at large aldermen
I just received the following email from Cheryl Lappin, Vice President of the Board:
Discuss.
Here.
President Lennon’s comments at Carleton’s funeral included a statement that the light would be left on at Alderman Merrill’s seat for the rest of the term and that the rest of the term would be dedicated to Alderman Merrill. This is a wonderfully thoughtful gesture.
As far as ward vs at large as a BOA president…, it really makes little difference. It’s really more about choosing and supporting the right committee chairs. Scott’s choices have proven to be excellent. He’s been a great president tactfully and efficiently herding the cats quite nicely.
If he decides to run for mayor, his name will be known. Striar is right.
Scott’s advisers have been telling him to run at-large for a long time. If this special election doesn’t happen, look for him to run at large in November. Mark my words. Yes, a lot of people think he’s doing a great job and he has a lot of fans. But not as many voters can identify the president of the Board of Aldermen as one might think, and he might not even be in that position when he wants to run for mayor. He needs to run at-large.
BTW, thanks Tricia, for providing the link to the Wicked Local story about the Elections Commission recommending against a special election. I did miss it.
Not as many voters can identify more than one or two aldermen total….if at all.
In fact, let me propose an experiment. Everyone reading this blog is pretty invested in Newton and most can probably name all or most of our aldermen. But we all have friends, neighbors and, maybe even spouses who are nearly as involved. How about if each of us asks one person if they can name their ward alderman and their two at large aldermen, or even what the difference is or who Scott Lennon is. Then report back.
I think a Home Rule Petition allowing us to piggyback the aldermanic special election on the Senate special election on June 25 would be preferable. Handing out and counting two ballots would be more of a burden on election officials but not an insurmountable one. The citizens would be able to replace a statewide and a citywide official in one visit to the polls which might increase the overall turnout.
As to the thesis that an aldermanic at large seat is preferable as a base to run for Mayor to a ward seat, I would simply point out that ward seats have been much better launching pads for higher office than at large seats. All recent Mayors and major mayoral candidates have been ward aldermen. Some had moved up to state representative before their mayoral candidacies. Mayor Theodore Mann and his long time rival Bill Carmen were both ward aldermen to the best of my recollection. Mayor and State Rep David Cohen had started his career as a ward alderman. So had State Rep Ruth Balser. The two At Large Aldermen in the last Mayoral primary finished behind outsider Seti Warren and Representative Balser.
For whatever reason, at large seats have not led to successful Mayoral candidacies. Mayor Concannon had achieved the Mayorality because of the unique circumstances of a Board deadlock followed by the death of Mayor Mann. He beat one ward alderman and one alderman at large, but eventually lost to former Ward Alderman Cohen.
As to Greg’s test of aldermanic visibility, I’m sure most citizens know only a handful of Aldermen. However, this indicates to me a powerful reason not to cut the size of the Board.
Many citizens would lose one or more of the aldermen they know of thus leaving them more alienated from their government.
I think the fact that Upper Falls joined Newton Highlands in the Neighborhood Area Council ranks and that active groups in Waban, Newtonville, and West Newton are exploring the possibility indicates that citizens feel underrepresented and that they need more people to meet their needs, not fewer.
Alderman-at-large from Ward Five Brian Yates
http://www.BrianYates.org
e-mail [email protected]
So I asked someone who I would consider to be a well informed person who follows state and national politics closely, sees the TAB weekly, always votes, reads the Globe and listens to NPR, if she knew who her ward alderman was (she did), who her at-large aldermen were (she didn’t) and what the difference was (she didn’t know). I asked her if she knew who Scott Lennon was (she didn’t). But she said she used to like Jillian Lennon.
Jillian Lennon? Who’s that? Did she mean Julian Lennon, [John Lennon’s son]?
Also gotta say, if we followed the logic employed by Alderman Yates, we’d be ADDING Board members. Presumably so the average citizen would know more of them. No offense to Alderman Yates, who does a fine job as alderman, but his rationale is a good example why, despite a ballot box vote to the contrary, we still have 24 aldermen. I don’t personally know President Obama, but that doesn’t make me feel “alienated” from the government.
Interestingly [I think], I suspect Scott Lennon not running for at-lagre previously was precisely BECAUSE of Alderman Merrill [and Ciccone], meaning he wanted to oust neither of them.
Here’s something that just occurred to me. (And I could not find anything in the charter about it…although I might have missed it.) Let’s say Lennon is elected to fill the at-large seat either during a special election — or if this ill-conceived idea by the election board is approved.
I assume he would first need to resign his seat as a ward alderman and then be sworn in as at-large alderman.
If he resigns, doesn’t he immediately give up his position as president? (You can’t be board president if you’re not on the board.) Wouldn’t Cheryl Lappin take over as president until January?
In other words would Lennon need to give up being president for the rest of 2013 in order to become an at-large aldermen in 2013? If so, is this still a “good idea”?
I should have added that perhaps Alderman Lappin would think this was a “good idea.”