Gail Spector nails it in a TAB column today about the proposal to skip a required special election to fill the seat left vacant by the late Carleton Merrill.
Read the whole thing, but here’s two poignant excerpts.
Nobody at City Hall has the right to decide for me or the other 55,000 registered voters in this city that we’re “tired of elections.” New Yorkers voted after Sept. 11; New Jersey and Connecticut residents voted after Hurricane Sandy. Surely both of those elections were more difficult to hold than a vote that piggybacks an already-scheduled special election.
If the aldermen believe a law is outdated, they should change it. But it is not the job of our elected or appointed officials to decide that democracy is too inconvenient or expensive or cumbersome for the electorate. Ignoring the rules and spot-zoning elections will only undermine public confidence at a time when Mayor Warren had finally restored it.
Greg is correct that Gail hit the nail on the head. The only thing I would add is that if the Board of Aldermen does approve this, the Mayor can still veto it–and should.
Interesting point Ted. I hadn’t thought of that.
You can’t think of everything, Gail. 😉
Hmmm, now I’m curious. When was the last time a Newton Mayor used their veto power?
To tie this back to the original 7 Feb thread “Aldermanic Committee says “Yes” to Skipping Aldermanic Special Election”:
Gail, etc are right in their expectation that the laws that we enacted are followed and a special election should be held.
Jane is right that it is just not worth $30K to hold it for 3% of the voters when that money can be much better spent on other city issues.
As warden at 6-3, one of the most actively voting precincts, I can tell you that special elections are absolutely dead. The City should definitely piggy-back it on one of the other elections that we’re having this spring. It would be no problem for Inspectors to handle 2 sets of check-in/check-out books, and the motivated 3% of the voters like Jane would only be delayed a few extra seconds.
But Steven Linsky, Dick Blazar, Lisle Baker and Mitch Fischman (and Mike) are the most right when they stated that that post is not worth filling. Neither are at least 7 others.
Good job, Gail. I completely agree with you.
There are too many unanswered questions. Assuming a Ward 1 Alderman at Large is elected at the Special Election for US Senate, what does this mean about the November elections for Alderman at Large and Ward Alderman in Ward 1? Won’t all three Aldermanic seats in Ward 1 be voted upon?
@Janet: The special election would be to fill the balance of Alderman Merrill’s term which would have ended in January 2014. So yes.
And if Mr. Koutoujian had not set the issue on fire by saying that the public was “tired of elections” would anybody care?
We were insulted by his comment. But if not for that, I doubt that there would be so much vigorous waving.
The Charter says that the BOA “shall forthwith” call a special election when there is a vacancy in the first 15 months of a term. If we are truly a nation of laws and not men, a special election should be held. Forthwith.
Those who are focused on the $30K they think the city can save should keep in mind that the cleanup after NEMO will cost far more than that amount per inch of snow that fell.
Those who believe the result is preordained and that holding a special election is therefore futile fail either to understand or value the democratic process–or both.
Those who think it just doesn’t matter or are just too tired are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The late Ald. Merrill was a veteran and a dedicated public servant. He fought in WWII for our way of life so you could have, among other things, the right to vote. Many others have died for it. Use it. I think it is what Carleton would have wanted.
From the Oxford Dictionary:
“shall – expressing an instruction, command, or obligation”
“forthwith – immediately, without delay”
The Charter is clear, unambiguous and non-discretionary. There must be a special election and it must be soon. Our local officials do not have the privilege of picking and choosing those portions of the Charter which they wish to follow and those which they do not. In honor of the memory of Ald. Merrill, I look forward to voting in a special election, and I look forward to doing that immediately and without delay.
I’m not sure I understand the relevance, Ted. Are we tired of cleaning up after snow storms? And while I made the $30K argument, I too am offended by the “too tired” argument. It’s more that I don’t feel quite as strongly that bending these rules violates my right to vote. There’s no process at the state or federal level that I know of to avoid a special election. The city seems to have an escape clause. Perhaps you should be fighting instead to alter that escape clause? Isn’t that the real problem? For the Feds to decide that a special election isn’t worthwhile, we’d all have to amend the constitution.
I love elections and have no problem with this one, but I do think there’s a lot of flag waving because of the offensive comments by the person who’s bread and butter (temporarily) is elections.
I’m curious TedHM:
How is it that the Charter can be thwarted on this? Is the maneuver legal? If so, is it not part of our democratic/constitutional system? At least as fair as CHARTERING THE BUDGET, where four alderman failed to honor the democratic process(your words)? Won’t this require a vote of the full BOA? If it’s a legal exercise and you find it offensive, can the law be changed to prevent circumventing the Charter in the future?
Koutoujian is on record for not only saying voters are tired but that it’s not about the $30K. This is from Spector’s column ….
@Adam: I’m not sure I understand where the escape clause is. Can you explain?
@Terry: I’d like to believe I’d react the same way if Peter K. had articulated a reasonable argument for not holding the election but I acknowledge that it’s impossible to know. I do know I was surprised before I got past the headline of the TAB story because I’d already assumed there would be an election and I’d wondered if Scott Lennon would run for the seat.
Like you, I love elections, and I never imagined that an elections commission secretary would find one inconvenient.
Rather than bickering over this, let’s just do what the charter says and have the election – forthwith. Changing the rules in midstream doesn’t pass the smell test.
@Dan: Wise words….except I strongly disagree with your implication that folks here are bickering. In fact, if you’re, um, not too tired, let’s spend the next two days arguing with you about whether people are bickering or not.
@Gail, I’m not sure I do either, but the motion on the table suggests that the city can go to the legislature and get permission to bypass the charter on this, right? That, too, is part of our system of government. Basically, what Terry said.
@Adam, perhaps you forgot about this. It illustrates why the public loses confidence in a legislative body that changes the rules midstream in order to reach a certain result rather than as a matter of principle. (See supra Fahey, Dan: “Smell Test”)
As for filing a home rule petition for special legislation to allow Newton to circumvent its own Charter, it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the Massachusetts General Court will go along with it, and in the weeks or even months it may take to get it through the legislative process, the seat will remain vacant while Newton hangs in limbo. By the time it all gets sorted out, it really will be too late to do anything about it. So, let’s just call the special election “forthwith” and quit screwing around.
Ted, indeed I had forgotten about that. Excellent point. But our entire system is built this way. How about gerrymandering? It looks like that term was invented in Massachusetts. Newton’s aldermanic special election is the least of our problems.
Sorry for my ignorant comment earlier. I’m clearly not the constitutional scholar. It looks like the 17th amendment pretty much invites political posturing like this.
@Greg, I think we should have an election to determine once and for all whether folks are bickering.
@Greg, “I’d like to have an argument, please.”
@Ted: There you go again! That’s not an argument that’s a video from a comedy show.