The Board of Aldermen will vote Tuesday night on whether to seek Home Rule legislation to forego a special election to fill the position of Ward 1 alderman at-large, due to the death of Alderman Carleton Merrill.
The aldermen all understand what the charter instructs them to do in this instance; that’s why they’re voting on a Home Rule petition. I don’t completely understand why some of them think this situation is different from any other scenario in which there’s a vacancy on the board fewer than 15 months before the end of a term. Some rationalizations we’ve heard so far are there are too many elections this year and we already know what’s going to happen, so why hold the election?
I won’t give all of our aldermen this credit but some of them are pretty smart. They know that you don’t forego an election because you know how it’s going to turn out, and they know that you don’t arbitrarily decide that we have too many elections already, so let’s just scrap this one. They know that the arguments in favor of holding a special election that piggybacks the June 25 special election for U.S. Senator are stronger than the arguments against it.
Probably this was a decision made by a few people who didn’t really think it through. Probably their thinking was that Scott Lennon would run for the at-large seat, win, and vacate his ward seat, so why bother? Maybe they thought they could save the city a little money, show a little fiscal responsibility. They could spare the administration from a possible political hit for an election that might leave another vacancy. Nobody wants to take that risk with an override vote on the horizon.
Their intentions were probably good, but they were so inwardly focused, they made the wrong call.
Ok. It happened. Now what?
For some aldermen, Tuesday’s vote will pit their principles against their loyalty. Alderman Lennon may be recusing himself, but voting against the docket item is really a vote against leadership. Lennon couldn’t possibly want the election to be held before November — he’ll look silly for leaving one seat vacant to run for another.
So, the real question becomes: How principled are our aldermen? They might know what’s right but decide that this just isn’t an issue that’s worth the fight. Or, they — especially the attorneys among them — might stick to their principles and do what they know is right.
It’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
The Programs and Services Report from the Committee meeting which discussed this issue is posted here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/49438
Many thanks to Karyn Dean, our Committee Report and the able leadership of Vice Chair, Steve Linsky, who chaired the meeting for me (I was late) for their work on this report.
Alderman Sangiolo: Can you tell us how you plan to vote on Tuesday?
Same applies to any other aldermen reading this.
First, I’m already on record as saying we should follow the charter. Beyond that, since it will take time for the Home Rule petition to be acted upon, and because it could [should] get rejected,it would seem we should be proceeding as if the election will occur on June 25, so we don’t mis the 2/26 date.
Dan –
Isn’t the 2/26 date the soonest the board could call for a special election piggybacking the June 25 election? I believe the board is planning for the contingency that the legislature could reject the petition or it could not take up the item at all. According to a conversation I had with Ouida Young in the Solicitor’s office, the board has to call for the special election by March 18 in order to hold it on June 25.
How principled are our Alderman?
Does Gail mean that they are only principled if they vote the way she wants? (“They made the wrong call”).
Perhaps being principled means voting your conscience, even if it disagrees with popular (Gail’s) opinion.
Aldermen should act on the principle of protecting the people’s right to vote and following the city charter.
The notion that the city should ask Beacon Hill to allow an exception because this is an election of small consequence, low interest, or no one cares, has already been disproven by the mere fact that some citizens believe it is important, are interested and do care.
What Terry said.
@Terry and Jane: I agree. Being principled means voting your conscience. That’s my point here. I believe that there are aldermen who agree with me but may vote in favor of skipping the special election regardless, because it’s simply not worth ruffling feathers.
Please explain to me how someone can vote not to have an election because he — or she — thinks he knows who is going to win said election.
Greg: The same way I voted in Committee.
I’m voting “no” on the special legislation to circumvent the Charter and would vote “yes” to call a special election, if allowed to, even though waiting a month to do so sort of flies in the face of the plain language of “forthwith.” FWIW, I firmly believe that is a principled vote. What’s more, “ruffling feathers” has never particularly worried me.
Indeed, I am troubled by the argument that we could save a little money by doing an end around of the Charter, particularly if the rationale is that everyone knows who will win. How many people lost bets on the 16-0 Patriots in Super Bowl XLII against the 10-6 Giants? That is, as it is often said, why they play the game. Moreover, Oscar Wilde wrote that a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I think voting based solely on the price of a special election is a cynical choice.
Finally, I wish to extend my greetings and felicitations to Amy Sangiolo, Empress of Newton.
No need to put words in my mouth. I said I agreed with this statement: “Does Gail mean that they are only principled if they vote the way she wants?”.
What Oscar Wilde actually said:
“What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything, and doesn’t know the market place of any single thing.”
What Gail means, actually, is they are principled if they vote their consciences, whether they agree with her or not. I am challenging the ones who agree but don’t think it’s worth the argument.
That’s what this blog post is about. Have I said it clearly enough yet?
I just think you’ve made some leaps about why some aldermen might vote one way or another. It could be for some aldermen the principle they are voting on is different from the one you believe in seems “inwardly focused”. To say that they are “wrong” or not voting their conscience is a fairly extreme statement.
Should read “and that seems inwardly focused”.
I will vote against the Election Commission’s request for a Home Rule Petition to skip the special election required by the Charter. I will vote for the special election to be held the same day as the final election to fill Senator Kerry’s seat–June 25. Since both elections will be open to all registered voters in the city, I will urge our state legislators to support a city request to have only one set of check-in and checkout workers at the polls. – For more details on my views on the special election, please see pages 5 and 6 of the transcript of the Programs and Services Committee (link is in first post on this thread.)
Alderman Brian Yates
Capital thinking, Brian! Actually, why not just have one polling place at City Hall for the 27 (rough estimate) people who will show up to vote in this?
Okay! I’ve already figured out why my idea is dumb. Never mind!
Well done, Bill. By the way, I have always admired your beautiful head of skin (as much as I have admired Terry Malloy’s beautiful head of, um, hair?).
The only “principle” in play here is democracy. While some of the aldermen may have their own agenda, or reason to vote against the public’s right to vote, those things are not principles at all. What principle is it that should trump the democratic process?
The irony here is that this insulting attempt to circumvent the Charter, comes as a result of the seat vacated by Alderman Merrill, a member of the so-called “greatest generation” of Americans, who fought and died, in part, for our right to vote.
The losers in all this? The voters, of course. But there could be other losers as well…
I’ve always liked Scott Lennon, and viewed him as a potential mayoral candidate. His self serving recusal and lack of leadership in this matter, has dimmed his political star considerably…
An other potential loser, Setti Warren. The Mayor, selected Peter Koutoujian, Sr., as the interim executive secretary of the Election Commission, presumably not knowing the man was opposed to actually holding an election. Mayor Warren should have promptly dismissed Koutoujian, the moment he proposed circumventing the Charter.
Ted: That explains a lot.
Mike: This is inside baseball. I do think that people like Gail are right to call out the Board on the larger issue, but I don’t think anyone is going to “pay” for this, except maybe taxpayers.
@Bill – Agreed, this is pretty inside baseball, but we as a City have been down this road before and set out the Charter this way for specific reasons. Ideally, we really ought to put this out at the same time as the Senate election as per Brian’s plan above.
But, at the end of the day, we really need to have the vote. If we have other reasons not to in future situations like this, fine – but then the right way to do that is to change the Charter.
I agree with Chris’s sentiment. I see Alderman Yate’s proposal to be a reasonable compromise. By holding our special election at the same time of the US Senate special election (June 25th), we will save the bulk of the cost of a special election without compromising our Charter and yet still preserve our citizen’s rights and the interests of those represented by the Ward 1 Alderman-at-Large.
If one has issue with this aspect of our Charter and its mission to preserve the democracy of our city, then support the efforts of the League of Women Voters of Newton to form a Charter Commission and change the Charter the proper way.
@Bill– Perhaps you’re right. It has certainly changed my own opinion about Scott Lennon. Maybe no one else’s opinion though. But if the Home Rule Petition were to advance without veto, I feel quite certain the repercussions of that will still be echoing in November for the Mayor, who already has his own history of dancing around Charter provisions. And the people who should be particularly alarmed by this are the those who are seeking Charter reform. What good does it do to change the rules, if the BOA can just change them back?
Hi Mike & All..
I appreciate all the nice sentiments on other threads and just wanted to clarify here why I have separated myself from this specific issue.
As President of the Board yes I am responsible for facilitating our process and our work. I feel I have been proactive in that since I became President. Because of that, my feeling was that now as a candidate, whether it is a special or in November, I wanted no perception to anyone else who is thinking about running for this seat that I am trying to steer the timing of this election one way or another. The seat belongs to the city. I wanted to clearly put my intentions out there so there so everyone knew where I stood. There is much interest in the seat and it should be a level playing field. A campaign should be about the issues facing Newton. It shouldn’t be about any perceptions of ‘inside baseball’ so that is why I asked VP Lappin to take the lead. Any other seat, I would surely be approaching my responsibilities the way I have done with every other issue. You may not agree but I hope this helps clarify my position. I hope I can still count on your support because there are many, many issues we discuss on the Board level.
Thanks
Scott
Scott: Glad you posted, glad you recused. However, I still think that this is “inside baseball.” It’s arcane, and not the type of thing that impacts our lives. Like say, un-shoveled sidewalks.
Mike, Chris, et al: Yes, the Board should follow the rules. And no, this is not Charter material, like say, downsizing the Board, as most desire.
Board of Alderman: Yes, follow the rules. Just as importantly, do something about the disgraceful state of the un-shoveled sidewalks in this city. People care about that. Then, make residents follow those rules.
I appreciate Alderman Lennon clarifying his position, understand his rationale, and appreciate his honesty. However, no matter how hard I try, I cannot find a positive way to put the words “leadership” and “recusal” in the same sentence.
@Bill– “Un-shoveled sidewalks” is a misleading term. Uncleared sidewalks is the appropriate term. Sounds like you’re clinging to the debunked theory that a brigade of citizen shovelers can do a better job than the City with mechanized equipment. I also resent the term, “…make residents follow those rules.” Have you forgotten that the government works for the people, not the other way around? I do agree with you that the BOA should ‘do something” about the sidewalks. They should live up to their responsibility and fund sidewalk snow clearing.
Mike –
From where I sit, the storm last week didn’t debunk that theory. After the storm ended most of the citizen shoveled sidewalks were clear – some weren’t. Most of the sidewalks the city is responsible for were cleared – some weren’t. It was a very big storm and neither the city nor the citizen shovelers did a perfect job.
Should the city one day be responsible for every sidewalk in the city, my guess is that with massive storms like last week’s, we’d be worse off and on the typical winter storm we’d be better off
On a cold wintery day, sitting in a warm house, having the city shovel our sidewalk sure sounds appealing in theory. Until or unless someone put a proposal on the table for what the substantial new cost would be for the city to take over that responsibility, its hard to know whether that’s more than a pipe dream.
As far as I know the city has no legal “responsibility” to clear the sidewalks. Providing that service citywide is certainly an option but I’m doubtful whether the citizenry has an interest in funding that kind of expansion of city services.
In the meantime, while private property owners are responsible for the sidewalks, I’d particularly like the city to deal with the small percentage of commercial property owners that just blatantly ignore their responsibility.
I don’t think Alderman Lennon had any honest choice about recusing himself and am glad he did so. I don’t want leaders who refuse to recuse themselves when they have a conflict of interest – look what that’s gotten us in other situations.
As to sidewalks, in my neighborhood the worst offenders have been entities rather than people. All the sidewalks on my little street are shoveled in front of houses, but not in front of the condo building. There should be penalties for condo associations that don’t make any provision for sidewalk clearing, IMO.
Jerry– Newton schools were closed on Monday, because the sidewalks were not cleared. Every teacher in the city got paid to stay home. Newton lost four days of parking revenue, because people couldn’t get to the meters. So if you want to make the financial argument against sidewalk snow clearing, you should consider those factors.
Mostly, I’m concerned about the public safety issue. I believe the city should place the same priority on clearing sidewalks that we place on clearing roads. Just my opinion though.
Scott Lennon’s stance on recusing himself in this particular instance makes sense to me. Recusals happen seldom, so to argue that because Scoot takes himself out of this one issue should produce a conclusion of overall lack of leadership is for me a very big stretch.
I respect your opinion, Mike, but can’t agree with it.
Dan– I think the Charter is clear. If Scott would vote to follow the Charter, his vote would be beyond reproach. It’s actually his recusal in this matter that creates an appearance of a conflict of interest. Scott Lennon is a great guy, who’s done a lot for his ward and the city. I’ve always viewed him as a potential mayor. But the #1 attribute I look for in a mayor is leadership, and it’s hard to lead from the sidelines.