If anybody thought Jeff Seideman turned soft when he endorsed the overrides, then you really should check out his letter in the TAB where he once again sounds the alarm about Newton’s League of Woman Voters and its “dangerous effort” to form a Charter Commission.First, Seideman warns, hopes that a Charter Commission might reduce the Board of Aldermen is doomed because the Commission is likely to be comprised largely of Aldermen.
Then he wonders what the League is really up to
Cliquish and insular, the League won’t tell the public it’s other plans for its proposed Charter Commission. It could be a runaway mess that drastically alters the structure of Newton’s government.
Are Seideman’s suspisions well-founded? Or is this just Seideman being Seideman?
I have to say, it never occurred to me that Aldermen, many of whom use how busy they are as one reason why they oppose downsizing, would also want to serve on the commission. But I suppose that is a possibility.
I have a lot or respect for Jeff, but think he’s wrong on this one. If you read the actual responses from the Aldermen, 10+ were open to, or supportive of downsizing. Jeff might be looking for a downsizing pledge or commitment, but he won’t get that from many until the research has been done and a specific plan proposed. And, yes, I understand the research was ignored in the past, but this is a different BOA now. Sign the petitions and give the League a chance to help improve our City.
I don’t like Jeff’s language using naive and do gooders, but his concern is valid. Unfortunately his concern is going to be always valid. If the drive occurs 10 years from now, the same will be true. Let’s get it done now.
Maybe there should be a CAMPAIGN against certain people, maybe that will deter some non-reformers to run for the commission.
@Greg,
I don’t know this as a fact, but I was under the impression that the last Charter Commission did have a number of elected officials on it.
I do believe it will be important that such a commission be made up of folks who have no vested interest in the possible recommendations. Because the results will affect not just aldermen but the whole city. Much of our charter works quite well.
@Dan,
The 1971 charter commission had 5 elected officials among its 9 members. There were 2 state representatives, 2 School Committee members, and 1 alderman. This clearly had an impact on the charter that was proposed. The size of the Board of Aldermen was a significant issue then as well, and it was one of the motivators for the League-led signature drive that brought about the commission. The chair of the commission was Florence Rubin, a League member, and she felt the elected officials blocked a reduction of the BoA. She said that even the state representatives felt that they needed the support of the aldermen in order to get re-elected and for that reason wouldn’t support a BoA reduction.
Perhaps I am optimistic in thinking we would learn from history and not repeat that mistake, but even so, the risk of that happening again is no reason to object to a charter commission–this is a proven process that has been used successfully in many Massachusetts towns and cities.
It’s important to remember the very positive impact that the 1971 charter commission had on Newton ( its composition notwithstanding). The changes included
–a four-year term for mayor (previously 2-year),
–an override of the mayor’s veto by 2/3 vote of the BoA (there was no veto before), and
— special elections for vacancies in elected offices during the first 15 months of the term (as opposed to vacancies being filled by the BoA itself, regardless of remaining term, as in the pre-1971 charter).
These changes gave Newton a stronger executive branch, better checks and balances, and more power in the hands of voters.
I guess while I’m at it, I should respond to the idea that “the League won’t tell the public its other plans for its proposed charter commission.”
The League has had clear positions on charter reform dating back to at least 1968 (possibly longer, I’m not sure). We revised our positions in 2010 at the completion of a year-long study. The revised positions, and the study itself, have been available on our website and in our printed handbook since that time. We have also written about them in the Tab (in a June 2012 op ed, for one example) and blogged about them. Just because someone doesn’t want to do the homework of looking up our positions doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
While collecting signatures, we have been careful to highlight what we see as issues with our current charter (or opportunities for improvement), without emphasizing the League’s proposed solutions. We don’t want to confuse people by making them think that they are signing for a particular outcome. Signing the petition will do nothing more than force a ballot question on whether Newton should have a charter commission…and that is the case whether or not we promote our positions.
Rhanna, well said!!!!!
@Rhanna,
Thanks for the history lesson. That’s helpful. However, what you describe doesn’t give me much comfort that we won’t see the same resistance to making changes like a smaller BOA, the issue i hear most often as one folks think needs to have changed. I guess i DO think it’s too optimistic to expect a different result.
Charter reform aside for a moment… Did everyone see how quickly some members of the BOA were prepared to move a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature, changing the Charter so the City could skip an election to replace Alderman Merrill? That same process, a Home Rule Petition could be used to reduce the size of the Board. The trick is getting enough Board members to vote for the petition. But it seems to me that’s an easier pathway toward reducing the size of the BOA than Charter reform.
I’m opposed to the Charter reform. Mike is right. If it’s important to reduce the size of the BOA, which I don’t think it is anyway, do it the way he says. What is being proposed is like a convening US Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution in order to do something that could be done by a single amendment.