In this week’s Newton Tab, Trevor Jones reported that the aldermen took a vote this past Monday to change the city charter. The new language would give the aldermen flexibility on whether or not to call a special election when there is a vacancy on the board.
The previous language said the board “shall forthwith call” an election to fill vacancies. The new language says the aldermen “may call ” a special election.
I was surprised that this change to the city’s charter was voted on a week ago and I haven’t heard any discussion about it. In order to take effect, this amendment to the City Charter will have to also be approved by a vote of the state Legislature.
Two things about this caught my eye.
* It seems strange to me that any change to the City Charter would ever be voted on by the Board of Aldermen without a very public and deliberative process first.
* The new language – “the aldermen ‘may call’ a special election” seems worryingly vague and open to all sorts of possible future issues.
All of this apparently stemmed from concerns over the cost of the special election held this past June to fill the vacant seat after Alderman Carleton Merrill’s death.
Personally, I think whatever the rules are for calling a special election, they should be clearly spelled out in the charter. Leaving it to the aldermen “may call” an election sounds like an invitation to trouble.
Another interesting detail from the story is that the aldermen initially proposed to add the same language change to the portion of the charter that deals with the school committee. The school committee voted unanimously against that idea so the aldermen dropped that change.
Also interesting, the vote for this charter change was 12-7 by the aldermen. All in all this sounds like a pretty misguided way of making a change to the charter, especially one that gives new power and discretion to the aldermen – minimal public discussion, no support from the school committee, no strong support from the board itself.
I agree, Jerry. The aldermen are setting themselves up for a situation where they are going to be accused of calling or not calling an election for political reasons, regardless of their intentions. At some point that missing 24th alderman is going to matter and whether the seat is filled is going to make a difference. Why the board would knowingly put itself in this position is beyond me. If you’re going to change the charter, change it to something less complicated!
Jerry is 100% right on. There is a certain and important responsibility in upholding a Charter. Alderman changing it because they’re technically able to do it in this select case is in any sense of true Fiduciary responsibility frankly corrupt. Acting as a team of 24 doesn’t make that different. Or was it 23!
Also interesting that it was spearheaded by Ted Hess-Mahan.
Ted Hess-Mahan was quoted as saying:
I’m surprised at Ted. As a lawyer I would presume he knows that one of the first rules of law making is that you don’t base any law on the specific people involved at the moment. Even if he has the utmost faith in his colleagues, the charter will outlast them all.
I want to add that it would have taken small effort and no cost to bring this to referendum, relieving the Fiduciary holders of Charter decisions.
So the solution to an ordinance this is clear is to replace it with one that is unclear? That boggles the mind.
And I’m with Jerry that this ought not be based on some idealistic concept that “I trust my associates,” even though we can’t know who future associates will be.
Odd. The charter is not about “this honorable board” but Amy board in the fur that might take advantage of the vague language. Odd
The unfortunate result of the current Charter wording is it allowed one popular official to change seats into a more prominent, more visible seat, with de facto disallowance of public competition. Furthermore, this left an seat empty, resulting reduced representation, and effected the City by depleting budgeted funds. (Why wouldn’t an ethical official see the opportunity; then decline the opportunity? )
The questionable part of the change is allowing (or encouraging) officials to run in multiple elections on the same ballot suggesting their brothers will cover the possible costs of any void. Who’s back are they watching?
I seriously doubt this will get by the state legislature. It seems pretty self-serving.
THM is the person that ran for TWO seats at the same time (mayor and alderman). IF he had won for mayor, then a “special” election would have been needed. . . . unless he could have appointmed his own successor! LOL. We the people get to vote. . . . and we the people elect the officials.
I hope you’re right Tom.
Rather than hoping Tom is right, one might want to call Reps. Balser, Khan and Lawn as well as Sen. Creem. Don’t know if our local delegation has the chutzpa to stand up to our aldermen but I’m sure the legislature would have second thoughts approving a home rule petition that was opposed by the lawmakers from that community.
Which committee does this go to? It’s probably not very effective to ask a Newton Rep to rule against Newton — but more effective to email the proper committee members letting them know Newton voters weren’t part of this, that the adjustment to Board powers was only a voice of 12 members.
The BOA already has the discretion not to call a special election, and came within a few votes of seeking a home rule petition to allow it not to call a special election this year to fill Ald. Merrill’s seat. And this was not the first time the BOA has tried to get around the “shall forthwith” requirement, whether for political or practical reasons. As a practical matter, the BOA can delay calling a special election while the legislature takes up the home rule petition and literally wait out the clock until it is too late to hold the election. Short of getting a court order, there is no way to enforce the special election provision if a majority of the board votes not to hold one with or without obtaining a home rule petition. The amendment does not apply to School Committee vacancies, but the BOA retains discretion to seek a home rule petition not call a special election for School Committee too.
The Board of Aldermen used to have the power to appoint successors to fill vacancies. The special election provision was intended to prevent aldermen who wanted to handpick their successors by retiring shortly after getting re-elected (usually unopposed). The amendment still will not allow that to happen. If the BOA decides not to call a special election for whatever reason, the seat will simply remain vacant.
After the debate earlier this year over calling a special election, a number of colleagues and members of the public called for an amendment to the Charter. So I filed one. I believe that it is more honest and straightforward for the Charter to expressly provide discretion, since the BOA already has discretion to seek a home rule petition to get around the special election provision. Ald. Sangiolo consulted the law department about possible alternatives but at the end of the day there were no other options put on the table. I freely acknowledge that the former language places a procedural obstacle to not call a special election. Reasonable people may disagree, but since the BOA already has discretion, I believe it is preferable to avoid violating the charter through inaction.
The Elections Commission recommended not holding a special election to fill Ald. Merrill’s seat because of cost and “voter fatigue” in light of all the other special elections held this Spring. As it happened, the special election was uncontested and because a sitting alderman was the only candidate in the race there was still a vacancy on the BOA. Afterwards, the aldermen all heard from many members of the public that the special election was a complete waste of money. That is why I docketed the amendment. There will always be arguments both for and against holding a special election to fill a vacancy and the closer it is to the end of the term the more compelling the arguments against doing so become. The aldermen will still have to justify their reasons for not calling a special election, but at least it prevents the BOA from violating the provisions of the Charter if the Legislature rejects or fails to act on a home rule petition by not holding an election or delaying action until it is too late.
By the way, Alison Leary, who was elected Ward 1 Alderman, will be sworn into office on or after November 18 to fill the vacancy created when Scott Lennon ran uncontested to fill Ald. Merrill’s seat. So the BOA will soon be back at full strength.
But Ted, are you saying that seeking a home rule petition is a slam dunk? I gathered from reading information on this at the time that a sharply divided board might well influence the legislature to not approve such a petition.
Isn’t it pretty clear that the BOA back then felt such an “obstacle” was a good idea?
I don’t believe such an obstacle should have been so readily disposed of. As Ronald Reagan said, “trust, but verify.”
Why not instead go after the amount of time remaining before a next election as the place to make an impact?
Ted Hess Mahan – On Feb 13, 2013 you wrote on this blog the following:
“Those who believe the result [of a special election] is preordained and that holding a special election is therefore futile fail either to understand or value the democratic process–or both.”
You followed that by saying:
“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.”
What changed?
Ted – so why do this without any public input? Why rush it through?
I guess we have another charter issue when we get the signatures for a charter review.
I just spoke with the clerk. I am informed that the Mayor has decided not to sign the home rule petition, and without approval from the Board of Aldermen and the Mayor, it is essentially a dead letter. So we are back to square one.
Go Mayor Warren!
I’m glad to hear the mayor took that action.
Come up with an approach that will provide appropriate protections.
@Jerry: You are absolutely correct that no one has raised a ruckus. Perhaps the fact that the LWV of Newton continues to gather voter signatures on a Petition for Review of the City Charter is a mitigating or, perhaps, confounding, factor in that silence. I, personally, like the present Charter language “shall forthwith call” an election. It elicits a sense of urgency and should motivate the Election Department (at the BOA’s call) to begin proceedings with haste. I also understand that an election can be unnecessarily delayed for political purposes. Thus, I would add to the sense of urgency a pre-defined time limit within which to act, as suggested above by Dan Fahey, e.g.,within 30 – 45 days. I would also lower the required number of voter signatures required (perhaps by one-third) for candidates to qualify for inclusion on the ballot, since special election timing would not allow the normal signature petition process. The argument on cost? I still believe that voting is our most basic right and responsibility and that the cost of voting, even in a special election, is cheap when compared to the cost of disenfranchisement! If the BOA doesn’t want to wait for a Charter Revision, they could petition for Home Rule to add the timing and signature amendments and perhaps, that way, get the State’s approval!
I agree with the quotes that Hoss cited regarding protecting democracy and protecting our right to vote.
This last special election may have seemed like a waste of time and money to some, but there could have been more than one candidate, there could have been more issues discussed one never knows what the situation will be next time.
Perhaps the correct modification should be to have wording to address a case where there is only 1 candidate … or perhaps there should something that changes the deadline at which a special election must be called.
But taking the vote away from the people was not the way to go and so I had voted against it.
My first question is: “What problem is this solving?”
My second related question is: “How often does this scenario arise?”
My third related question is: “If the cost of a special election is $35,000 or even $50,000, how much would we have saved over the last 20 years if the charter had been the way the aldermen want to change it to?”
My guess is that in the long run the cost savings will be minute and a basic representation right for the wards will be lost.
Geoff, briefly, the problem was that the current provision can be easily circumvented by not calling a special election and pursuing a home rule peititon that may or may not pass, and then waiting out the clock until it is too late to hold an election. The BOA came close to doing just that after Ald. Merrill passed away. If the vote is close on whether to pass a home rule petition to circumvent the special election provision, it is less likely the legislature would pass it. Pending the outcome of the home rule petition, there is a vacancy and no special election.
The current provision is clearly not immune from politics, as both recent and past events have shown. (The same thing happened when Mayor Mann died and the BOA was sued for failing to call a special election; the BOA was saved by the bell when the legislature passed a home rule petition before the case went to court and the judge made clear that the BOA could not ignore the “forthwith” requirement.) But why risk a lawsuit by not calling a special election “forthwith” while waiting for a home rule petition to pass? I believe that the more honest, straightforward and prudent approach is to put the entire burden on the BOA to decide and let the chips fall where they may. The electorate can then express its approval/disapproval in the next local election. With the proposed amendment, aldermen would still have to justify their vote not to call a special election based on principle and/or practicality and would not be permitted to delay the election for political or other reasons while a home rule petition made its way through the legislative process. IMHO, that would be the more honest, transparent approach.
For the record, I voted to hold a special election after Ald. Merrill’s death and I would do it again even under the proposed amendment. The vacancy was created in January and the cutoff for requiring that a special election be called forthwith was the end of April. There was plenty of time in my opinion, and the Election Commission should not have discouraged a special election because of cost or “voter fatigue.” Even though the race was uncontested, if the BOA had actually called a special election “forthwith” another candidate might well have entered the race–or not. Instead, we spent precious time debating the issue and then debating it again. Reasonable people can disagree, and other aldermen voted against it on the ground that it was a futile waste of money since there was only one candidate and the result of the election was that there was still a vacancy afterward.
All: See the latest muni wonk post: http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/11/newton-muni-wonk-post-election-cleaning/#axzz2kpeZITPn
The mayor has effectively vetoed the request.