Note: This post has been updated to include information gathered from a conversation with City Clerk David Olson.
Nominations papers for Charter Commission are available now but the Elections Department will not certify signatures until August 11, after the Board of Aldermen votes to place the Charter Commission question on the ballot at its Aug. 10 meeting (and assuming it does so). Signatures will be due by September 22. Candidates need to collect 100 certified signatures to get on the ballot.
Because I’ve never collected signatures, I have no idea whether gathering the requisite signatures in six weeks will be a difficult prospect for would-be candidates, particularly for those without organizations behind them. Maybe some bloggers with experience can share their thoughts?
I continue to be intrigued by this whole process. How many people are going to run? Will there be campaigns? Will people form slates? Will candidates have to fundraise? How does it not become a popularity/name recognition contest in such a low-turnout election?
It’s a fascinating show of democracy. It almost makes me wish I were a newspaper editor again.
I am running. 100 signatures is correct.
I just got off with Chris from the election department and he said that you can get the collection sheet now and start collecting (I don’t know where August 15th date came from).
I don’t plan on campaigning unless there are debates, etc to go to. It might be a mistake, but as of right now, I am not planning on putting up signs, etc. If I can’t be on the top 9 votegetters with the work I’ve already done then so be it. If people are going to use this against me by saying I really don’t want to be on the commission since I am not going to put together a real campaign, then so be it…they will just make something else up to vote against me, if I do campaign.
Any other potential candidates besides Mr. Sheff? I hear Charlie Shapiro is in. No Alderman should even consider running – please.
Howard Haywood said on another thread that he was running.
Bear in mind there are something like 54k registered voters in Newton, so if you can’t find 100 people and get them to sign your papers, I’m not sure you should really be running. During August finding people in significant numbers can of course be a challenge, but there are well-known locations that usually yield good results, such as the Library and supermarkets.
I just got charter commission signature sheets, so it’s official….they’re out.
Tom, what are some of the Charter changes you support?
In my opinion this hasn’t been well thought out if at the 11th hour folks need to jump in. I’d assume we’d want the best nine folks we can find, not those able to throw their hats in at the last minute.
Very disappointing timing for something that folks say is so important.
It might also be helpful if someone would develop of list of desirable criteria by which citizens could gauge those best to serve.
Colleen,
I don’t have changes I want to make. I’m trying to go into this with an open mind, therefore, I do have issues I’d like to see researched.
1. Size of BOC
2. Term limits
3. Type of Government
4. whether we need a charter committee
5. Jonathan Yeo situation….probably clarify moving from one ward to the next.
There’s a lot more, but thats off the top of my head. There will be issues that other cities do that I never even thought of. I hope this helps.
Thoughts while watching Red Sox v Yankees:
How can people run if they don’t know the extent of the commitment? Has there been a solid definition of what the job is?
If you can’t collect 100 signatures, summer or not, then you aren’t trying in the least.
And why are the signature sheets not online? What year is this? All nomination papers, and most any other form, should be available for download. For that matter, what makes the sheet “official”? Why wouldn’t it count if you brought in a legible sheet of over 100 signatures?
Is there a possiblity that nine volunteers will do the heavy work, present it to the City Council (BOA) and have it voted down?
What Dan Fahey and Terry Malloy said.
I don’t understand how anything good can come of having potential candidates making quick decisions without much information rushing to collect 100 signatures to get on a ballot to be one of only 9 members on a committe that will recommend changes in how Newton is governed.
The Charter Commission will be handed a complex document and be charged with a major responsibility. It took many years to get the certified signatures and it’s pretty much a one shot opportunity, it needs to be given the respect it deserves. Now there needs to be time to explain what our Charter is and what a Charter Commision is for and what it has the power to accomplish and why.
Residents need to know they can be on the commission and most probably don’t know anything about it right now and many would have qualities that could contribute to a great commission. Getting on the ballot should entail more than collecting a piddly 100 signatures. There need to be rules and qualifications.
It is being treated like a contest, collect 100 signatures and be in the running to win a seat on a Commision, when it should be treated like the serious, responsible position it will be.
We could all pay a high price for this sloppy, haphazard process.
As I understand it, the LWV plans to run two information sessions in the coming weeks that will answer the questions Marti has raised. In addition, the LWV website has a great deal of information about the process. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see anyone treating this process as a contest.
I truly disagree with those that think this timing is OK.
On the one hand this is supposedly very important and hasn’t been done in over 40 years. And it took many thousands of signatures over multiple years to get to this point. And most folks would I think agree that the choice of the nine could make or break what gets recommended.
And we think it OK allow less than six weeks to come up with the candidates! Seriously?
Charter reform is a big deal and what comes out of the process can be a game changer.
There is a real disconnect here.
I agree with all of the points made by Dan, Terry Malloy and Marti.
Forty-six years since the last Charter Commission, so literally a once-in-two-generation process. Most people now living in Newton probably don’t remember the last one, or weren’t even here. Let’s see, I was 14 and living in England in 1969.
The LWV spent what, four years gathering signatures and now it’s a rush?
The League is going to have informational sessions, based on which people will decide whether they want to run, when? August? The compressed timeframe would seem to favor people with the most name recognition.
Then we’d be voting for nine out of a potentially very high number of candidates, in November, at the same time we’re voting on 16 Alderman at Large races and one Ward Alderman race and, one hopes, eight School Committee races, the sum of which races the proponents of reducing the Board think is too many races for people to keep track of. (I disagree, by the way.) But it would by okay to add to that, 20, 30, who knows how many Charter Commission candidates, that people would need to become familiar with, and figure out if they’re going into the process with any particular objectives, and if so, do they (the voters) agree with them?
If we’re going to have a Charter Commission election, why not hold it at the same time as the Presidential Primary, when turnout will likely be high whether one is Democratic, Republican, or Unenrolled, and people will only have that one other race to think about?
Dan,
You think a 7 year process is 11th hour? No one has committed up until now because that wasn’t the process the city was at, yet. Now we are.
Terry,
The extent of the commitment is 18 months. How often they meet will be up to the committee. If this is videostreamed, if people can’t make certain meetings they will be able to eventually see the meeting and catch up.
The election department makes people sign out signature sheets, maybe thats why they aren’t on line. But I’m with you, they should be.
There is a chance that the work would be voted down by the electorate.
Marti,
What quick decisions are you referring to?
We got 8300 signatures, I can honestly tell you probably in 90% of those signatures was a talk about what the charter is and why we should change it.
The state outlines the process. The process has been outlined on this blog many times. 15% of the electorate signed the sheets in agreement and around 18-20% of registered voters vote in the mid terms. So, it has a good chance of passing.
Personally speaking, this is a huge opportunity for the city to make some real change. 1972 was the last charter commission and no one knew what a computer was back then.
I’m excited about the opportunity and instead of whining about the process and complaining it’s not enough time, why don’t you spend 30 minutes to find some qualified people to run for the office. Otherwise don’t.
Julia,
The state makes all the rules. The state wants to make sure that the election is done on local elections. You’re issues are with the state, 43B MGL, I believe.
Oh, by the way, all elections local or not, there is a certain amount of name recognition. Why is Don Trump running second in the republican race, he certainly doesn’t have the political experience (I am just using him as an example) simple, name recognition. You want to get rid of name recognition you’ll need an electorate that cares more about the issue/election than their own lives and that wont happen.
You are making my point for me Tom. A seven year process to get here, and only five weeks to select the best possible candidates to appear on the ballot.
And I take exception to your preaching tone. I’m simply stating my strong opinion that this last piece is too important to give it short shrift.
Finally I’d worry about anyone getting on this commission that already has the bias that the existing charter is broken. That is what we would want the commission to help determine.
Dan,
I am sorry for my “preachy” tone. Signature sheets are out, I have 3 sheets for myself. They aren’t due until the end of September (23rd, I think), I am guessing thats roughly 10 weeks. The process has been talked about for years and most people know whether they will be running or not. This wasn’t just sprung on people this week.
Tom, you have to be intentionally misunderstanding what we are saying because it’s pretty clear. We each have said it was a multi year process collecting the thousands of signatures that it took a lot of hard work. That is one of the reasons to take the time now to make sure it’s done right.
Correct, no one had committed until now because they couldn’t, so why belittle the importance of the commission by requiring candidates to rush to investigate and make a decision to run, get 100 signatures that need to be certified before September 22 to be on the ballot with all of the other contests this November?
Quick decisions have to be made about whether to run or not. Because it’s now or never.
I can honestly tell you that you are probably wrong about that many charter discussions taking place when people signed the petition. People hear from others that they should sign, they respect the LoWV, they are in a rush. And quickly hearing at some time during the last several years that charter reform is necessary when being asked to sign, doesn’t mean anything significant about a proper understanding of who should run or not.
The process outlined by the state isn’t a problem. It is a huge opportunity and shouldn’t be taken lightly. I was happy you are running and planning on voting for you, but telling me that I’m “whining and complaining” because I want it to be done well and not just by a few who know what is going on is starting to change my mind. It makes me wonder if you just want to make sure you have fewer informed candidates on the ballot. And you have no idea what I’m doing and who I am talking to about the Charter Commission. So take care of your own candidacy and I’ll do what I think is right.
If commission members have to “catch up” by watching a video, if there is a video, they won’t have contributed what they have found out to the discussion or have given input on the other commissioners’ ideas and investigations. The time commitment is not about the 18 months, it’s about the time needed to do all of the work necessary to make informed decisions. From your statement above it sounds like you think you can just attend meetings, or watch videos, for 18 months. Hopefully others will think differently.
OK, I give up. we disagree on the process. You think it’s rushed, then how do you change that? Do you want to change state law? Fine, change state law.
We are where we are right now.
What can I say besides good night.
(BTW my opinion on the charter discussion during signature drive, was my personal experience from collecting over a thousand signatures). Many people don’t want to sign something without knowing what it is. Maybe that was just me.
Tom, before you say goodnight for tonight — does the state law require that the vote whether to have a Charter Commission, and vote on who should be on it, be simultaneous, a la the Gray Davis recall election? Or could the vote on whether to have a Commission be this November, and the vote for Commissioners be in 2017? (Or earlier if we happen to have another city election to fill a vacancy or something.) Could the vote on both happen in 2017? Could we get a home rule petition to piggyback on a non-local election like the Presidential Primary or 2016 election?
Tom, and any others who are thinking of running, I confirmed with David Olson that candidates for Charter Commission who raise and/or spend money on their campaigns (e.g., lawn signs, flyers, mailings) must form a campaign committee and file campaign finance reports.
Julia, state law specifies that the charter question and the election of the commissioners appear on the same ballot, that the question appears at a city-wide election and not a state or presidential election, which also must be a regular election and not a special election. It also specifies that once the signatures are certified, the question appears at the next city-wide election, so there is no option to postpone the whole thing until 2017. Signature papers are not due for 2 months, and 100 signatures can easily be collected in a few days if someone is motivated, so there is plenty of time for people to make this decision. I do think we will have plenty of qualified candidates…but you can help spread the word to people who would make good candidates!
The League is planning an educational forum or two, as Jane mentioned, and we will publicize them here and elsewhere.
Julia,
I’m back.
The outline is done via state law, as you know.
It sounds like your asking whether we can take back the signatures from the election department so we can better time the election, etc. You might want to ask David Olson on that. I would think the answer would be no, but I’m not 100% sure.
The state law does state that once the signatures are certified the election must be on the next local election. The signatures do 2 things. put the question on the ballot and have the election for the 9 commissioners. The answer is that I dont believe you can put the question on the ballot in november and have the commissioners election the following local election.
I think there is a point that they make by having this on local elections, since these are local issues. I don’t believe they would allow the election to fall on a state/federal election year (even year).
I hope that helps.
I didnt see Ted and Rhanna’s post.
Ted, thanks.
Rhanna, Thanks
@tom, @ted h-m, @ julia, et al. – WHOA, step back from that big metal bar down there with the big warning sign labelled “CAUTION – LIVE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS – DO NOT TOUCH – POSSIBLE SHOCK OR INJURY.” Subtext: Be Careful What You Wish For.” OK, I’ll stop now and not go through the bit about how deomocracy is awful but better than the other alternatives, blah blah. You want it, you got it, learn to live with it or else ignore it and go back to your sports program, video game, twitter, facebook, or whatever else occupies your time. Could we be grownups here? Sorry, that was an unfair question. Everyone (or so it seems) agrees that government, and politicians, really suck, we should throw the bums out, they have it all wrong, we need to make wholesale changes – and the LWVN devotes endless time and energy to making it possible to change it all, and you now are complaining that the CHANGE PROCESS is screwed up!!Make up your bloody mind, either run for charter commission or shut the hell up and let me enjoy my very short New England summer in peace. A plague on all your houses. My personal opinion, I think Tom Sheff would be a good choice, he’s a sincere advocate of the process and has put a lot of effort in. I also would like the idea of maybe Greg Reibman, Gail Spector, Jerry Reilly, folks like that being on the commission, since they have a somewhat different view. Then I think there should be a punitive category, where you force certain people to serve like they do with jury duty, since they have been such curmudgeons and critics throwing spitballs from the back of the class for so long, that they ought to be forced to sit through the endless meetings as though it were detention – let’s see, Mike Striar, Paul, Joshua Norman, you can fill in the names. Just my $0.02
Rhanna, thank you for the concise explanation. It is quite helpful.
HLD, this is a blog not your own personal playground. If you object to bloggers using the space provided by V14 to exercise their rights in the democratic process to ask questions and voice different opinions, fine, but please follow your own demand and ” … shut the hell up and let me enjoy … ” reading what “grownuups” have to say.
You want to see only “the usual suspects” be on the commission and take the job of determining the recommendations for Charter revision so lightly that you think it’s members “ought to be forced to sit through the endless meetings as though it were detention” along with Tom who wants to watch videos. So name recognition really works to their advantage.
You are both preaching the importance of Charter Review and being sarcastic and belittling of those who, because of its importance, want it to be taken seriously.
I sincerely hope knowledgeable citizens run and are elected who are willing to give the only chance in decades to study the way Newton is governed the responsible, time consuming, unbiased respect it deserves. But I’m not holding my breath.
HLD, when it comes to democracy, I am all for it. This is a great opportunity for everyone–even the bums–to participate. Enjoy responsibly.
Thanks, Marti. I wanted to respond to one other point you raised. The only qualifications to run for any elected office in Newton are to be a resident and a registered voter, and to submit nomination papers with signatures (400 for mayor, 150 for Alderman and School Committee rep). As Ted has pointed out, this is positive in that it maximizes the power of voters to determine who is qualified. Of course, along with power comes responsibility.
I believe there are only 2 contested races in the city right now, Ward 2 and Ward 8 Alderman-at-Large? And that signature deadline is fast approaching. While uncontested seats are not a good thing, at least adding the selection of Charter Commissioners to the ballot does not place a huge burden on voters.
What a silly conversation.
There is not more reason to advocate for the exclusion from running of Councilmen from the CC than there is, say for excluding people who post to community blogs. The voters should have the opportunity to soundly reject the vast majority of candidates both groups.
For those who bemoan the rush, get over it. As much as any of us would like an “optimal” process, wonderfully deliberative and high minded, this beast does not exist. Look around, from the local to the national, there is no such thing as a thoughtful public debate. There is only ill-informed shouting from across the divide with no interest in or appreciation for compromise. Moreover, in many cases there is nothing like a quick deadline to motivate people.
In the end, Newton will get exactly out what it, as community, puts in, most likely a continued march toward indecisive mediocrity as the most qualified citizens look at the mess that is city government and decide they have better things to do with their limited time.
HLD,
Great beach reading, thank you!
Elmo. Do you favor a number of changes to the Charter?
Rhanna, thank you for explaining the rules. Tom, no, it never occurred to me anyone could “take back” the signatures, once they were certified. But now I am wondering why, knowing the rules, there was a mad scramble to get the signatures collected just under the wire for this November’s election, instead of waiting and turning them in in say, December, so that potential Charter Commission candidates would have had more time to consider and gear up to run, and the general public would have more time to learn what the charter does, why we might want to change it, and what candidates’ goals were, before voting in 2017. It kind of feels like the LWV didn’t want people to have a lot of time to consider.
I could not be more serious – for good or ill – that this is democracy in action, like it, love it, move to South Carolina or just put on some more sunscreen and move your beach chair back a little so the waves from Nantucket Sound don’t get your espadrilles wet. Like, explain to me how having anyone who wants to take the trouble to get 100 signatures on a couple of sheets of paper is in any way, shape or fashion, causing you a problem or not following a very, very, basic, really simple democratic process. Give me a freaking break. I don’t care how, or when, or under what circumstances, or for what office they might be running, or what country or province or canton they might live in, that they might have to fulfill any more basic set of criteria to participate in an election. Hey Chuck, hand me another box of that Tea, eh, I’m ready to brew up some more here in the harbor. Sheesh.
HLD, well, I’m not in Nantucket and don’t wear my espadrilles where they can get wet, but I am sitting on a beach on vacation, but that’s part of my point. I can’t speak for others on here, but I want anyone who votes in Newton and wants to collect those 100 signatures to be on the ballot. I would have liked the possibility for everyone to have enough information about the charter commission, what it is, what it will do and how much time, estimated, will be needed for a member to devote to it during the 18 months, to make an informed decision about running. Even to know what a charter is.
You do know that people live here who are not originally from New England and who moved here from a myriad of places that don’t use the word “charter” when talking about how the local government works, who think the term “aldermen” was left in the past, who don’t know much about “municipal corporations” or counties without governments or use “home rule” in conversation.
You describe, snarkily, pretentiously and clumsily, what you see as “democracy in action” but you leave out important information. Time is always a component. It took time for citizens of the newly formed United States including townspeople, shopkeepers, dock workers, tavern owners, tavern employees, tavern drunks, small land owners, land workers, even their wives and not just the legislators, scholars, wealthy land owners, designers and signers of our governing documents and those in contact with them to have at least an idea of what was signified and why they were dumping, instead of brewing, that tea in the harbor. Citizens of South Carolina and similar states have had generations to form their beliefs about the significance of the battle flag of the Confederacy.
It seems that you and others just want the people who are already involved in the process in some way to be on the ballot even though you are preaching just the opposite. So the lack of time works to your benefit. Why not just own up to it.
.
I think the boards vote for the charter review is tomorrow (monday) night. Any thoughts?
This item will be referred to committee on first call at tonight’s board meeting and will be taken up in Programs & Services on Wednesday. Assuming it is voted out of committee, the full Board will vote on setting the date of the election at its next meeting on August 10. Which is why the signatures cannot be certified until August 11. Unless, of course, someone “charters” the item in which case it will not be voted on until the first meeting in September.
No alderman would ever exercise their charter privilege because to cut short the democratic process, would they Alderman Hess-Mahan?
I thought if it passed, it be on the ballot of the upcoming local election. I didn’t know the board voted on setting the date of the election.
So Ted sounds like if someone chartered this issue for even one month it could cause a real delay in the process?
You mean like in ’08 Greg?
Dan and Marti, I don’t think anyone is going to charter this item, which is merely to set the election date. But even if someone did, either a special meeting of the board could be called or it could be voted at the September 8 meeting, which is still two weeks before the September 22 deadline to put candidates on the ballot. But the nomination papers are already out so it would not affect the collection of signatures, only the certification of them (which is a ministerial task). In other words, if you want to run for Charter Commission, go pick up some nomination papers and start collecting signatures.
Greg, that was a cheap shot. The “democratic process” was over when the voters rejected an override that would have paid to keep the branch libraries open at a time when the city was hemorrhaging money and keeping them open would have meant deep cuts at the main Library. The alternative was the turmoil of no budget and no city services come July 1 (the first day of the new fiscal year) because the budget process began so late that year. David Wilkinson, our Comptroller, was very concerned about what would happen if the budget deliberations dragged on past July 1, as they promised to do, since there was no precedent and no provision for a supplemental budget. It was the hardest thing I ever had to do as an alderman. But if I had to do it all over again, I would have had to do the same thing, which was to stand with the Chairman of the Finance Committee and make sure the city had a budget before the new fiscal year began.
By the way, I venture to say that most of my colleagues probably did not even know what a 4 person charter objection was at the time. All the more reason you need experienced and knowledgeable elected officials to be included on the charter commission.
I really think that an issue as far reaching as city government reform should not be part of an off-off year election. It would be better if an issue of this importance was on the 2016 ballot when there will be a much larger turnout.
Well, Bob of Newton, the aldermen are now receiving emails from voters, include a member of the League of Women Voters of Newton, asking us to vote no and asking us to seek Home Rule legislation to set the date for a special election or to put in on the November 2016 ballot to ensure a higher turnout. Interesting turn of events.
@Ted: I don’t understand your logic. If most of your colleagues were unfamiliar with a four-person charter, how is that an argument for electing “knowledgable elected officials” to the charter commission? If most elected officials don’t know the charter, I would argue that they’re no more qualified than anyone else who is somewhat familiar with the charter but doesn’t know all its intricacies. I’m not arguing that they don’t have more knowledge about the work that is done by elected officials or even by city departments. But you’re trying to have it both ways by saying that your colleagues didn’t know the charter so that makes them qualified to serve on the Charter Commission.
This seemed awfully rushed for the 2015 municipal election season and I’m pleased that the League wants to push things forward to 2016.
The momentum in a shortened period would clearly be with folks and organizations that have been calling for charter reform to change what they see as deficiencies in the way the City’s government is currently organized. Top among these has been reducing the size of the Board of Aldermen. There has been an underlying but debatable assumption that this would somehow improve the effectiveness and accountability of the Board and city government in general. I’m not convinced it would, but I do think it could prevent the election of many of the passionate mavericks and quiet elders that add institutional memory and tremendous legitimacy to the Board’s activities.
Additional time would allow for more residents to become involved in the process and for a more diverse set of reform priorities to emerge. That said, I really commend those citizens that carried this campaign to success and particularly to Tom Sheff who just wouldn’t let go of this even when the odds of getting it approved seemed very long.
Each person that is elected to the commission will have a strong bias and firm agenda for charter change. We voters will have a very difficult task sorting out the best people for this group.
@Colleen: No necessarily. I think you’ll see some people who simply have a strong interest in civic affairs.
I find it odd that members of the LWV are asking for a delay when they had the power to hold off submitting the signatures until after the Nov elections.
I am somewhat mixed about having a delay since I am having a number of conversations with folks around town, deciding if I want to add my name to the Charter Commission Ballot, when no one I speak to is aware of the upcoming ballot item, unfamiliar with the process and believing that Newton is being run pretty well. Is it better to have the question on the next ballot so the few who do vote find out that something is coming up or do we use more time to educate the citizenry about the charter and its importance. I am not optimistic that more time will improve the awareness of the topic.
@Colleen,
I think you are right to be concerned about bias from those making it onto the commission, but I’d submit that that ought to be one of the important criteria going into choosing the commissioners.
And again i don’t think there is enough time in the next two plus months for such candidates to throw their hats in the ring.
What Gail said.
The certification of the signatures does not establish a charter commission. It merely puts the question on the ballot: do you want a commission? if you think having a charter commission is a bad idea, then vote no.
Gail, my point is that the Charter Commission will need experienced and knowledgeable elected public officials. Even experienced elected officials may not be knowledgeable about the Charter. But some of us are, and some of those more than others. THOSE are the people who should be included on the Charter Commission. Among other things, you have to know to ask the right questions, and if you don’t know what is or is not possible under the current Charter, you may not know enough to ask those questions.
As for delaying and/or splitting the vote, I checked with David Olson. The law on Charter Commissions is Chapter 43B. Chapter 43B, section 4, states that “. . . the city council [i.e., board of aldermen] shall by order provide for submitting the question of adopting or revising a charter to the voters of the city or town, and for the election of a charter commission, at the first regular city election, . . . held on or after the sixtieth day following the adoption of the order. Said order shall also provide for the nomination of charter commission members . . .”
So, we don’t get to split the baby and have a subsequent election of charter commission members. I suppose we could drag our feet and not vote out the order setting a date for the election, but then the next regular city election is not until 2017 (the 2016 election is a state election). Asking for home rule legislation, as we have done in the past to avoid or delay holding a special election to fill a vacancy, can lead to litigation.
Personally, I don’t think we need to delay the election. But I am open to hearing responsible opposing points of view.
I didn’t see Bob Burke’s post until after I posted. Bob, one of the members of the League sent an email asking us to delay the charter commission election, but that member did not identify herself as a member of the League. Rather, I recognized the name and the association with the League. So the request for a delay did NOT come from the LWVN itself.
Dan – You can throw you hat into the ring at any moment.
Groot – I agree. More time isn’t going to make a difference. Let’s get on with it.
The aldermanic email inbox certainly shouldn’t have any role in a process where 15% of the registered voters in the city signed petitions requesting that the charter review be placed on the ballot in November 2015.
Gail, can you suggest names of people who have no bias and could serve on the commission as totally objective in their viewpoint?
@Colleen: Everybody has some bias but that doesn’t rule out having an open mind. One might lean toward term limits, for example, but upon examining the issue in detail, realize that they aren’t a good idea. The important thing is that they don’t have an agenda going in.
The city charter is a 25 page document.
This whole discussion about how long one needs to decide if they want to serve on a charter commission or not, is mind boggling. Either you’re the type of person who cares and follows these things — and can commit the time — or you aren’t.
What’s there to think about? It’s a city charter, not the U.S. Constitution.
And wanting the vote to happen during a presidential election (even if it was allowed, which it isn’t) is equally over-thinking this. Municipal elections are when people who follow municipal issues vote. I’d much rather have those voters choose our charter commission than folks who only vote once every four years.
This isn’t brain surgery — and even if it were — who would want to delay brain surgery for two years, when it’s needed now?
What Greg said.
This is a long process. If the question is approved this fall, and proposed charter changes are approved in 2017, 2019 would be the first election under a new charter. So, changes wouldn’t actually be implemented until January of 2020.
Colleen, I imagine most candidates would have *some* bias…to be willing to commit the time to serve, you would have to be someone who can see opportunities in change. But an ideal candidate would have some bias, along with an open mind and a commitment to listening to what voters of Newton think.
@Jane, 15% of voters signed something that would make the charter commission question get on the ballot. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt any particular election date was specified on what they were signing, considering the signatures were collected over a period of years.
Based on Ted’s information, I think the situation is not as now-or-never (or start the process over) as I’d thought. It doesn’t have to be on the next municipal election ballot — it has to be on the next ballot after the Board of Alders approves putting it on the ballot. So don’t vote on it until after November, and have it go on the November 2017 ballot with plenty of warning. It’s been four decades — we can wait another couple of years.
Julia, state law limits the the amount of time the BoA has to vote on this, so they can’t delay the vote until after November. If they don’t take the vote within the specified time frame, it automatically goes on the ballot anyway.
The law also says, as Ted pointed out, that the BoA “shall by order provide for submitting the question…” It does not say “they may by order…”. The BoA must vote it onto the ballot, if they vote on it. The whole point of this process, under Mass. law, is to give voters the power to reform the charter, without requiring the approval of the mayor or BoA/city council.
When collecting signatures, volunteers told voters that the goal was to complete the petition in time for the November 2015 election.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter43B/Section4
I agree with Julia. What’s the rush?
I cannot imagine that voters understand how much time our Aldermen spend on City business: committees, research, emails and hearings. If they did, they would not even consider reducing the number of Aldermen: the remaining Aldermen would have to work even harder and longer hours.
It will take time to make residents understand that we need ALL the Aldermen we have. This is way too rushed!!
If the charter review is approved by the voters, residents will have 2 years to become informed about the charter, the charter review process, and any potential changes in the charter. All meetings of the charter commission will be open to the public and I assume the local media will report regularly on the process.
I encourage folks to download and read a copy of the charter from the city website. It’s right there for the taking.
Newton has several complex problems which need immediate solutions. This makes the task for charter reform more difficult. Whoever decides to campaign for the commission must be prepared to educate voters about the necessity and ramifications of possible rule changes to the charter.
Each person who runs will have a reason/agenda and must be able to articulate and justify them to the voters. They must also have a very deep understanding of how these changes may impact Newton’s future stability.
I would like to see a mixture of men and women from a variety of backgrounds and preferably no one that sits on the school committee and city council.
Elected officials could act as advisers.
Let’s review the bidding.
LWVN has been talking about forming a Charter Commission and collecting signatures, for how many years now, 5 years, 6 years, maybe more? The League (and Tom Sheff et al.) collected 12,850 signatures on 402 individual petition forms, and almost 8,500 of those signatures representing over 15% of registered voters were certified. We have had 62 comments on this thread alone (if you deduct mine you still have over well over 50). But now we need 1 or 2 more years for people to figure out whether they want to run for it or not?
Please. Stick a fork in it. This one’s done. The Board of Aldermen should follow the law and put this on the ballot for the next municipal election in November 2015.
With all respect Ted most folks in the city don’t follow the blogs.
The majority of people most of them very educated and holding down top notch jobs do not know anything about Newton politics and many seldom vote. Few read the blogs and Newton Tab. So what, if they learn about the /charter Comm. many of them will feel compelled to pay attention and vote whether it is now or a year from now.
I agree with Colleen’s last two posts and Ted’s last post. Time to move on. The 15% who signed the petitions did so to get the question on the ballot and that does not change the structure of our municipal government in any way.
Well, Dan, fortunately, the Board of Aldermen will follow the law. The ballot question was referred to committee tonight and Programs & Services will (unless I am very much mistaken) vote it out on Wednesday night. It is a ministerial function of the Board. The Charter Commission will be on the ballot this November.
I’m happy to hear the BOA referred the ballot question to committee. I actually think the timing is going to be good. Although we’ll be voting on the charter commission and electing members during a low-turnout election, the 2017 election where we vote to accept or reject the recommendations of that commission should draw at least some additional voters, assuming there is some sort of mayoral contest.
One more point about the idea that Newton voters need more time to get to know the issues behind charter reform in order to elect the right candidates. It’s an effort to get Newton voters to the polls just to choose a mayor. If they don’t care who runs their government, what makes people think they’ll care how their government runs?
Among the commission’s most important work will be the six months of education and outreach after they’ve voted on their proposed changes.
Once again Ted H-M seems to have this one in pretty clear focus. The fork having been stuck, I think yes, it is done. While the excitement and interest generated by the advent of Charter Reform is undoubtedly a healthy manifestation of democratic impulses here in Newton, I think somewhere in the MGL the process is laid out in explicit and constrained terms. The vote by the BoA and ‘placement on the ballot’ do not allow for messing with the schedule or making mods and changes – it’s pretty cut and dried. Google and mass.gov are your firends if you really want to know the details, but all the sturm und drang and writing letters to the alderman asking them to delay this or that – ain’t going to happen, they really don’t have much to say about it. I think we call this a rubber stamp, although I’m not sure anyone uses same anymore in the age of the pdf.
Gail originally asked:
“Because I’ve never collected signatures, I have no idea whether gathering the requisite signatures in six weeks will be a difficult prospect for would-be candidates, particularly for those without organizations behind them. Maybe some bloggers with experience can share their thoughts?”
My experience in signature gathering obviously differs from issue to issue. Gathering for candidates is much easier, most people feel that they are willing to allow anyone to get on the ballot if they want. On the conservative side, I would say people should be able to collect for the CC at a rate of 20/hr. So, a total of maybe 7-7.5 hrs would suffice…..maybe a weekend of collecting would do it.
If you go to a family event, expect a slower rate because some people will be annoyed you’re bothering them.
I agree with @Tom’s estimates. If you’re in the right location, the right event, or just plain actively engaging people, they’re happy to sign. It doesn’t commit them to anything, and they’re happy to see people want to participate in the life of the community.
I am collecting signatures for the Charter Review Commission but have not committed to running yet. The reason for delaying my decision is that I want to be sure that I am adequately familiar with the current charter and whether I feel that I would add productive and unbiased dialogue to the deliberations. At this point I believe that the charter review is needed not because I think anything is broken but to be sure it contains clear and sustainable guidance for years to come.
I’m not sure how you would define a qualified candidate to serve on the CRC. I was born and raised in Newton, graduated from Newton High School a few years ago and my great grandson who attends Day Middle School represents the 8th generation of my family in Newton. I have served on many boards and committees including Planning and Development, Human Rights Commission, Council on Aging, and the Newton Housing Authority Board of Commissioners along with a variety of non-profit organizations.
I am retired Construction Manager I held positions of Assistant General Manager of the MBTA, VP for Transit/Rail for AECOM and Client Account Manager for Kleinfelder. In my dual career I was blessed to serve as the pastor of the historic Myrtle Baptist Church in West Newton for 24 years.
I love the City of Newton and believe it is my obligation and duty to serve in making sure that the city continues to be the great city that it has always been.
I found this site and others to help me narrow my choices to my top nine. The latter provided more recent info but even this site (esp. Mr. Haywood) was helpful. Yes, most of these comments are from July. However, after talking with several friends and acquaintances over the past week (having Tom Sheff’s lawn sign might have helped), I think the voters have some solid candidates from whom to make their Top Nines 🙂