Following up on Greg’s previous post, I’d like to make a proposal to Charter Commission candidates. Before I do so, though, here’s my full disclosure: I plan to run for Charter Commission. More on that elsewhere.
We know that candidates have to file campaign finance forms with the City Clerk, but how far are candidates going to take this? More importantly, what kind of campaign are voters going to want?
I’d like to propose that candidates forego all the standard campaigning. No signs, no mailers, no photos with the family. No fundraising. Or a fundraising/spending limit of $100. With that limit, we can avoid signs and brochures. No trees have to die for a Charter Commission. Perhaps the League of Women Voters, the TAB, NewTV and the city could hold forums where candidates are available to talk to voters (no debates for fear of getting confused with the Republican contenders for president!). Maybe the TAB could publish candidates’ statements.
One downside to this approach is that it favors people with more name recognition. But I don’t see how to avoid that in an election that has to happen quickly.
I’d love to hear others’ thoughts on this.
Greg, I am game. I hadn’t planned to do any fundraising but having a low limit does allow candidates to at least have a web site. I did hear that the LWV was planning on some sort of forum to get candidates in front of voters.
I figured I would sneak my messages into V14 comments 🙂
Sorry Gail, confused the posters of this thread. Will be looking forward to other reactions on the proposal.
On the surface it sounds great, but it favors candidates with name recognition. Bryan Barash is a smart as a whip, enthusiastic, knowledgable candidate for the charter commission and the only chance he has is to get his name out there through the traditional means – signs, some kind of card or whatever. It would be a shame for the city to miss out on all he has to offer to the charter commission by limiting him to $100. I suspect he’s not the only one in that category.
I’m quite torn on this. Gail, I think it would be great if candidates for charter commission could limit their expenditure to $100, particularly since so much information is so readily available online. But, I also agree with Jane, that for some candidates name recognition is a huge advantage. I guess that I come out somewhere in the middle, with the hope that forums such as this, the NewtonTab and the League of Women Voters will provide enough support so that all candidates will have a full opportunity to have their message available to voters.
And, I agree that from what I’ve seen of Bryan Barash from his website, he sounds like an excellent candidate for this commission.
Good luck Gail!!!
Forgive me for being clueless, but why is everyone pushing each other out of the way to serve on this commission?
I’m sure that all of the candidates are civically-minded and feel a duty to serve their community, etc.
But why is there a need for charter reform? Sorry to be skeptical but as someone who knows very little about this issue, my first reaction would be that the only people who have an interest in this are either proxies of elected office-holders and/or political aspirants.
Great post Gail and happy to see that you are running. I have recently pulled nomination papers and took the first step in seriously considering a run for Charter Commission. I like the idea of a “handshake agreement” to limit spending but perhaps $200 may be more reasonable to allow those candidates without city wide name recognition the ability to print post cards, have a website etc. I have heard that the LWV will have a forum, the TAB is available for Letters to the Editors and other articles to publicize the CC candidates, but nothing beats getting out and meeting your neighbors and talking about the CC all summer long.
Good luck to all! This is a once in a generation opportunity for the residents of Newton to have a thoughtful, reasoned, open discussion about the future of our governmental structure. Let’s continue to spread the word to engage more voters during this important time in Newton’s history & move the CC conversation forward in a thoughtful, respectful but deliberate manner with community input and support.
Great post, Gloria!
Without campaigning, it will be the people with name recognition who win. In fact frankly that is the likely turnout even with campaigning. I think anyone who decides to run should go all out to win, otherwise what is the point of running, and if they think that means spending money on materials and postage then so be it.
All you democracy cheerleaders out there, be careful what you wish for. Remember, there are at least two parts to this puzzle, perhaps more. There will be several related puzzle parts on the same ballot. One part is whether the voters will decide to allow the Charter Commission to go forward at all. Ballot questions, including the ever-popular (in Newton) tax overrides can trigger elaborate and well-funded campaigns, involving significant spending by organized groups. That could conceivably happen in this case. Next we have folks who will run for seats on the Charter Commission. Presumably anyone who organizes (collects and spends money, etc) for the Charter Reform question, or who runs for the Commission, will need to file papers and comply with reporting requirements no matter how little or how much money they raise and spend. Suggesting you would limit such fundraising to $100 is delusional and a joke. A limit of $100 is simply saying you can’t spend any money – what do you think $100 will buy you in such a situation? A couple of bags of chips and a few bottles of coke? Register your domain name? It’s a stupid idea, totally detached from reality. More interesting is the question of how to segregate and account for spending by candidates who might be running for say, Ward Alderman, at the same time they are running for Charter Commission. There appear to be several of these already. How do they properly organize their campaign efforts, such that fundraising and spending for one office (Board of Aldermen) is kept separate and properly accounted for when the same person is also running for Charter Commission? Can such a candidate legitimately mention in promotional materials asking for you to vote for them for Alderman, that they are also running for Charter Commission? Is it even realistic to think that the two campaigns can be kept separate in any meaningful way? This is not a purely academic question. If you examine the OCPF (Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance) accounts of some of these ‘dual’ candidates, you will find that some of them have very, very large balances in their existing campaign committee accounts, despite not having had anything resembling a competitive race for years. Will they be drawing on those accumulated funds to finance their campaign for Charter Commission? How will we know? Just asking. Everyone likes to talk the talk about accountability and transparency, but very few actually walk the walk. As I have many times before, I encourage folks who are bored with twitter and facebook to check out ocpf.us.
As I said, I agree that limiting fundraising and spending gives an advantage to people with name recognition but with a campaign season of just a couple of months, that’s inevitable regardless. And, there is at least one candidate with a huge campaign war chest who could spend thousands of dollars without doing any fundraising.
Enough money to build a website and send e-mailings would be fine, whatever the amount.
@Michael: I’m not sure what you mean by “everyone pushing each other out of the way to serve on this commission.” The question of whether to have a Charter Commission is going to be on the ballot, as is the selection of members, and it needs to be taken seriously. Opening up the charter is a big deal. Personally, I wouldn’t want to see any reform that hasn’t been thoroughly reviewed by a thoughtful, intelligent group. I respect the process far too much to go into it with any preconceived ideas of what needs to happen.
Serving on the commission as one of nine votes would consume a lot of time for someone to do as a proxy for an elected official who could just run him or herself (except the mayor). I can’t see why anyone would do that but crazier things have been done in politics. As for political aspirations, I can only speak for myself. Running for political office in Newton is not on my bucket list.
Nope. Setting any limit on campaign spending favors the Political Insider Group (or whatever name for the cabal of past and presented elected officials is trending this week).
Do we actually know for certain that an account that was created to support a campaign for municipal office (i.e. alderman or school committee) can be spent to support a campaign for charter commission? It likely can, but it’s worth asking. I don’t have time to pursue this today but if someone does here’s where you’d ask:
Mass Office of Campaign and Political Finance
(617) 727-8352 / (800) 462-OCPF
Web site: http://www.mass.gov/ocpf
E-Mail: [email protected]
Ted,
Don’t you think the whole process favors the insiders? Short window, low-turnout election, etc…
Gail: Why fetter any candidate from spending what they feel they need to and from engaging others to contribute to their candidacy? How much do you think can be spent between now and November? If someone wanted to spend $10,000 – $30,000 on this election, why not let them! If they spent that much, they would surely be recognized as wastrels. If a candidate were to spend an awkwardly outlandish amount on adverts (think airplanes trailing messages; barrages of mailings; multiple fundraising asks; and wide-spread weed-like lawn signs), don’t you think Newton residents would have the perspicacity to recognize those moves as disproportionate to the elected task at hand and show the candidate to be less than “balanced” in his or her judgment? I think it all comes down to clear, rational thinking and good taste. I won’t vote for anyone who lacks either.
And, yes, the whole process does favor the insiders. The only way to “even the field” would be to remove sitting elected officials running concurrently for their other positions from candidacy on the Charter Commission!
Unlimited campaign spending favors both insiders with name recognition (who will have an easier time collecting $s because donors expect them to win) and the wealthy, who can self finance and don’t have to waste time dialing for dollars. Maybe $100 isn’t a good cap, but I think spending limits are a great idea .
Everything Lucia has said.
The League of Women Voters of Newton is working right now on how to provide opportunities for voters to understand what a charter commission is and to get to know the candidates, all in time for the November election. We are working with NewTV on getting info out right now about running for the commission and what the job entails. This will hopefully include videos, leaflets, a forum with people in other communities who served on charter commissions, etc. About the candidates, if there are a lot (and we hope there will be), debates will be impractical. We would wait until at least all candidates are certified to hold an event, but ideas are being discussed and planning is already in the works. Let us know your ideas here, or feel free to email us at [email protected].
Lucia: What about the political parties pitching for their candidates? In Newton, unless the candidates are Democrats, the playing field is also not even. Will you limit the mailers that the Democratic or Republican City Committees can send out? I know it’s supposed to be a non-partisan election, but let’s be real. Life is not fair. If some candidates spend gobs of money to get their names out there (well-known or hitherto unheard of), would you elect them to open and study and change your City’s Charter if you thought they were incapable of being personally fiscally responsible and showing studied restraint? Spending too much would be a warning sign to the voter. Don’t ask me how much is too much: I would have to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart’s observation that, like pornography, I know it when I see it.
IMHO campaign spending limits should include outside spending on candidates also. This isn’t a new, novel idea. I’ve seen it in practice in England where my m-i-l was a local representative.
Sallee – I think many voters vote on name recognition. Either intentionally, better the devil you know, or unconsciously, people are more comfortable with names they are familiar with. Mailings and robo calls cost thousands of dollars, even in little Newton. Campaign spending limits will help the unaffiliated.
Maybe this is a charter issue.
I would expect as a minimum each candidate to have a web site. I do not know how much it costs to create one, but I should imagine a $100 will not get very far.
Candidates have been planning their campaign already. I think it is much too late to put a limit on their spending. I agree with Sallee. I will know when someone’s gone too far.
To those who think name recognition will control the outcome regardless of whether or not spending limits are set, which names are recognized is not a foregone conclusion. Spending may be what gets names out there.
Bryan can create a kick-ass website. Others will have to pay to get one at all. Spending limits only benefit the ones whose names we already know. I’m sure Gail has good intentions, but then she already benefits from name recognition.
I hope this is all tongue in cheek.
A non-paying, 18 month commision of nine people.
To look at the Charter.
Campaign spending limits?
Good luck to anyone who wants to buy their way into that group. I’ll be very suspicious of any candidate who sends mailers, robocalls or advertisments. Immediate disqualification in my book.
At most, a minimal website, letters to the TAB. Be available at forums.
Buy your way on? You not only may win a seat on the Charter Commission but you win PUTZ of the year.
I have gotten great reactions from the voters I have met but I still need to connect with a lot more. For those of us in my position, that means not only maintaining a website, but also an email list, some sort of voter database, and also some kind of printed materials to hand out that express why we want to be a charter commissioner.
To do this, we’ll have to rely on the help of friends, neighbors, and supporters. As a state employee, I both have a limited person budget and can’t solicit money myself, my campaign will have to do that for me. So I’m already limited in my ability to raise funds.
I don’t plan to spend a fortune, but I do plan to use the reasonable sum my campaign is able to raise to reach out to voters and share my vision for the commission.
Byran: Your approach sounds reasonable and that is likely what voters want…reason! They also wand good common sense and real honesty about what you think should or should not be changed to “fix” Newton’s government, if you, in fact, think it needs fixing!
want, not wand. Although a magic wand might help. Excuse the typo.
I don’t think Bryan is one we have to worry about spending too much money. Don’t expect a mailer or robocall from him.
When you meet him you’ll know you’re meeting the real deal. He’s committed to public service and has demonstrated a commitment to Newton over the past several years.
What Terry said
I’ve read the 96 comments on the thread from two weeks ago and the LWV document from 2010, and I’ve also examined the limited campaign literature, but I can’t for the life of me understand why this commission has generated so much interest to the point of having a heated discussion about spending limits.
I also can’t understand the logic of holding a referendum on the creation of a commission while simultaneously holding an election for the members of that same commission, but I suppose that’s a whole other can of worms.
What’s the underlying goal here – suppressing NIMBYism, facilitating development, making it easier for certain candidates to get (re)elected, or something else?
There are about 20 people commenting here who are obviously very passionate about the prospect of forming a commission, and I envy their commitment to the community, but I suspect that 99 percent of the Newton population is, like me, not so plugged in to the municipal political scene and has no idea what’s at work here – will anyone ever indulge us?
Michael – As I recall, you’re quite new to Newton. All the conversation and discussion about EVERY issue is part of the culture of the city. But lots of people go about their lives and ignore it. That being said, it’s pretty terrific for the people who like to be involved at the local level.
The good news is that the League of Women Voters is planning a forum or two to outline the process and issues so, yes, you shall be indulged!
Michael: Lots of well meaning people have gathered a lot, A LOT, of signatures to get the Charter Review Commission on the ballot. That will answer the question: Do a majority of the voters in Newton want to convene a Charter Review Commission? Now, if that question is answered affirmatively, there will be a 9 member Commission elected on the same ballot to review the Charter OR if that question is answered negatively, those same candidates will go home, not to be recognized as having any review mission. The charter review questionis asked and the commission election process is carried out simultaneously because State regulations mandate that it be done that way. Ridiculous at best. But…if the voters think the Charter needs reviewing, they need to get people who will consider what, if anything, is broken in Newton’s City Government and to elect people who will carefully propose changes to fix what is perceived as broken. The underlying goals may well be: “– suppressing NIMBYism, facilitating development, making it easier for certain candidates to get (re)elected, or something else” as you suggest. Or, there may be genuine belief that some changes would cause the City to operate better. My thinking is that if you convene a Constitutional Convention, you should be extremely careful to select conventioneers who respect the concepts that you feel are fundamental to the life you and your neighbors in Newton support. If there are not 9 in whom you can trust and on whom you can rely, then you ought to defeat the ballot question. Once a Charter Review is mandated, the Commission can propose any changes it sees fit. There will be open meetings and Public Hearings and a chance about 18 months after a Commission is elected to vote up or down any Revised Charter proposed. I don’t know of any nefarious considerations. I, personally, will try to ferret out beliefs about dense development and public access to Alderpeople/Councilors when choosing my candidates. By the way, I am not running for the Commission!
Since the commission is just determining if any changes to how the local government functions could cause it to be run better, I think it’s most important that the commissioners know how it runs now and are capable of investigating ways it could be run better. I think they need to be open to learning about ways other local governments do things and to learning from each other’s points of view. I don’t want them to have preconceived ideas of what they think needs fixing and run on platforms of why or how those changes need to be made. So I will be voting for those who I think can approach the job that way, not looking for beliefs on the issues of the day.
I agree with Michael. With the exception of the limited number of people commenting on this blaaag, the lurkers, and the under 750 or so local political wonks in Newton, the average Newton resident has no idea what the freakin’ charter is about, and have even less interest or time to learn/read more about it. In the end, the commission will engage in about stuff only they think is “fair” and lead us further down the road of Agenda 21
Ceteris parabus, Marti, I would be as trusting as you are of non-bias in the candidates, but ceteris is not always parabus, so with my jaded and suspicious eye, I will look for what I consider to be possible biases and try to avoid them!
@Janet – is it that pesky United Nations behind this Charter Commission update?
Agenda 21 is pretty great; I’d never read it before but the parts that I’ve skimmed are all right on.
Any candidates for Charter Commission who voice their support for Agenda 21 will also have mine!
Gail, I think the most efficient, advantageous way for non-insiders to even get a shot at being elected to the Charter Commission is to advertise. As you know, the TAB charges for that. NewTV gives free public access to candidates, but for the most part social media, website, and anything that boosts visibility to a targeted audience (Facebook does this so insidiously most FBers probably are not even aware of it) is going to require some spending. Tying one arm behind a candidate’s back is not the way to go. Not to give away free advice, but if a group of non-insiders really wanted to get themselves elected, they would put together a slate of candidates and publicize the bejeezus out of it. Or post on Village 14. Or both.
I also happen to think that some of the best people to be involved are the people who are most familiar with the Charter. By definition, those folks are insiders, I guess. It seems to bother some people, whom I suspect are result/outcome oriented, rather than truly interested in Charter review and reform, which opens up the whole can of beans. The good news is that the biases of the better known insiders are easier to ferret out. I also am unmoved by the shortness of time argument. As I have said before, Tom Sheff and the League have been out there for 7 years now collecting signatures. You would almost have to live under a rock not to have been asked to sign a petition at least once. People who care know what is going on and will vote for whomever they think will make a good member of the Charter Commission. People who do not probably are not going to be very much affected by whatever the Charter Commission comes up with.
Sallee, the Charter Commission cannot just do anything it wants. The proposed Charter revisions have to pass muster with the Attorney General before going on the ballot. But worry not. The topic of whether to include cemeteries in area neighborhood councils probably will not even come up.
Looking forward to the LWVN forum. It should be a hoot.
I’ve often wondered who the insiders are. How do you get to be one? How many signatures do you have to collect to get to be an insider? 😉
As someone who was out there collecting signatures, I completely understand that many people do not know what the city charter is and why Newton needs a group of citizens to see if there could be any improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of our city government. We (meaning the League of Women Voters of Newton or LWVN) have reached out to Newtonites over the years, but know that there is still work to be done.
There is currently a great deal of info not only on the LWVN website, but also on the city website on the “elections” page. As we head further into election season, and the deadline for filing papers to run for the Charter Commission gets closer, we will be providing as many opportunities as possible for people to learn more. I’m sure this blog, the Newton TAB, the Globe West and other news outlets in Newton will also be talking even more about it.
It’s really exciting to see 15 people (as of Tuesday) pull papers to run for the charter commission–and we hope to see many more. This is a great opportunity, if you want to be engaged in our community, to volunteer on a very focused question for a limited amount of time. Whatever candidates decide about the money question, we hope it doesn’t stop people from putting their names forward. LWVN will do its utmost to help voters make informed choices in November.
Jane, I am pretty sure you can tell who the Political Insider Group is by our curly little tails. 😉
Ted, are you still an insider? I watched as Scott Lennon marginalized your role on Land Use after you challenged S.W. in the last election.
I suppose there are ‘political insiders’ and then there are the 5 people who run the city, call the shots and affect all our lives in ways we could describe for a week.
I wonder if a C.C. could change that aspect of political reality.
@Colleen: Who do you think are the five people who run the city?
The definition of “political insider” is entirely subjective. Some may say one has to be an elected official, some might say one has to be on the mayor’s good side, some might argue seniority in city politics alone is an automatic qualifier.
That’s why I think the notion that limiting spending favors insiders is folly (and I don’t think I’ve ever used that word in my life). People with name recognition will be able to raise money easier. People who have money will be able to part with it easier. What I’m suggesting makes the gap a little smaller for the lesser-known.
Let’s play this out. Lisle Baker has about $13K in his campaign fund and more likely than not, he’s not going to be afraid to use some portion of it in order to ensure his victory. Now, many of us could argue that Lisle would win without spending a penny but Lisle is known to be a campaigning machine. So, everybody else is at a disadvantage because he’s been in office forever and has seldom had opponents.
The fact that it’s not fair is not really my point. Fairness is unachievable. I want to show respect for the process. The dollar amount is debatable but it should be small enough so the city isn’t covered in signs and we aren’t receiving robocalls on Election Day. This is an opportunity to fill a temporary position to do something historic for the city. Let’s treat it like that.
What do those opposed to limited local campaign spending think of the campaign finance reform movement or Citizens United?
Sallee, agreed.
Lucia, I am a staunch proponent of campaign finance reform. However, the issue is not about limiting what a candidate spends, but more about limiting how much an individual donor can give. It’s about whether you raise $100 million from a million donations of $100, or from 100 donations of $1 million. Buying influence is the problem.
Communicating a campaign message will cost something. If a candidate is able to raise money from small donations to help get his or her message out, that probably says positive things about his or her organization-running skills, motivation, and ability to inspire confidence. And if a candidate is able to bank-roll his or her own campaign, then that candidate probably has an advantage, just like someone with name recognition has an advantage.
@Ted H-M: Re: Your comment that “The topic of whether to include cemeteries in area neighborhood councils probably will not even come up.”
With your vote on Programs and Services you can keep the cemetery out of the Neighborhood Area Council, but you can’t keep the Neighborhood Area Council out of the cemetery! Nelson and I have plots there! 🙂
Sallee, I am happy to see your fervor is undaunted. As I said at the meeting, the public hearing requirement presented some challenges, unless of course we conducted a seance.
@Ted: Of corpse, that might lead to grave consequences! Dig?
What Gail said.
Gail, I am surprised you asked me that question. I know who they are as I follow it closely. Who do you think they are?
Colleen – I follow things closely as well, but have no idea who you’re talking about.
Jane, for those in power that is the idea.
But you know who they are.
The sequence of the last five posts is so ridiculous and convoluted that it puts this dialogue to shame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTcRRaXV-fg
OK Ted, jump in here
HDL – You’re pretty new to V14, so you may not have seen the many conversations over the years about “insiders”. In the past, when I’ve asked people who use the term to identify the “insiders”, they are unable or unwilling to do so. By implication, if there are “insiders”, many if not most, residents are outsiders and that should be a concern to everyone in the city.
Mr. Dewey, political power is ridiculous and convoluted. People in power lose their sense of right and fairness the longer they hold power. Most decisions are not secured by a democratic process but rather by back room dealings.
To me that is what is ridiculous for the outsiders. For the insiders it the process is simply done for survival.
The people who hold power are usually a small group. The political insiders consist of a larger network of people who have access to the inner workings of government and also enable the power elite to function.
Colleen appears to want to be the Joe McCarthy of Newton politics.
Also, the word “shame” has no place in a respectful dialogue.
Jane, who is HDL? The “good” cholesterol?
HL Dewey, don’t drag me into this. I have no idea who the “real” insiders are.
Colleen, I have always thought that a constitution or charter should aspire to preventing too much power becoming concentrated into too few hands. That is the genius of a constitutional democracy.
Mr. Dewey is probably more appropriate, but that leaves out Huey and Louie and we can’t have THAT happen.
In my opinion, $100 is simply an unrealistically low limit in this day and age — even for a relatively low-level race like this — given the breadth of the city and the number of voters. I think in general campaign finance reform is important, but a $100 limit would be taking that much too far. At that point, the “money is speech” line used by opponents of all limits does actually become true. People need to at least be able to get their foot in the door or else what’s the point of trying to hold open, democratic elections… A limit of $100 would keep that door open on paper but firmly closed in practice to anyone who wasn’t already very well known.