Our city’s streets are speckled with Charter Commission candidate lawn signs and sometimes it seems like you can’t go out for a cup of coffee without running into one or more of the 22 citizens who are running for the 9-member commission.
But all that campaigning won’t mean a thing if voters don’t also support opening Newton’s charter on Nov. 3.
So do you support opening the charter for review? Vote in our poll and share your views in the comments section.
[polldaddy poll=”9131679″]
I’m surprised at the 13-13 vote. I thought more people were into this.
Tom – 13 + 13 = 26.
😉
I’d be especially interested in hearing from some of the no voters about why they’re not in favor of a charter review.
Pretty encouraging to see that only 2 people out of 64 don’t know what the city charter is.
I was impressed as well, Tom. When I began speaking to people about the commission in June, people frequently asked if this was related to charter schools. Now when I run into people who don’t know much about it, they’ve at least heard about it and want more information and want to discuss it.
Well… since I’m running for Charter Commission, I guess I think it’s a good idea! If the Charter Commission does a good job, it’s an opportunity to improve how our city functions. Personally, I think we need to take a serious look at:
– the balance of representation on our Board of Aldermen (not so much the number, as the balance between Ward and At Large representation) – it seems like our current balance favors city-wide issues the expense of village concerns
– how we do planning, zoning, and permitting – it seems like the current system is biased toward finding a way to make development projects work, rather than fostering development projects that align with a well understood and agreed to plan
– more generally, how responsibilities and powers are assigned across the Mayor, Council, and staff – it seems that our current system overly politicizes practically every issue
Read more at facebook.com/milesfidelmanforchartercommission
Thank you Village 14 for helping raise awareness for this very important question! I find it really difficult for anyone to make a reasonable case against even taking a look at the Charter. Vote Yes on November 3rd!!
Josh,
What is in the Charter that you would like to discuss/debate? What happens if the commissioners find that nothing in the charter needs to be changed?
Why can’t the electorate fully discuss important changes before opening the charter?
Greg,
A very interesting poll, not so much about whether or not a Charter Commission should be opened for review, but as an indicator of just how relevant the V14 website is to the overall voting public of Newton. This blogs hundred or so participants ( and I know I’ll stand corrected ) , consist of a group of out spoken, uninhibited, ( exhibitionistic ? ) wordsmiths who have bought into the idea that they are the movers and shakers of Newtons 13 Villages and As such can shape the outcome of events and thereby control the future political landscape. However there may be an element of truth in the concept that those going to the polls will / may tell a slightly different variation of the story. The current polling at 63 Vs 27 % in favor of a Charter Commission I’m sure will be at slighter or greater odds from the final voting outcome. Should not this final result ( if it differs ) , lead to discussions here as to just how relevant ( or prescient ? ) all this bloviating really is ?
@blueprintbill – I’m not sure I follow your line of reasoning. As one of those “outspoken, uninhibited, exhibitionist wordsmiths” myself, I’ve never had any illusion that I somehow speak for or represent the opinion of the entire electorate. In fact that’s what I most like about the blogs, a chance to hear from all sorts of individual voices around the city with wildly different opinions and voices – including yours.
The only reliable way I know for determining what the electorate think is to have an election.
@Colleen, your question is similar to ” Why elect commisionors until we know we will have a review?” I think the answer is because that’s how it works. However I also think conversations have been goning on. I became engaged on this several years ago when I attended a meeting of the LWVN on their review and list of suggested changes for the charter. If we have the review, the commission will have 18 months to complete deliberations. A first step will be public hearings where the commission will solicit input. Sadly, as important as this work is to all residents, it will be hard to get public attention and much of the input will come from the city minority paying attention.
I am sure, regardless of who would be on the commission, size of the BOA and term limits will be part of the review. The size of the BOA would precipitate several further directions for consideration.
Jerry,
All I’m trying to say is that there may well be a difference between v14 blog participants and the voting public. The election numbers may well serve as a graphic indicator of said difference.
I thought the accuracy and usefulness of online polls (in general) was settled business.
@blueprintbill – no doubt.
I certainly don’t understand people who plan to vote no on opening up the charter for the first time in 40 years. We have a charter that predates not just the world wide web or the fall of the Soviet Union but even predates Watergate and the opening of China. So much has changed locally and in the wider world. It’s hard to imagine there’s not at least some stuff in the charter that could use modernization…
I also really would like to see the Commission (if convened) recommend adding a charter provision that automatically starts this process again at a regular interval (like 12 years or 16 if we’re stretching). So there won’t have to be 4 more decades of petition gathering to do it again. If it’s a regular thing that comes up (“Oh, time to run for a 2-year commission again!”) people will be thinking more frequently and systemically about ways to improve and strengthen the city’s governmental architecture. Not everyone of course, but the people who know the ins and outs very well will have reason to think about the mechanics more often.
Bill, thats a great idea. I looked into it. I wanted to make it easier to create a charter commission, this process took about 10 years to do. The response I got was that it shouldn’t be easy to review the charter, so it’s meant to be difficult.
I’m not surprised that’s what you heard back. In my opinion, of course, that’s not a very good rebuttal/explanation. First, a 12 or 16 year timeline is not that “easy.” Second, any recommendations would still require difficult approval referenda and (I assume) state approval. Third, while I agree that it shouldn’t be as easy as snapping one’s fingers to review the charter, it should not be the complete opposite direction either. People’s self-governance should never be made intentionally more difficult “just because.” Fourth, many entire states have a provision that automatically at intervals sends to the ballot a question along the lines of “Should a constitutional convention be convened?” and then if it passes (which it often does not), there is a subsequent election of delegates to draw up proposals for amending the state constitution (which are in turn submitted through the normal channels for ratification). For a moderate-sized suburb, I think we can comfortably be rest assured that convening a charter commission every 12 years for a review and later referendum would not be in any way an excessively facile proposition or a threat to democratic self-governance. In fact, a regularly scheduled commission system (even at long intervals) would probably be *more* democratic and on more solid footing, since people would have more time to prepare campaigns for it and debate the issues, rather than being surprised at almost the last minute like this year.
Bill,
If elected, I’ll bring it up again.
Thomas Jefferson, in this quote (which is inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial), makes a nice plug for a charter review:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
I will vote no on opening up the charter for review. There are two reasons. First, I do not see nine people running for the commission who I think would yield results that align well with my interests and beliefs concerning how local government should function.
Second, I have not heard a compelling argument concerning why there is a need for this effort. I have lived here almost 15 years and currently have three children in the school system. The problems I have with how Newton is governed have far more to do with the people who are elected rather than the form and structure of the government itself.
My concern is that the types of changes people are considering coupled with the people in the ballot will tend to exacerbate my displeasure with Newton rather than make things any better.
‘I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.’ Julius Henry Marx.
An elite nine member commission, many of whom posture from the fruit of an exclusive poisoned tree club disavowing of bias.
“That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”.. Thomas Jefferson
Very little discipline and a resounding lack of humility for the limitations of what local government can and should do among those on the ballot.
Many of them seem to share a lack of concern for policies and positions which end up burdening the average Newtonian. Given that it is already rather pricey for the “privilege” to live here (for many of us big $$ for old, small houses and small lots), how many of us really need the extra baloney that comes from the activist do-gooder approach to local governance that is so prevalent in Newton politics?
Voting in favor of opening up the charter this becomes something of a Pandora’s box given the folks who have put their hat in the ring.
Elmo,
I’m rather disappointed in hearing you say that. Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re the first person I have heard who is concerned about the level of talent running for the CC. Can you be more specific?
If you have time to follow the CC, maybe some candidates will surprise you.
Elmo – The candidates will be at NSHS on Wednesday evening from 7:30-8:30 for a forum sponsored by the LWV.
For practical reasons, we’ve been limited in word counts or amount of time to record a message. The forum on Wednesday provides you with an opportunity to speak in depth with candidates and I hope to meet you there.
Uncle Thomas and I were rocking on the front porch the other night watching the Virginia sun go down and talking about a subject that troubles him. He tries to stay away from the Internet, but his great curiosity overcomes him at times and he is saddened to read so many things wrongly attributed to him on social media. Some of them are not too bad because the quotations are close to his beliefs but most of them are not and are bantered about to support the political issues of whomever is quoting them.
So on this evening he had been reading a radical Massachusetts blog about a hidden Village called 14. He supposes this must have been Washington’s doing, along with his spies without names but with numbers and their messages written in code.
In the blog, radicals with mysterious pen names along with some using their true names, he guesses, are discussing the possible pitfalls of opening a very old charter to review its form of government and to possibly to make changes. Not far down he saw his name mentioned and wondered if his frenemy John Adams might be behind a pen name because once again he saw something he didn’t say and wouldn’t say being quoted as something he did say. He’d seen the first part for years but now it had a second part, which he wouldn’t ever say even if somehow in some way something he did say could be construed into meaning what was said in the first part.
It was so distressing that he felt the need to write a letter to his daughter, my cousin, and express his weariness at seeing these things and at those who didn’t see that he didn’t say things in abstract generalities, but using practical principles so that if he had said the first part he would have been specific as to some kind of rational guideline certainly more than just that indefinite statement and that he never in anyway came close to expressing that the government’s people, whatever that means, should/could/would discipline themselves in any way. So he sadly wrote in his letter:
“when I look to the ineffable pleasures of my family society, I become more & more disgusted with the jealousies, the hatred, & the rancorous & malignant passions of this scene, & lament my having ever again been drawn into public view.”