Newton Villages Alliance is at it again. This time instead of resorting to Tea Party/Ann Coulter -like fear mongering about “importing poor people” the NVA sent an election weekend e-mail to supporters which challenges the motives of the League of Women Voters Newton and claims some Charter Commission candidates want to “limit” democracy.
Here’s an excerpt from the email in which the NVA proposes would be a reason to vote against establishing a Charter Commission.
The group that led the effort to put this question on the ballot did so after going on record in support of reducing the number of aldermen representing us and transferring land use decision-making authority from our elected aldermen to appointed professionals from the land use and development sectors. Until this year, they were also on record as supporting the elimination of the charter provision authorizing our grassroots village area councils. All of these are changes that would concentrate power in fewer hands, be less democratic and lead to less accountability.
A little later the NVA adds..
What is worrying is that a number of well-known candidates running for Charter Commission are leaders, or former leaders, in the organization that led the effort to put the question on the ballot. So it is safe to assume that those candidates wish to limit resident participation in local democracy in the ways that organization espoused. Other candidates have close ties to the development industry.
The mail concludes with its endorsement of the nine candidates it presumably believes don’t share the LWVN’s democracy-limiting agenda.
Well, you know what is said to happen when one assumes …
BTW, here’s the nine candidates the NVA believes don’t want to “limit” democracy and has endorsed.
I’d be especially interested in hearing if these nine candidates share the NVA’s views of the League’s and their competitors’ motives.
Peter Bruce
Miles R. Fidelman
Lisa R. Teuscher Gordon
Peter F. Harrington
Linda Jordan Kraus
George E. Mansfield
Kenneth R.L. Parker
Charles N. Shapiro
Kathryn K. Winters
So here’s what’s true in that statement: LWVN is on record as supporting a reduction in the size of the Board of Aldermen, and until this year, we also had a position against Area Councils. That’s it. While we are still in favor of a reduction in the number of Aldermen, we removed the Area Council position at our Annual Meeting this year. The original opposition to Area Councils was created when there was only one, and its primary job was to run the village day. Once the Mayor increased the number of Area Councils and asked them to play a wider role in their villages, LWVN began to rethink its position, leading to an official change this past spring.
LWVN is all about improving democracy and increasing accountability. We believe that having fewer Aldermen would do both, by having fewer, more frequently contested seats, with less opportunity for Aldermen to duck the issues in responding to constituents. Anyone who thinks we are against democracy and accountability should check out our webpage at lwvnewton.org–everyone can find lots of non-partisan voter information on candidates. We also held a number of events this election season, both to inform voters and candidates.
I just got off the phone with a new resident of Newton who was looking to understand the structure of our local government and to figure out what this person needed to know to vote on Tuesday. It was a long, complicated conversation as I explained how we elect our Aldermen…imagine figuring this all out for the first time? That’s what LWVN does–we try to help people make sense of our system and provide information that helps them make decisions on how to vote.
Let me start by putting out there that I’m not a fan of this NVA.
Having said that, one facet I agree with is that the commission be made up of independent minded folks that don’t have biases relative to the Charter.
I’m quite comfortable there are more than nine running who do come at this with the proper open perspective.
But just as NVA worries that some may have preconceived notions on what to change, I’m of the opinion that a number of those on their list have the opposite bias. This missive of theirs is ample proof of that.
While I did not ask for an NVA endorsement, I’m quite pleased to be seen as someone who thinks independently, retains an open mind, and promotes citizen involvement and democracy whenever possible.
Two quick discussion bullet points:
1. Reducing Ward Alderman would limit voter and community representation, so as a commission member I’d vote to retain all Ward Aldermen while being open minded when it comes to the reduction of At Large Aldermen
2. I’d like to take part in a discussion on where land use responsibilities should reside. To 100% remove BOA input might be harmful, but for certain basic residential home owner requests, it could be helpful to have an independent council (ex: traffic council with a BOA rep on it)
There have been some who feel that all zoning and land issues should be removed from the BOA and go to an appointed board with no BOA review process. Some who have suggested this are strong supporters of Austin St and feel that if this change is made, more large projects would more easily sail through.
Needless to say, I disagree and believe that strong neighborhood elected accountable representation bolsters democracy. Bolstering democracy is something I think most people feel is good.
Just a little fact checking…
–The League does not have a position on transferring land use decision-making to another body
–Land use and special permit granting authority are not specified in the charter so they won’t be addressed by a charter commission. The are governed by the ordinances and the Rules of the Aldermen.
–“…a number of well-known candidates running for Charter Commission are leaders, or former leaders, in the organization that led the effort to put the question on the ballot.” Zero candidates are leaders of the League. Two out of 22 are former board members of the League.
–“So it is safe to assume that those candidates wish to limit resident participation in local democracy in the ways that organization espoused.” The mission statement of LWV: “The LWV, a nonpartisan political organization, encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy.”
Charlie your statement regarding this thread is at least not based on fact and leans close to fear mongoring. Tell me and those reading this blog which of the 22 candidates wants to take the special permitting process away from the BOA so that large development projects like Austin Street will sail through. I have not heard one candidate including myself make any statement which supports your accusation. Win this seat on your own merit not by making false and undocumented accusations.
…so in an effort of full disclosure, how many cc candidates are or have ever been members of the illustrious women of the golden circle?
I completely agree with Sue Flicop’s assessment that a reduction in the size of the BoA [City Council] would lead to greater accountability and more contested elections. I wholeheartedly support a reduction.
Personally, as I’ve written many times on this blog, I believe every local election should be contested. That could be accomplished by including “None of the Above” on all local ballots.
Want democracy? Want accountability? Those two changes are the way to achieve both.
To state that anyone running for any office is trying to limit democracy is preposterous.
Charlie, it’s been said to you several times over the last week, but you’re better than this. You know all of us. You know each candidate values the democratic process. At the very least, you need to acknowledge this. It’s okay to disagree on issues, but to imply that any candidate who’s spent the last 4-6 months talking with, canvassing, calling, emailing, and having coffee with voters doesn’t value the democratic process is just not accurate.
Sigh. Maybe Charlie isn’t better than this.
About LWVN leadership, I’ve been a Board member of LWVN for about 8 or 9 years, and only two of the candidates have been on the Board in that time–both in the past few years. We very rarely limit our meetings to just members, so just because someone comes to an event, forum or meeting, doesn’t mean they are members.
@Rhanna, I understand what you’re saying, but as a practical matter reducing the size of the board will likely require a modification in city council duties, so items like land use and special permitting authority almost have to be seriously considered.
I’m assuming size of board will at least be on the table so board duties must be reviewed as part of that analysis.
Let’s make another correction. This personally offends me. Me and my friends started the signature drive while the League finished it. Atleast get you’re facts right.
a Board of women for women does not necessarily transparently represent fully fair & equal unfettered access to democracy for all regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or religious beliefs..
There should under no circumstances be a committee appointed by the mayor to make decisions on permitting /land-use.
Due to the enormous responsibilities of the BOA, I am nor in favor of reducing the size. For example, Marcia Johnson is a valuable contributer who really can’t be replaced.
I also think term limits should be removed from SC to encourage more people to run and not ‘wait their turn.’
I will be voting no on the need for the commission im any case. I don’t feel the need to trash NVA or the LWV. Both groups are working hard to do what each feels is best for Newton. Tone your tweets down.
I went back to read Greg’s comments. I too, would like to hear from the NVA or the endorsee’s on my motives in getting this signature drive started. I for one, would like to know how I took away democracy by getting as many people in the community involved in this exercise. At the beginning (before NVA even was created)many people tried to dissuade our group in getting this started, now 70% of the city love it. This isn’t the League’s project, it’s not MY project, It’s the cities project and for a group who claims everything you do is for the city, for the NVAl to miss that, then shame on you, you look like hypocrits. I, for one am tired of hearing you tear down everything that people try to accomplish in this city. Instead of tearing things down, why don’t you (the NVA) create. I know why? Because it’s a lot easier to comment from the cheap seats. Take care.
Tom,
You are the person responsible for why the Charter Commission is going to happen (hopefully). You do not need to defend against anyone who tells you that you are not the right fit for this position. Think of the “Little Red Hen” story. Many have now jumped on ship to get a piece of the Charter Commission, but you are one of the only people who has actually made the review of the Charter happen, every step of the way.
Also, I have talked to many of my friends and although voters can’t see how age groups support candidates this election cycle, I would expect Tom to lead the 18-21 year old’s vote on the Charter Commission side. Hopefully that gets you in the top 9.
Best,
Cyrus
@Dan, that is a fair point. To be more specific… land use and special permitting are not governed under our charter, and the charter commission won’t be the final decision maker on changes to them. But in considering the size of the BoA, the charter commission will need to look at how these functions are performed in other cities, as voters will need to understand how these might be handled differently if the BoA were smaller.
@Harry: Everyone can join LWVN…it’s not just for women only. There has been discussion about the name over the years among the members across the country. It comes down to a difference between honoring the history of the League (from the suffragette movement) and wanting to make it clear that we are not only a women’s organization. But regardless of the name, we welcome everyone. Wanna join, Harry?
My only point was that reducing the size of the board without seriously considering work load would be problematic.
The commission review process must be a holistic one that considers the interdependencies.
Cyrus,
Thank you very much.
Dan, agreed.
I have tried hard to run my campaign independently and you won’t see a list of endorsers or supporters in any of my materials, though I believe my campaign has been favorably received by voters and groups across a variety of perspectives. I can only speak for myself here. If I am elected to the commission I am committed to look for ways to improve the efficiency, accountability, and transparency of our local government. Two specific and related goals will be my focus:
(1) A simpler government structure that is more accessible to voters. I am with Sue on this. I was at a gathering today talking to long-time residents who do not understand the current structure. Every two years voters are asked to cast votes for a total of 25 alderman and school committee positions! For the average citizen, it is very difficult to make an informed choice where even just a handful of seats are challenged. How can it be simpler from a voter’s perspective? A smaller legislative board is one option, more ward and less at-large seats is another. I agree with Dan, if you reduce board size, you have to consider the best way to shrink workload while maintaining a link of accountability between government action and voters.
(2) More contested elections. Under the current structure, incumbents are rarely challenged. Contested elections are an essential component of a healthy representative government, and an important way for citizens to be heard. We need more, and I will support changes that bring on more challenged races.
If we can achieve these two goals, I believe that the broader goals of efficiency, accountability, and transparency will be well served.
To answer your original question specifically Greg, no I do not have anything negative to say about my fellow candidates. I think a charter that emerges from a commission made up with members with varied perspectives has the best chance of success (both in terms of obtaining voter approval and in resulting in an improved government structure).
If anyone wants to talk directly please email me at [email protected]
Geez people, before attacking, please take time to read what’s written. I never said candidates. I’m talking about the public. There were two people who mentioned the topic to me at the YMCA just the other day.
I’m sensing a real nervousness and tension on the part of many. This always seems to happen right before an election. I have not questioned the integrity of anyone and would greatly appreciate the same respect from others.
I am a member of the league of women voters as of recently. I think they do a good job of informing our voters.
I don’t think the fear mongering is appropriate and as a voter I don’t put much weight in the opinions of a group primarily focused on questions of development, which the Charter Commission would have little to no say in.
I’m disappointed to read the pointed attacks on Charlie Shapiro for something he did not write or even imply. I would guess that the ability to extract correct meaning from the written word would be an important qualification for Charter Commission candidates.
Another thing- reducing the BOA would make the City much less accessible to citizens. There are 86,000 people using 24 BOA. With fewer, it will be an even worse political insider tight little circle. Bad bad. Sort of speaks to Tea Party philosophy.
Vote NO on the charter review!
I am not under the impression that number of aldercritters is the only issue for the charter review. I am also under the impression that a charter review does not necessarily mean there will be wide-ranging- or even any- changes. It’s prudent to review if it has not been done for 40 years. That’s why I’m voting yes on charter review- I’m less concerned about the candidates, as I’m sure most or all will form a very competent committee of 9, though I should say those who have voiced their opinions here have been very welcome and informative to the process.
Looking forward to election day!
I continue to maintain that the NUMBER of board members is relatively unimportant. What’s important is are the ROLES & POWERS of Aldermen, REPRESENTATION, and CONSTITUENT SERVICE.
It seems to me that our Board members are doing a lot of things – particularly related to planning, development, and special permits – that other communities delegate to staff and commissions. The result is a lot of committees, hearings, and time spent. But… all those committees don’t seem to take a lot of binding votes, nor do they seem to listen very much to citizen input. The ROLES & POWERS seem broken, and the process does not seem particularly representative. Let’s fix this before we talk numbers.
And when it comes to REPRESENTATION & CONSTITUENT SERVICE, I’ve personally found that it’s my Ward Alderman who’s both reachable and comes through. I have serious questions about the nature and role of At-Large Aldermen, and very serious questions about the way they outnumber Ward representation. The current balance of power and representation also seems very broken.
Let’s make sure we address the right issues, and not get sidetracked into a simple head count.
Vote Early, Vote Often Vote Fidelman for Charter Commission – and Tell Your Friends to Vote!
https://facebook.com/milesfidelmanforchartercommission
Hey Steve, that’s my line from the “why Austin Street and Jake” thread.
It’s forever interesting what cones out at the end of an election. The various camps throw their hail Mary’s and the candidates work to distance themselves from the controversial positions of various groups/PAC’s who support them while inevitably disclosing their own agendas. On blogs, bloggers read and comment too fast.
Just go out and vote in the challengers for city council positions and many of the problems we are having in Newton will go away.
Democracy in Newton has been limited in the past by the domination of Newton electoral outcomes by a group with the money and connections to determine outcomes well before the election.
So vote for all the challengers for city council positions and there will follow a real return to Newton garden city values.
Forget all of this last minute bickering.
To Doug’s point, it should be amply noted that one scenario emanating from this charter review could well be that on balance our existing charter, while not perfect, might still be what we should go forward with.
The mandate ought not be: “we MUST fix this.” It should be a reality check on how it’s working and how might that compare to other alternatives. Recognizing that no charter approach will be the ideal. And that any charter is ultimately only as good as the folks we elect.
For this reason, I plan to vote for Peter Harrington among my nine choices, because of his prior involvement in the last charter commission of over 40 years ago. His perspective can be valuable as folks grapple with what might be better.
I worry about those who seem to be going into the process with the implication the current system IS broken. That is not being open minded.
Dan,
I have gone thru 3 events with these candidates and it seems that everyone agrees on the fact that people need an open mind going into the review. I dont see anyone who says its broken, only that certain issues needs to be reviewed.
Rhetoric aside, Tom, I believe some DO have agendas going in that might fight with being open minded.
Dan,
All I can say is what people have said in public forums. It’s obviously your vote, go with what your gut is telling you. Good luck.
so distract & redirect, my question remains unanswered. Did the Women’s League ever think that because of the name representing a distinct bias that, perhaps, city executives in power might be sensed into saying that which that apparent bias relishes, that that discrimination breeds further contempt & discontent furthering a cause for which might be better served by relegating to the archives of the Library’s Newton Room. Did the BoA effectively take upon itself the updating of apparent gender bias (discrimination) by successfully changing to City Council, or has the golden circle not yet made its’ rounds??
very interesting! I just called the elections office and it seems that the Garden City Coalition PAC form was dropped off this morning. I’ve asked the city clerk for more information. Perhaps he can post it here.
This info from David Olson city clerk:
Now here’s the interesting part: there are no other municipal PACs registered in Newton
Here’s a link to the Garden City Coalition form filed Monday Nov. 2, several days after the flyer was sent.
Dan is definitely right here. It’s obvious that many candidates for the Charter Commission have strong beliefs that the system is broken and they have expressed ideas about how to fix it. It’s obvious just on this thread. And it is not just the the people supported by the NVA.
LWVN’s prior board members also state an agenda – reducing the number of the City Council members.
I hoping the Commision has more members who approach the process as a study in what works best and what could work better than ones who have an agenda. It is reassuring to know voters decide whether to accept or deny a new charter.
I’ve been hosting 6 candidate lawn signs this election season. A couple of weeks ago, one of the signs was yanked up and flung across my lawn. Last night, two of the signs were thrown onto my lawn and one was removed (sorry Rhanna – your sign is gone).
I share this only to the extent that may be a reflection of the incivility of our discourse. We can all do better.
Lisap, No worries, I actually plucked the sign myself, sorry for neglecting to tell you. I am being thrifty and re-purposing lawn signs for Election Day poll signs. 🙂
Why not change the name to league of voters, that would take the gender out of the assoc. Remember we just went from Alderman to Counselors.
@Marti, I don’t believe anything I’ve said can be construed as taking a position on the size of the BoA. It is a foregone conclusion that the charter commission will consider the size of the BoA…to not do so would be a disservice to the city. But there is no forgone conclusion that the Board will be downsized, and if I’m elected, I will argue for a BoA of 24 to be one of the scenarios considered in the public process.
I have consistently advocated for electing people with an open mind, going back as far as two years when a few residents argued that we needed slates of people committed to specific positions, or the charter commission would have too much unknown and too much risk.
I’m not running based on any positions for change–not the LWVN’s positions or any other. The League did excellent work in it’s charter study, but that work just got us to where we are now, and the commission will need to do it’s own study of alternatives which will be publicly discussed.
Ultimately, voters will decide what changes we adopt. In the review process, they should have the opportunity to weigh in on all the alternatives. Commissioners who have already decided what’s best for Newton ahead of the public process do Newton a disservice and have a lower likelihood of putting forward a viable proposal.
I’m going to come to Charlie’s defense because he didn’t pull his concerns out of thin air. Skepticism about where land use decisions will ultimately reside with a downsized Board is more common and more pronounced and it certainly predates the current debates over charter reform. Charlie might simply have been the messenger bringing the bad news to the Court.
Ironically, like Charlie, I first heard these concerns voiced at the Newton Y, specifically by nine or ten members of my 6 AM yoga class who were familiar with the special permit process because of a variety of horrendous experiences with developers in their respective neighborhoods. I recall hearing incidents from West Newton, Newtonville, Upper Falls, Oak Hill, Newton Highlands, Auburndale, Newton Center and I believe Lower Falls. This emerged as a citywide phenomenon right in my yoga class when people from various parts of Newton began to discuss their common experiences.
Now I’m pretty certain that most of my yoga friends are not members of NVA, but they are pretty adamant about not wanting land use and permitting authorities removed from the Board’s purview, particularly since the Board is at least elected by the public and it’s also a fact that Board members have become more sensitive to growing public concern about development trends in this City. No, the Charter Commission couldn’t specifically determine where land use and permitting authorities would specifically go if they were removed from the Board’s purview; but it’s clear they would have to go somewhere and that’s the kick. To whom and to what. Charlie’s only stating what a lot of people out there are thinking.
John M, I think your suggestion would make sense in a world which didn’t have such a long history of male privilege and gender discrimination. It may be better than it was, but I’m sure you’d agree widespread gender inequity continues today. I like the fact that the LWV retains its name because of the nod to social justice and gender equality.
Moreover, In my experience with many women colleagues and friends, I’ve detected little concern with men’s groups that are welcoming and affirm gender equity. In fact, I think there is support from many women who see positives in having more men’s groups that are about introspection and reflection rather than the proverbial good old boys club.
One thing I expect the charter commission to do is get extensive input from the citizenry.
The commission members may have their own points of view but consensus has to come from the community and getting to that is a serious responsibility they have to shoulder.
They should gather lots of input on where the community thinks the problems are and they should cast the net wide for ideas.
Personally, I would love to see them look at expanding the School Committee to include two elected voting student members and to add some independents to the election commission.
There are tons of ideas for improvements, so a survey of the city folk with an open response option where suggestions can be made in a free format is an essential first steps to identifying areas which need improvements.
Elected commission members should put their pet ideas on the back burner until it is clear that that community has some common ground.
@Geoff, I think you are addressing a good point on input for two reasons. First is just makes sense to hear from the community to understand “problems” that can be improved by changes to the charter. Second is all changes need to be “sold” back to the community for an up or down vote. As many of us now know only about 50% of charter changes are approved after a commission completes its work.
Hi Geoff – we’ve worked together in the past, if you remember! I hope you have been well. I just wanted to say that I agree with you that the commission (if one is formed tomorrow) should be highly focused on community outreach and dialogue. Figuring out creative ways to engage a wider group will be essential. I’d also like to add, to all, that though tensions are running high right before the election, I witnessed [from the start] a
lot of support and respect among the wide range of Charter Commission candidates. Wishing everyone good luck, and thank you to everyone who has been following the Charter Commission race.
~Karen Manning, manningfornewton.com
I echo what Karen said. There are great candidates in this group and as long as we end up with some diversity of thought on the commission it will be a worthwhile exercise.
Like others I am committed to approaching the charter with an open mind and to listening to the community and completing extensive study. But voters have to choose among 22 candidates and they should know what they are getting if they vote for me. My bias runs towards a simpler legislative structure with a smaller proportion of at-large seats and towards changes that will result in more contested elections. As for appointed boards to handle land use, I will be wary of any delegation of power that doesn’t provide for a direct link back to elected officials. Good luck to all tomorrow!
@Kathy, your very wariness of a losing that direct link you reference will i think make your bias toward a smaller board less viable.
That’s why I’d argue for checking all biases at the “front door.”
I’d like to echo what Kathy and Karen said. I’ve had a great time with this campaign and enjoyed chatting with candidates about various issues over the last 4 months. It’s been a great group to work with!
I’d like to echo everyone. Of course there’s going to be a huge effort for outreach. That is what the charter commission is all about. Government by the people for the people.
Also, if people are having problems in land use and since we’ve been doing things the same way for decades, isn’t it safe to say that they are actually showing dismay at the current process not with something that hasn’t happened, yet. Or maybe they are arguing against the committee because they know how to play the current system. I’m just sayin’
People complain when they don’t get their way. It doesn’t mean that the decision was or wasn’t best for the city.
@Dan, I agree that that will be the biggest hurdle to shrinking the board. One possibility would be for minor land use matters to go to a board similar to Traffic Council, where parties have a right to appeal decisions to the Board of Aldermen. The Commission would have to examine all of the options, and I agree with what you’ve said earlier — the CC shouldn’t recommend shrinking the board without having a clear vision of how to also reduce the load (and, in my mind, in a way that maintains accountability to voters). I really am committed to approaching the whole review process with an open mind, but the goals I have stated above are ones that I will keep my eye on.
For years I’ve been hearing how heavy a workload the BoA carries. And unquestionably there are members who work extremely hard and long hours at that job. But fewer members would keep them focused on the things aldermen/councilors are supposed to focus on, instead of banning plastic bags, smoking cessation devices, and medical marijuana dispensaries.
– and let’s not forget question 2 closing down Plymouth Nuclear after the fact that the NRC has already started the decommissioning process. Talk about force & effect of Newton politics.
Mike, I agree with your comment about the board taking on issues that would be better left alone, but I do think the workload is definitely non-trivial. And unlike a Boston where the comp is not bad, here it’s miniscule.
It should be the commission’s task among other things to get a true handle on that workload and on how to best tackle it. That’s a precursor to attacking issues like the size of the board.
Mike,
I have to commend the BOA for banning plastic bags. Best thing EVER!
Since looking at the size of the Board of Aldermen seems to be one of the issues the Charter Review Commission will be considering, does having an interest in running for the Board of Aldermen represent a conflict of interest for Charter Commission candidates? After all, the smaller the size of the Board, the fewer their chances will be of their winning a seat.
@Barbara. Yes, but “conflict of interest” may be too strong of a term. There is no perfect way to identify impartial charter review candidates. We are talking about shades of gray. One of my goals with this race was to pick candidates who are least likely to be conflicted.
I regret that this issue did not receive more attention in the media, V14, and the debates. The history of the 1969 charter shows that conflicts of interest impacted the charter. I hope history does not repeat.
Thank goodness for people in Newton such as Harry Sanders who understand this absurdity of the adult popularity contests (known as elections) as well as finding the humor in the foolishness.
When Howard Haywood got nasty with Charlie Shapiro (above), he lost my vote! How could we ensure he wouldn’t be so flip as a member of the Charter Commission?