Newton’s Charter Commission is about to turn its attention to one, if not the main, reason why many folks favored opening the charter in the first place: The size of our legislative branch.
Presently Newton has a 24 member city council. How many city councilors should Newton have? And how should those seats be allocated?
The number depends upon how much work you can transfer to other departments. Giving a group of experienced volunteers the special permit process is a huge start. But if I had to blanket a guess without knowing the other information I would say 15. I’d like them to keep it to an odd number where there is no tie. 15 would be ideal since it’s an odd number and it fits evenly with a 2/3’s vote 10-5.
The number depends upon how much work you can transfer to other departments. Giving a group of experienced volunteers the special permit process is a huge start. But if I had to blanket a guess without knowing the other information I would say 15. I’d like them to keep it to an odd number where there is no tie. 15 would be ideal since it’s an odd number and it fits evenly with a 2/3’s vote 10-5.
Boston has 13 – one from each of the 9 districts and 4 at large.
If Boston can manage with 13 – we could certainly be able to manage with a smaller number.
Maybe have one from each ward and then 3- 4 at large – however it works to keep it at an odd number so that as Tom suggest for a tie vote.
Boston has 13 – one from each of the 9 districts and 4 at large.
If Boston can manage with 13 – we could certainly be able to manage with a smaller number.
Maybe have one from each ward and then 3- 4 at large – however it works to keep it at an odd number so that as Tom suggest for a tie vote.
For optimum performance and accountability, I believe the number should be eight. One City Councilor elected by each ward, all serving at-large, with the Mayor breaking any tie votes. Unless the entire map of Newton is redrawn, an odd number of Councilors creates an unbalanced representation, which in my opinion would likely be unconstitutional.
For optimum performance and accountability, I believe the number should be eight. One City Councilor elected by each ward, all serving at-large, with the Mayor breaking any tie votes. Unless the entire map of Newton is redrawn, an odd number of Councilors creates an unbalanced representation, which in my opinion would likely be unconstitutional.
I would say it all depends on how many committees the Councillors are supposed to work on. and how many issues they are supposed to research and comprehend. Right now, they all work so hard, with so many evening meetings, I don’t see how a smaller number of Councillors could manage the work without giving up even more of their private lives.
The whole question is: is the actual number, 24, not working? Are we, the residents, not able to have conversations with our Councillors because they are too busy to return phone calls or emails? Are the 24 able to do site visits and village visits? Do they have time to review all the documents that come their way?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
I would say it all depends on how many committees the Councillors are supposed to work on. and how many issues they are supposed to research and comprehend. Right now, they all work so hard, with so many evening meetings, I don’t see how a smaller number of Councillors could manage the work without giving up even more of their private lives.
The whole question is: is the actual number, 24, not working? Are we, the residents, not able to have conversations with our Councillors because they are too busy to return phone calls or emails? Are the 24 able to do site visits and village visits? Do they have time to review all the documents that come their way?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!
11 is the magic number. We should have 8 Ward Councillors and 3 Councillors elected at large.
If Boston can get by with less so can Newton.
11 is the magic number. We should have 8 Ward Councillors and 3 Councillors elected at large.
If Boston can get by with less so can Newton.
I believe that comparing Newton and Boston is apples and oranges, because I believe that Boston’s councilors are fulltime. while Newton’s is part time.
I believe that comparing Newton and Boston is apples and oranges, because I believe that Boston’s councilors are fulltime. while Newton’s is part time.
Waltham has 9 ward councilors and 6 at large and they are not Full Time.
Waltham has 9 ward councilors and 6 at large and they are not Full Time.
I’d vote for keeping the ratios the same of at-large to ward. So a total of 4 ward councilors, 8 at large. Or 6 councilors, 12 at large. I also think the ward system is somewhat broken as is, and having larger “wards” or two different wards combined to vote for one ward councilor would help encourage our ward councilor’s to think of the city at large as well as the ward.
I also think we should pay them all more to encourage more contested elections. You’d have to be crazy dedicated to be a city councilor now. Small pay, large headaches, lots of being yelled at? Sign me up…says very few people.
And comparing our system to Boston doesn’t make much sense. Boston’s councilor has little to no power. No zoning power, no approval power. Strong mayor system.
Our system is a mishmash.
I’d vote for keeping the ratios the same of at-large to ward. So a total of 4 ward councilors, 8 at large. Or 6 councilors, 12 at large. I also think the ward system is somewhat broken as is, and having larger “wards” or two different wards combined to vote for one ward councilor would help encourage our ward councilor’s to think of the city at large as well as the ward.
I also think we should pay them all more to encourage more contested elections. You’d have to be crazy dedicated to be a city councilor now. Small pay, large headaches, lots of being yelled at? Sign me up…says very few people.
And comparing our system to Boston doesn’t make much sense. Boston’s councilor has little to no power. No zoning power, no approval power. Strong mayor system.
Our system is a mishmash.
Fig is right. If we get less councilors, we should be paying the others more. If we cut councilors it’s not to save money, since the money is minimal, it’s to become more efficient. So, giving the existing councilors more money should be talked about.
Fig is right. If we get less councilors, we should be paying the others more. If we cut councilors it’s not to save money, since the money is minimal, it’s to become more efficient. So, giving the existing councilors more money should be talked about.
Remember…. it’s not just about the number. It’s also about the responsibilities. Can not do any of this in a vacuum.
One thing about having 24 (or even 16) is it keeps the focus on the Mayor as having primary responsibility. For better, or for worse. To have only a few At Large makes them mini-mayors. Not good. Having 24 or 16 is the ideal balance. Personally I’d go with 16. 1AL, 1W. It would promote greater accountability and responsiveness and still maintain a broad range of people to provide constituent service.
Most critically, beware of those who try to slice out the Ward Councilors. There is nothing more important or grass roots democratic than having an advocate who’s primary job is to be responsive to the village.
Remember…. it’s not just about the number. It’s also about the responsibilities. Can not do any of this in a vacuum.
One thing about having 24 (or even 16) is it keeps the focus on the Mayor as having primary responsibility. For better, or for worse. To have only a few At Large makes them mini-mayors. Not good. Having 24 or 16 is the ideal balance. Personally I’d go with 16. 1AL, 1W. It would promote greater accountability and responsiveness and still maintain a broad range of people to provide constituent service.
Most critically, beware of those who try to slice out the Ward Councilors. There is nothing more important or grass roots democratic than having an advocate who’s primary job is to be responsive to the village.
Charlie, wouldn’t your proposal “slice out” as you say the at-large councilors? By changing the ratio, you change the power structure of the city council, giving more control to the ward councilors, who are responsive to their individual wards but have little to no reason to be responsive to more than their own village. You state that this is grass roots democratic, but I’m not sure how it is democratic to have a ward councilor who I cannot vote for or against make major decisions that effect my city. It certainly works if you approve of the particular ward councilor, but if you oppose it and don’t live in the ward?
If we are going by democracy, all of the councilors should be for the entire city and we should vote for all of them, no ward system at all. (I’m not for that, I just want to point out the disconnect. I prefer the current ratio, with larger ward areas.)
Charlie, wouldn’t your proposal “slice out” as you say the at-large councilors? By changing the ratio, you change the power structure of the city council, giving more control to the ward councilors, who are responsive to their individual wards but have little to no reason to be responsive to more than their own village. You state that this is grass roots democratic, but I’m not sure how it is democratic to have a ward councilor who I cannot vote for or against make major decisions that effect my city. It certainly works if you approve of the particular ward councilor, but if you oppose it and don’t live in the ward?
If we are going by democracy, all of the councilors should be for the entire city and we should vote for all of them, no ward system at all. (I’m not for that, I just want to point out the disconnect. I prefer the current ratio, with larger ward areas.)
Just wanted to stop in to thank everyone for weighing in. There is a diversity of opinion on this and I expect it will be one of the most difficult decisions we as Charter Commissioners will have to make.
For my part, I am still undecided on this question, and look forward to weighing all of our options carefully.
I did want to point out one thing that I myself am trying to keep in mind as I weigh this decision. While cities like Boston do indeed have 13 Councillors, they also have a full time council with full time pay and dedicated staff. The pay, how many hours we expect them to work, and the staff support that they are given are critical factors I believe we must consider as we weigh this question.
Just wanted to stop in to thank everyone for weighing in. There is a diversity of opinion on this and I expect it will be one of the most difficult decisions we as Charter Commissioners will have to make.
For my part, I am still undecided on this question, and look forward to weighing all of our options carefully.
I did want to point out one thing that I myself am trying to keep in mind as I weigh this decision. While cities like Boston do indeed have 13 Councillors, they also have a full time council with full time pay and dedicated staff. The pay, how many hours we expect them to work, and the staff support that they are given are critical factors I believe we must consider as we weigh this question.
And if the ward councilors achieve greater relative power, having them be able to serve as president or VP becomes even more of an imbalance. Even with the current structure, I’ve been against ward councilors being able to serve in those capacities while only being elected by 1/8 of the city.
I agree with fig, that IF the numbers are reduced,at a minimum the same relative ratio between ward and at large should be retained. This all contingent on some adjustment in councilor duties so that stuff doesn’t fall off the table or councilors getting so overworked they burn out.
Having 4 ward councilors each responsible for two wards would also be a step toward their having a larger portfolio and more constituents to be accountable for.
And if the ward councilors achieve greater relative power, having them be able to serve as president or VP becomes even more of an imbalance. Even with the current structure, I’ve been against ward councilors being able to serve in those capacities while only being elected by 1/8 of the city.
I agree with fig, that IF the numbers are reduced,at a minimum the same relative ratio between ward and at large should be retained. This all contingent on some adjustment in councilor duties so that stuff doesn’t fall off the table or councilors getting so overworked they burn out.
Having 4 ward councilors each responsible for two wards would also be a step toward their having a larger portfolio and more constituents to be accountable for.
My main concern with the current number of city councilors is that it makes it too difficult to find enough people who want the position to ensure contested elections. IMO, it’s crucial that voters have a choice among candidates – how can we view our councilors as representing us if we didn’t choose them, but got whoever was willing to run? Not enough people can afford a part-time low-pay, high workload position.
My main concern with the current number of city councilors is that it makes it too difficult to find enough people who want the position to ensure contested elections. IMO, it’s crucial that voters have a choice among candidates – how can we view our councilors as representing us if we didn’t choose them, but got whoever was willing to run? Not enough people can afford a part-time low-pay, high workload position.
@Charlie. I agree with your analysis, but I would still keep the number of councilors at 24. Nobody has convinced me that reducing the size will make things significantly more “efficient” however the term “efficient” is applied; but a smaller Board will sharply reduce the diversity and the range of professional and community expertise that a large number of legislators bring to the Council’s deliberations. Some of Newton’s smaller and less affluent villages now have articulate advocates on the Council. One suspects these voices would cease to exist in a smaller Council that may expedite things a bit faster, but without the fairness and diversity that the present Council is capable of exercising.
One final note. {lease, please do not even think about getting rid of the ward councilors. I’m a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council and I could write a whole chapter on how much John Rice (Councilor from Ward 5) and Dick Blazer (Councilor from Ward 6) have contributed to our efforts. Until recently, many believed that Area Councils and Ward Councilors would clash, have competing interests, or be incompatible with one another. This hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t think it will.
@Charlie. I agree with your analysis, but I would still keep the number of councilors at 24. Nobody has convinced me that reducing the size will make things significantly more “efficient” however the term “efficient” is applied; but a smaller Board will sharply reduce the diversity and the range of professional and community expertise that a large number of legislators bring to the Council’s deliberations. Some of Newton’s smaller and less affluent villages now have articulate advocates on the Council. One suspects these voices would cease to exist in a smaller Council that may expedite things a bit faster, but without the fairness and diversity that the present Council is capable of exercising.
One final note. {lease, please do not even think about getting rid of the ward councilors. I’m a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council and I could write a whole chapter on how much John Rice (Councilor from Ward 5) and Dick Blazer (Councilor from Ward 6) have contributed to our efforts. Until recently, many believed that Area Councils and Ward Councilors would clash, have competing interests, or be incompatible with one another. This hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t think it will.
@Bob Burke: DITTO, DITTO, DITTO!!!! As usual, I completely agree with all you said!
General information not yet mentioned in this thread: Although the Councilors are underpaid for the number of hours that they devote to Committee Work and City-wide controversial issues, they do have a nice choice if they wish to exercise it. They are entitled to benefits of health insurance and pensions. I have no idea the specifics of these entitlements, but I suspect for some it is incentive enough to run for office! Does anyone know what the costs are for the City per Councilor who accepts these benefits and how many actually do accept them?
@Bob Burke: DITTO, DITTO, DITTO!!!! As usual, I completely agree with all you said!
General information not yet mentioned in this thread: Although the Councilors are underpaid for the number of hours that they devote to Committee Work and City-wide controversial issues, they do have a nice choice if they wish to exercise it. They are entitled to benefits of health insurance and pensions. I have no idea the specifics of these entitlements, but I suspect for some it is incentive enough to run for office! Does anyone know what the costs are for the City per Councilor who accepts these benefits and how many actually do accept them?
@Sallee. Coming from you, this is indeed a compliment; and it is indeed reciprocated. I think we differ on our Presidential preference, but on little else. Forge ahead.
@Sallee. Coming from you, this is indeed a compliment; and it is indeed reciprocated. I think we differ on our Presidential preference, but on little else. Forge ahead.
Health benefits for City Councilors and School Committee members cost $177,000 (rounded number) in 2015.
Health benefits for City Councilors and School Committee members cost $177,000 (rounded number) in 2015.
I don’t think there should be more than one Ward councilor and agree with Dan that they not hold the positions of VP or President for the same reasons. I think we need more contested elections but am not sure reducing the number of Councilors will help. Bob Burke makes an interesting point about a bigger city council leads to more diverse representation.
I don’t think there should be more than one Ward councilor and agree with Dan that they not hold the positions of VP or President for the same reasons. I think we need more contested elections but am not sure reducing the number of Councilors will help. Bob Burke makes an interesting point about a bigger city council leads to more diverse representation.
Jane,
Are City Councilors and School Committee members full time?????? Do they have positions outside? It shocks me that non full time employees can receive such nice benefits. Maybe I should run because I could use better health insurance benefits than the one I have at the small business that I work at!
Jane,
Are City Councilors and School Committee members full time?????? Do they have positions outside? It shocks me that non full time employees can receive such nice benefits. Maybe I should run because I could use better health insurance benefits than the one I have at the small business that I work at!
I love being on the City Council but I can’t say the money and benefits spurred me to run. I don’t use the City’s health insurance and I think I make about 59 cents an hour. Last night the City Council did not adjourn until after 11:30pm. I was told it was a part time job, but in reality it’s quite time consuming. Most Councilors also work full time.
I love the the debate on this thread. Good comments and excellent discussion on the pros and cons on a subject that does not have an easy answer.
I love being on the City Council but I can’t say the money and benefits spurred me to run. I don’t use the City’s health insurance and I think I make about 59 cents an hour. Last night the City Council did not adjourn until after 11:30pm. I was told it was a part time job, but in reality it’s quite time consuming. Most Councilors also work full time.
I love the the debate on this thread. Good comments and excellent discussion on the pros and cons on a subject that does not have an easy answer.
So…am I correct that 24 sitting Councilors and 8 sitting School Committee members received on average $5500 in health benefits in 2015? ($177,000/24+8) What about retired Councilors and SC members? What about pensions and are they based on salaries? How long to vest in these benefits? If someone serves for two years, is she/he enrolled for life? Also, how many took advantage of these benefits? (In future elections, the maximum possible number of candidates might choose to participate.) The stipend that Councilors receive for their part-time work does not come close to full-time compensation. Would 8 Councilors at, say $75,000 per year (N.B.: Cambridge pays theirs ~$73,000 each annually) for a salary total of $600,000/year plus benefits get us the same value as 24 Councilors @$12,000 each for a salary total of $288,000/year plus bennies?
The calculation is simple: 1) There is more grass roots representation with 24 than with a reduced number; 2) There is geographic distribution assurance through Ward based assignment for at-large and ward specific candidates; 3) There is more diversity —allowing more perspectives on age, gender, religion, education, economics; 4) Not all legislators are lawyers!; 5.) 24 cost less than half as much as 8 would cost (see above).
Voter education is another question. If the voters don’t know the names of current candidates on the ballot, they won’t know the names of 16 running for 8 offices either. Education is the only answer to engaging the voter, not dumbing down the ballot with fewer names to ease their discomfort.
We are lucky to have 24 highly educated and engaged Councilors who are willing to serve us with long hours, heavy commitments in Committee assignments, and a willingness to learn and listen to the City’s Professionals and to the Public’s desires and to make difficult decisions for survival and growth. I also vote to keep zoning and land use determinations in the hands of elected officials who must answer to the voter for their actions.
So…am I correct that 24 sitting Councilors and 8 sitting School Committee members received on average $5500 in health benefits in 2015? ($177,000/24+8) What about retired Councilors and SC members? What about pensions and are they based on salaries? How long to vest in these benefits? If someone serves for two years, is she/he enrolled for life? Also, how many took advantage of these benefits? (In future elections, the maximum possible number of candidates might choose to participate.) The stipend that Councilors receive for their part-time work does not come close to full-time compensation. Would 8 Councilors at, say $75,000 per year (N.B.: Cambridge pays theirs ~$73,000 each annually) for a salary total of $600,000/year plus benefits get us the same value as 24 Councilors @$12,000 each for a salary total of $288,000/year plus bennies?
The calculation is simple: 1) There is more grass roots representation with 24 than with a reduced number; 2) There is geographic distribution assurance through Ward based assignment for at-large and ward specific candidates; 3) There is more diversity —allowing more perspectives on age, gender, religion, education, economics; 4) Not all legislators are lawyers!; 5.) 24 cost less than half as much as 8 would cost (see above).
Voter education is another question. If the voters don’t know the names of current candidates on the ballot, they won’t know the names of 16 running for 8 offices either. Education is the only answer to engaging the voter, not dumbing down the ballot with fewer names to ease their discomfort.
We are lucky to have 24 highly educated and engaged Councilors who are willing to serve us with long hours, heavy commitments in Committee assignments, and a willingness to learn and listen to the City’s Professionals and to the Public’s desires and to make difficult decisions for survival and growth. I also vote to keep zoning and land use determinations in the hands of elected officials who must answer to the voter for their actions.
Sallee. I’m also with you in keeping zoning and land use decisions with the Board. The Councilors are, at least, accountable at the ballot box.
Sallee. I’m also with you in keeping zoning and land use decisions with the Board. The Councilors are, at least, accountable at the ballot box.
You bet, Bob. The ballot still remains the best weapon for the citizenry! Although, in regard to your earlier remark about the Presidential race, I still can’t figure out how I will wield it! Whatever I do, I will hold my nose while doing it!
You bet, Bob. The ballot still remains the best weapon for the citizenry! Although, in regard to your earlier remark about the Presidential race, I still can’t figure out how I will wield it! Whatever I do, I will hold my nose while doing it!
Sallee:
Regardless of 8 or 24, we need to pay them more. Health insurance benefits and pension benefits are big benefits, but they aren’t salary, and health insurance benefits as compensation would attract a certain type of candidate (older, or small business owners). Folks who get their insurance through a spouse for instance would be drastically undercompensated.
Let’s pay them a fair wage. It shouldn’t be hard to figure out. I want more candidates. I think a lot of folks look at the work and the pay and decide it is a thankless underpaid job with long evening hours. We can’t change everything but we can make it paid fairly.
I’d prefer some zoning and land use decisions to be removed from the Board. IF folks want to reserve some decisions for the board I understand. But our current system makes Newton one of the hardest places to do business in the commonwealth. Zoning reform might help that, but so will removing some of the decisions from the political pressure.
Sallee:
Regardless of 8 or 24, we need to pay them more. Health insurance benefits and pension benefits are big benefits, but they aren’t salary, and health insurance benefits as compensation would attract a certain type of candidate (older, or small business owners). Folks who get their insurance through a spouse for instance would be drastically undercompensated.
Let’s pay them a fair wage. It shouldn’t be hard to figure out. I want more candidates. I think a lot of folks look at the work and the pay and decide it is a thankless underpaid job with long evening hours. We can’t change everything but we can make it paid fairly.
I’d prefer some zoning and land use decisions to be removed from the Board. IF folks want to reserve some decisions for the board I understand. But our current system makes Newton one of the hardest places to do business in the commonwealth. Zoning reform might help that, but so will removing some of the decisions from the political pressure.
A couple of thoughts:
— On balance of ward vs at-large. 1) Our federal government works solely by “ward representation” there are no congressman or senators at-large. Has worked pretty well for a few hundred years. 2) It’d be good to see some precedence outside of Newton for at-large. It seems like an odd duck, but would benefit from actual data. 3) On those espousing to keep the ratio same, it’d be good to have some actual data or rationale. I’m not aware of anything special about 1:2, vs 1:1 vs 2:1.
— On zoning. Again, data helps. Understanding if ALL zoning/land use decisions are being held up versus just some controversial, higher profile ones, would be helpful. Generally, I’d have concerns with making these decisions immune from “political pressure” (which is another way of saying “constituents have concerns”) by putting them in the hands of unelected officials. If there is actual data that suggests that non-controversial decisions are being held up in bureaucracy via City Council, I’d could support reforms. Without any data, I would object– accountability to our citizenry on how our land is used seems pretty fundamental.
— On process. I stated a few months ago that questions on zoning and ward vs at-large representation have a risk of bringing back some of the very divisive things that we’ve been going through on development recently. I sincerely hope that the Council takes time in socializing their ideas and actually responding to constituent concerns. Proposing fundamental changes to our charter that end up in similar 51-49 type of fault lines will make things worse for the city. Decisions need to be made on changes at some point, but we should all demand a deliberate and transparent process and data-driven, well-researched recommendations.
A couple of thoughts:
— On balance of ward vs at-large. 1) Our federal government works solely by “ward representation” there are no congressman or senators at-large. Has worked pretty well for a few hundred years. 2) It’d be good to see some precedence outside of Newton for at-large. It seems like an odd duck, but would benefit from actual data. 3) On those espousing to keep the ratio same, it’d be good to have some actual data or rationale. I’m not aware of anything special about 1:2, vs 1:1 vs 2:1.
— On zoning. Again, data helps. Understanding if ALL zoning/land use decisions are being held up versus just some controversial, higher profile ones, would be helpful. Generally, I’d have concerns with making these decisions immune from “political pressure” (which is another way of saying “constituents have concerns”) by putting them in the hands of unelected officials. If there is actual data that suggests that non-controversial decisions are being held up in bureaucracy via City Council, I’d could support reforms. Without any data, I would object– accountability to our citizenry on how our land is used seems pretty fundamental.
— On process. I stated a few months ago that questions on zoning and ward vs at-large representation have a risk of bringing back some of the very divisive things that we’ve been going through on development recently. I sincerely hope that the Council takes time in socializing their ideas and actually responding to constituent concerns. Proposing fundamental changes to our charter that end up in similar 51-49 type of fault lines will make things worse for the city. Decisions need to be made on changes at some point, but we should all demand a deliberate and transparent process and data-driven, well-researched recommendations.
John Adams always believed in bicameral government. He thought a singled body legislature might become less representative of the electorate in its decision making process. He thought two separate groups would balance out their power. Newton used to have 2 distinct legislative branches of gov’t. They later combined into one 24 member board.
With fewer people voting our city council is slowly evolving into a more dictatorial entity. There are fewer checks on gov’t spending and its ability to raise taxes. Most voters know very little about the extreme level of Newton’s indebtedness and have lost power to do anything about it. The group that is in power will be very difficult to push out.
John Adams always believed in bicameral government. He thought a singled body legislature might become less representative of the electorate in its decision making process. He thought two separate groups would balance out their power. Newton used to have 2 distinct legislative branches of gov’t. They later combined into one 24 member board.
With fewer people voting our city council is slowly evolving into a more dictatorial entity. There are fewer checks on gov’t spending and its ability to raise taxes. Most voters know very little about the extreme level of Newton’s indebtedness and have lost power to do anything about it. The group that is in power will be very difficult to push out.