In a straw vote, the Charter Commission voted 9-0 to reduce the size of the City Council to 13, with one at-large from each ward and five at-large from anywhere in the city.
This could get very interesting
Update: I just spoke with Josh Krintzman, who said that the Charter Commission has decided that it would fall to the City Council to determine its responsibilities and what it could hand off to the city, with the exception of the Planning Department. His sense is that commissioners want to add term limits to City Council but that decision is intertwined with the length of terms, which has not been discussed yet.
Now that’s not lazy!
Now that’s not lazy!
Promising development. Like the unanimity to push back against the inevitable opposition from entrenched interests. Seems like a reasonable approach.
Promising development. Like the unanimity to push back against the inevitable opposition from entrenched interests. Seems like a reasonable approach.
PS need to hear more about the planning department.
PS need to hear more about the planning department.
Keeping all ward councilors will go a long way towards gaining community approval.
Makes you wonder Which 5 of the 16 current at large voters would wish to retain?
@Charlie: I’m reading that differently than you seem to. It says “one at-large from each ward and five at-large from anywhere in the city.” I interpret that as being zero councilors who are elected only from inside their ward: only seats elected city-wide.
Or am I confused?
Keeping all ward councilors will go a long way towards gaining community approval.
Makes you wonder Which 5 of the 16 current at large voters would wish to retain?
@Charlie: I’m reading that differently than you seem to. It says “one at-large from each ward and five at-large from anywhere in the city.” I interpret that as being zero councilors who are elected only from inside their ward: only seats elected city-wide.
Or am I confused?
seems like a good start! Interested to see how it works but we also need more staff at the city level as part of this…
seems like a good start! Interested to see how it works but we also need more staff at the city level as part of this…
Pretty sure Greg is correct.
Pretty sure Greg is correct.
Greg is correct.
Greg is correct.
Greg is correct.
Greg is correct.
Oh.
Misunderstood.
Not supportive.
This city has too long of a history- that continues to this day- of treating some parts of the city differently than others. I simply don’t trust a system of at-large representatives. I sincerely hope the Commission reconsiders.
I would actively oppose this.
Oh.
Misunderstood.
Not supportive.
This city has too long of a history- that continues to this day- of treating some parts of the city differently than others. I simply don’t trust a system of at-large representatives. I sincerely hope the Commission reconsiders.
I would actively oppose this.
The latest: hearing “at-large” representatives Susan Albright and SC Steve Siegel explain why it makes sense that Cabot School will be an addition/renovation after Angier and Zervas got completely new schools.
This stuff needs to stop. I have no trust in at-large representatives. The Commission needs to address this directly.
I’m upset.
Really upset.
The latest: hearing “at-large” representatives Susan Albright and SC Steve Siegel explain why it makes sense that Cabot School will be an addition/renovation after Angier and Zervas got completely new schools.
This stuff needs to stop. I have no trust in at-large representatives. The Commission needs to address this directly.
I’m upset.
Really upset.
On the surface I like this arrangement. It still retains the concept of a councilor from each ward, but that councilor must get voted in by the whole city.
And then allowing for the other five councilors to come from any ward provides flexibility.
Obviously other issues still to be tackled
On the surface I like this arrangement. It still retains the concept of a councilor from each ward, but that councilor must get voted in by the whole city.
And then allowing for the other five councilors to come from any ward provides flexibility.
Obviously other issues still to be tackled
I guess that the argument for electing all Councilors on an at-large basis would be that since they vote on issues that have a city-wide scope, they should be elected city-wide. I think that takes away a vital part of our democratic representation. Currently, each Ward Councilor is attuned to his/her ward and will represent the unique interests of that ward — or be challenged by someone who reads and represents that ward more accurately. By analogy, if this Charter Commission were revising the U.S. Constitution, it would recommend that all Members of Congress be elected nationwide.
I guess that the argument for electing all Councilors on an at-large basis would be that since they vote on issues that have a city-wide scope, they should be elected city-wide. I think that takes away a vital part of our democratic representation. Currently, each Ward Councilor is attuned to his/her ward and will represent the unique interests of that ward — or be challenged by someone who reads and represents that ward more accurately. By analogy, if this Charter Commission were revising the U.S. Constitution, it would recommend that all Members of Congress be elected nationwide.
Paul-
If you’d like to raise the Cabot School issue, the way to go about doing it is to post under your real name and create a thread about it.
Paul-
If you’d like to raise the Cabot School issue, the way to go about doing it is to post under your real name and create a thread about it.
This decision would completely eliminate local representation. The fact that at least one person from each ward would be on the council is immaterial if that person is elected by all eight wards. That makes it hard for a ward’s voters to unseat their representative if they are dissatisfied. It means each councilor’s relationship with the residents in their ward is not so special – their support comes from all over the city.
We have a city that is very diverse and non-uniform in many ways. Each area should have a stronger, not weaker, voice in City Hall and therefore we need a certain amount of granularity in how we’re represented. That’s what democracy is about. We don’t want voters in all 50 states deciding who the congressmen from Massachusetts should be. Sure they all vote on national issues but that’s no reason to obliterate local voices.
I’m very disappointed.
This decision would completely eliminate local representation. The fact that at least one person from each ward would be on the council is immaterial if that person is elected by all eight wards. That makes it hard for a ward’s voters to unseat their representative if they are dissatisfied. It means each councilor’s relationship with the residents in their ward is not so special – their support comes from all over the city.
We have a city that is very diverse and non-uniform in many ways. Each area should have a stronger, not weaker, voice in City Hall and therefore we need a certain amount of granularity in how we’re represented. That’s what democracy is about. We don’t want voters in all 50 states deciding who the congressmen from Massachusetts should be. Sure they all vote on national issues but that’s no reason to obliterate local voices.
I’m very disappointed.
@Jane
As a commission member, I’m more interested in your reaction to my concerns.
It’s too late to change the plan for Cabot unfortunately, so a thread serves little purpose. I raise it as just the latest example of some parts of the city treated differently than others.
@Jane
As a commission member, I’m more interested in your reaction to my concerns.
It’s too late to change the plan for Cabot unfortunately, so a thread serves little purpose. I raise it as just the latest example of some parts of the city treated differently than others.
@Greg- You’re right, I mis-read it. Extremely disappointing and will certainly not have my support.
In fact, it could very well kill support for the final public vote of the entire charter.
It guts the concept of direct village representation and disenfranchises the voting public.
Absolutely disgusting.
@Greg- You’re right, I mis-read it. Extremely disappointing and will certainly not have my support.
In fact, it could very well kill support for the final public vote of the entire charter.
It guts the concept of direct village representation and disenfranchises the voting public.
Absolutely disgusting.
This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I think many people in Newton are happy to have ward councilors focused like a laser on their ward. I like to think that is how people in Newtonville feel about me. I will be actively opposing this change.
I’d also be interested to know how the charter commission thinks 13 people would be able to do the work currently carried out by 24. In Boston the City Councilors are full time, which means Boston pays them a lot more. I think we benefit from having councilors that have full time jobs (not all but many) and thus a tie to real life.
I also think people undervalue the benefits of having a larger group. You cannot have groupthink with 24 councilors. You are much more likely to have independent thought and actual debate, which anyone who has every attended a committee meeting or full Council meeting, or watched on TV, has seen.
This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I think many people in Newton are happy to have ward councilors focused like a laser on their ward. I like to think that is how people in Newtonville feel about me. I will be actively opposing this change.
I’d also be interested to know how the charter commission thinks 13 people would be able to do the work currently carried out by 24. In Boston the City Councilors are full time, which means Boston pays them a lot more. I think we benefit from having councilors that have full time jobs (not all but many) and thus a tie to real life.
I also think people undervalue the benefits of having a larger group. You cannot have groupthink with 24 councilors. You are much more likely to have independent thought and actual debate, which anyone who has every attended a committee meeting or full Council meeting, or watched on TV, has seen.
I’m surprised and very pleased that the Commission has been so transparent about the entire process of Charter reform. I think it sets a great example for other elected officials about how government is supposed to work, and increases the likelihood that changes will ultimately be approved by voters. The folks on the Charter Commission are doing a fantastic job.
While I wholeheartedly support a reduction in the size of the City Council, I am extremely concerned about this particular proposal that would eliminate Ward Councilors. Our representation should be assigned in a way that preserves and supports Newton’s unique village structure now and into the future. I’d be happy if they changed this proposal to 8 Ward Councilors elected by their respective wards, and 5 at-large Councilors elected citywide.
I’m surprised and very pleased that the Commission has been so transparent about the entire process of Charter reform. I think it sets a great example for other elected officials about how government is supposed to work, and increases the likelihood that changes will ultimately be approved by voters. The folks on the Charter Commission are doing a fantastic job.
While I wholeheartedly support a reduction in the size of the City Council, I am extremely concerned about this particular proposal that would eliminate Ward Councilors. Our representation should be assigned in a way that preserves and supports Newton’s unique village structure now and into the future. I’d be happy if they changed this proposal to 8 Ward Councilors elected by their respective wards, and 5 at-large Councilors elected citywide.
That is absolutely nuts – it essentially eliminates any notion of “villages” or local representation (particularly on things like development issues). If anything, I’d eliminate all the at-large representatives.
Here we are, with a national election that’s highlighting how unrepresentative our political parties and government have become – and we have a Charter Commission that’s moving in that direction.
That is absolutely nuts – it essentially eliminates any notion of “villages” or local representation (particularly on things like development issues). If anything, I’d eliminate all the at-large representatives.
Here we are, with a national election that’s highlighting how unrepresentative our political parties and government have become – and we have a Charter Commission that’s moving in that direction.
Emily, as part our effort to answer the question of how a smaller council could accomplish the work, we held a hearing on Tuesday night with invited city councilors from nearby cities of comparable size (that have city councils of 7, 11, or 15 members). They all said that 90% of the councilors in their cities hold other full-time employment in addition to their city councilor role.
Emily, as part our effort to answer the question of how a smaller council could accomplish the work, we held a hearing on Tuesday night with invited city councilors from nearby cities of comparable size (that have city councils of 7, 11, or 15 members). They all said that 90% of the councilors in their cities hold other full-time employment in addition to their city councilor role.
Overall, great news. Potentially reducing the size of the board trumps everything.
I recognize that work will have to shifted, but I don’t buy the argument that 24 people are needed for the work that the council does. Newton’s council size is an outlier. Other city’s manage. A large council promotes a busy body mentality that leads to the pursuit of issues with no or little local benefit, such as welcoming Gitmo prisoners to Newton.
I am undecided on the local representation issue. Would having groups of 3 wards vote for their own councilor be an improvement? Just throwing that out.
Overall, great news. Potentially reducing the size of the board trumps everything.
I recognize that work will have to shifted, but I don’t buy the argument that 24 people are needed for the work that the council does. Newton’s council size is an outlier. Other city’s manage. A large council promotes a busy body mentality that leads to the pursuit of issues with no or little local benefit, such as welcoming Gitmo prisoners to Newton.
I am undecided on the local representation issue. Would having groups of 3 wards vote for their own councilor be an improvement? Just throwing that out.
I don’t buy the disenfranchisement argument. The proposal still has local representation, just not exclusively. Villages and wards never had a perfect correlation anyway, nor does the village concept equally cover city voters.
I wonder what this means for primaries? If the final election picks the top 5, would primaries select the top 10? Or would they be treated as separate seats?
I don’t buy the disenfranchisement argument. The proposal still has local representation, just not exclusively. Villages and wards never had a perfect correlation anyway, nor does the village concept equally cover city voters.
I wonder what this means for primaries? If the final election picks the top 5, would primaries select the top 10? Or would they be treated as separate seats?
Triskaidekaphobia has cast self-doom to the Women of the Golden Circle..
Triskaidekaphobia has cast self-doom to the Women of the Golden Circle..
I approve. I have always said that I am all in favor of reducing the size of the board/council, so long as I get to pick who is voted off the island. Now, we all get that choice. Leaving the scope of the downsized council’s responsibilities to the council itself is also a good idea. But term limits would be a deal killer for me. It has not made School Committee races any more competitive and I doubt that it would work for the City Council.
I approve. I have always said that I am all in favor of reducing the size of the board/council, so long as I get to pick who is voted off the island. Now, we all get that choice. Leaving the scope of the downsized council’s responsibilities to the council itself is also a good idea. But term limits would be a deal killer for me. It has not made School Committee races any more competitive and I doubt that it would work for the City Council.
@Rhanna
Your research also showed that a minority of comparable cities have only at-large representation. And as I wrote before, we have a clear history of not treating all parts of the city the same, which begs for ward representation.
I find it problematic to see multiple Commission members post here, without providing any rationale for their straw vote. Transparency is important.
@Rhanna
Your research also showed that a minority of comparable cities have only at-large representation. And as I wrote before, we have a clear history of not treating all parts of the city the same, which begs for ward representation.
I find it problematic to see multiple Commission members post here, without providing any rationale for their straw vote. Transparency is important.
I am concerned about the 9-0 vote of the commission on proposal. This vote suggests there are no opposing thoughts on the very controversial subject of councilor reduction. This vote is also very one sided. It virtually ensures that power will be consolidated into the hands of fewer people. Newton is at a crossroads. Residents are very upset at the direction our city is going. Many don’t agree with up zoning which will increase denser living conditions. Our annual debt is very high, schools are at risk in many ways, traffic is more congested. Taxes go up every year at a high rate. Newton needs adequate political representation, a smaller less accountable council does not serve the public good.
I am concerned about the 9-0 vote of the commission on proposal. This vote suggests there are no opposing thoughts on the very controversial subject of councilor reduction. This vote is also very one sided. It virtually ensures that power will be consolidated into the hands of fewer people. Newton is at a crossroads. Residents are very upset at the direction our city is going. Many don’t agree with up zoning which will increase denser living conditions. Our annual debt is very high, schools are at risk in many ways, traffic is more congested. Taxes go up every year at a high rate. Newton needs adequate political representation, a smaller less accountable council does not serve the public good.
Paul,
The audio of the meeting can be found on the Charter Commission page of the city website. It was uploaded last night right after the end of the meeting.
Paul,
The audio of the meeting can be found on the Charter Commission page of the city website. It was uploaded last night right after the end of the meeting.
Ted-When a school committee member is term limited out, we do have more contested races. The open seats overall have more contested elections. Wards 2, 3, 5, and 8 have had contested races in the last 8 years as a result of term limits.
Not to mention, every single present and former school committee members we spoke to, dating back to 1986, favored term limits because it brought fresh voices and perspectives to the committee.
Ted-When a school committee member is term limited out, we do have more contested races. The open seats overall have more contested elections. Wards 2, 3, 5, and 8 have had contested races in the last 8 years as a result of term limits.
Not to mention, every single present and former school committee members we spoke to, dating back to 1986, favored term limits because it brought fresh voices and perspectives to the committee.
@Ted:
My rationale for favoring term limits is not because they’ll make races more competitive. I think the interest that residents have in running for office is going to ebb and flow based on factors that we can’t always predict.
What I do object to is the idea of city councilors being professional politicians. Please excuse me for being crass but I don’t think our councilors should keep running for office until they die, which we’ve definitely seen happen.
I’m curious about your thoughts on not having ward councilors. I understand the arguments about local representation but I’m inclined to think that someone elected with 800 votes shouldn’t serve as council leadership (including committee chairs). From where I sit, it appears that ward councilors hold too much sway, which is why I’d be inclined to eliminate them.
@Ted:
My rationale for favoring term limits is not because they’ll make races more competitive. I think the interest that residents have in running for office is going to ebb and flow based on factors that we can’t always predict.
What I do object to is the idea of city councilors being professional politicians. Please excuse me for being crass but I don’t think our councilors should keep running for office until they die, which we’ve definitely seen happen.
I’m curious about your thoughts on not having ward councilors. I understand the arguments about local representation but I’m inclined to think that someone elected with 800 votes shouldn’t serve as council leadership (including committee chairs). From where I sit, it appears that ward councilors hold too much sway, which is why I’d be inclined to eliminate them.
Jane, Are you sure about Ward 3? I haven’t looked at the data but I remember thinking at one time that, regardless of the candidate, Ward 3 was the one ward that kept having uncontested elections for School Committee. My memory could have failed me though
Jane, Are you sure about Ward 3? I haven’t looked at the data but I remember thinking at one time that, regardless of the candidate, Ward 3 was the one ward that kept having uncontested elections for School Committee. My memory could have failed me though
Gail and Ted and Jane.
Term limits promote contested elections. I am looking at the data now–and I hope eventually to write an op-ed on it. I am still cleaning some data (and Gail helped me identify some errors, Thanks Gail!).
This is what the preliminary results look like. Within a position, when an incumbent does not run for re-election, we are much more likely to see a contested election. Comparing the school committee (with term limits) with ward councilor (no term limits), the school committee race is contested about 1 1/2 times more often then the councilor race.
Of course, this does not mean that the SC races are always contested and the Councilor races are never contested. Everything is “on average,” but the differences are big. People may quibble, but everything points to the fact that term limits promote contested elections.
One of the reasons why Peter Bruce was one of my top picks for CC was because he probably knows about the big picture evidence on how the pieces fit together. I predict that there are countless studies by political science professors who look at the impact of term limits at the local level. I would love it someone could give us a summary of the bottom line. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
Also, it seems useful to me to compare the percentage of contested elections in various cities and relate it to term limits and the size of the council. It does not sound like anyone is going to do this.
Gail and Ted and Jane.
Term limits promote contested elections. I am looking at the data now–and I hope eventually to write an op-ed on it. I am still cleaning some data (and Gail helped me identify some errors, Thanks Gail!).
This is what the preliminary results look like. Within a position, when an incumbent does not run for re-election, we are much more likely to see a contested election. Comparing the school committee (with term limits) with ward councilor (no term limits), the school committee race is contested about 1 1/2 times more often then the councilor race.
Of course, this does not mean that the SC races are always contested and the Councilor races are never contested. Everything is “on average,” but the differences are big. People may quibble, but everything points to the fact that term limits promote contested elections.
One of the reasons why Peter Bruce was one of my top picks for CC was because he probably knows about the big picture evidence on how the pieces fit together. I predict that there are countless studies by political science professors who look at the impact of term limits at the local level. I would love it someone could give us a summary of the bottom line. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel.
Also, it seems useful to me to compare the percentage of contested elections in various cities and relate it to term limits and the size of the council. It does not sound like anyone is going to do this.
I am going to call BS on this argument that term limits makes races more competitive. Ward 3 has had very little competition over the years in the School Committee races. Since I moved here 20 years ago, Anne Larner has served 4 consecutive terms twice, and there has not been a contested race since 2003, which Anne Larner won it in a landslide. So my ward is probably the worst argument for term limits making races more competitive.
I am not complaining, by the way, as I think Ward 3 has been well represented on the School Committee as long as I have lived here. But I know the inside politics of a lot of the School Committee races, and when a new candidate with substantial support enters the race, the potential challengers almost always clear out. And if you look at other races, very rarely do you have an incumbent ousted by a challenger or even coming close–which is my definition of a competitive race. A contested race is hardly competitive when the incumbent always wins by a long shot. And, not for nothing, but there are few if any split votes (at least since Geoff Epstein left) on issues of importance in the School Committee. The City Council is much more likely to have dissenting views represented based on the voting record on controversial issues. The School Committee, not so much.
On the other hand, Ward 3 has had very competitive at large races most of the time I have been on the board of aldermen/city council. It is true that in my first election, there were 5 competitors for 2 seats, one of which was vacant. Since then, however, there were a couple of close races between Greer Swiston and Leslie Burg: Leslie won the first time and Greer came back to beat Leslie the second time. And this past election, challenger Julia Malakie very nearly knocked off my colleague Jim Cote. Now, I admit that I have been the top vote getter in my race by a fair margin in the past six elections, but I cannot help it that I am so popular. ;-)
So, I still think democracy is the best way of imposing term limits and ensuring effective representation. The only thing term limits achieve is turnover every few years. IMHO, that does not necessarily result in better representation, particularly because a novice is almost always less effective than an experienced member of a public body.
I am going to call BS on this argument that term limits makes races more competitive. Ward 3 has had very little competition over the years in the School Committee races. Since I moved here 20 years ago, Anne Larner has served 4 consecutive terms twice, and there has not been a contested race since 2003, which Anne Larner won it in a landslide. So my ward is probably the worst argument for term limits making races more competitive.
I am not complaining, by the way, as I think Ward 3 has been well represented on the School Committee as long as I have lived here. But I know the inside politics of a lot of the School Committee races, and when a new candidate with substantial support enters the race, the potential challengers almost always clear out. And if you look at other races, very rarely do you have an incumbent ousted by a challenger or even coming close–which is my definition of a competitive race. A contested race is hardly competitive when the incumbent always wins by a long shot. And, not for nothing, but there are few if any split votes (at least since Geoff Epstein left) on issues of importance in the School Committee. The City Council is much more likely to have dissenting views represented based on the voting record on controversial issues. The School Committee, not so much.
On the other hand, Ward 3 has had very competitive at large races most of the time I have been on the board of aldermen/city council. It is true that in my first election, there were 5 competitors for 2 seats, one of which was vacant. Since then, however, there were a couple of close races between Greer Swiston and Leslie Burg: Leslie won the first time and Greer came back to beat Leslie the second time. And this past election, challenger Julia Malakie very nearly knocked off my colleague Jim Cote. Now, I admit that I have been the top vote getter in my race by a fair margin in the past six elections, but I cannot help it that I am so popular. ;-)
So, I still think democracy is the best way of imposing term limits and ensuring effective representation. The only thing term limits achieve is turnover every few years. IMHO, that does not necessarily result in better representation, particularly because a novice is almost always less effective than an experienced member of a public body.
It’s worth noting that, for both SC and City Council, what has been discussed so far is limiting consecutive terms–not a lifetime limit on number of years served. Thus, one would be ineligible to run for re-election after a certain number of terms, but would be eligible to run again after sitting out at least one term.
Ted, I agree that term limits take away power from the voters, which is not a good thing. But in practice, the power of incumbency also takes away power from the voters, perhaps to a greater degree…incumbents rarely get strong challenges, so the premise that voters can impose term limits rarely exists in reality. I think this is most extreme in local politics…the fact that we are all neighbors creates a big disincentive for an individual to challenge an incumbent.
There is a natural tension between the value of institutional knowledge and the value of fresh energy and perspective. Long term limits could possibly improve this balance.
It’s worth noting that, for both SC and City Council, what has been discussed so far is limiting consecutive terms–not a lifetime limit on number of years served. Thus, one would be ineligible to run for re-election after a certain number of terms, but would be eligible to run again after sitting out at least one term.
Ted, I agree that term limits take away power from the voters, which is not a good thing. But in practice, the power of incumbency also takes away power from the voters, perhaps to a greater degree…incumbents rarely get strong challenges, so the premise that voters can impose term limits rarely exists in reality. I think this is most extreme in local politics…the fact that we are all neighbors creates a big disincentive for an individual to challenge an incumbent.
There is a natural tension between the value of institutional knowledge and the value of fresh energy and perspective. Long term limits could possibly improve this balance.
Quick note to Paul. I’m a pretty big NEwtonville supporter and I’ve followed the Cabot school issue very closely. From everything I’ve heard, read, and reviewed, I think the decision to rehab the historic portion of the school was based on the potential delay if they tried to tear it down, which would cause the school to lose out on state funding. Folks can’t have it both ways, they can’t argue for the historic commission to preserve our historic homes and not have the historic commission not care when a very historic elementary school is torn down.
For me, I really like the new design. A new school would have been better in a lot of ways, but I appreciate the history of the old. I love the fact that we are joining the park and the school together, and I think the combination of Cabot school and Cabot Park is one to be proud of. The PTO I believe is very much behind the new design, every parent I’ve talked to is behind the new design. IS it perfect? No. Does it get us a great new school connected to a beautiful park with new playgrounds? Yep. But I 100% don’t think that the decisions had ANYTHING to do with NEwtonville being treated unfairly or as a “second class” village. There has been some governmental disfunction (the Parks and Rec folks were incredibly difficult at times in my opinion) but the recent purchase of an adjoining house seems to have solved that issue in a good way for the Park and the School.
I’d love to include a sprinkler park (doable if they are going to tear up the road!) in the new playground area for the little kids, but Parks and Rec can’t get their head out of their collective orifices to look at the parks in surrounding communities and pull good ideas from outside Newton. Cabot Park could use some innovation and revitilazation too….
Btw, Greg/Gail, I WOULD appreciate a post on the Cabot school. There is a PTO petition going around and a final design proposal. Some stuff to talk about there I think.
I’ll post more on the cc later today.
Quick note to Paul. I’m a pretty big NEwtonville supporter and I’ve followed the Cabot school issue very closely. From everything I’ve heard, read, and reviewed, I think the decision to rehab the historic portion of the school was based on the potential delay if they tried to tear it down, which would cause the school to lose out on state funding. Folks can’t have it both ways, they can’t argue for the historic commission to preserve our historic homes and not have the historic commission not care when a very historic elementary school is torn down.
For me, I really like the new design. A new school would have been better in a lot of ways, but I appreciate the history of the old. I love the fact that we are joining the park and the school together, and I think the combination of Cabot school and Cabot Park is one to be proud of. The PTO I believe is very much behind the new design, every parent I’ve talked to is behind the new design. IS it perfect? No. Does it get us a great new school connected to a beautiful park with new playgrounds? Yep. But I 100% don’t think that the decisions had ANYTHING to do with NEwtonville being treated unfairly or as a “second class” village. There has been some governmental disfunction (the Parks and Rec folks were incredibly difficult at times in my opinion) but the recent purchase of an adjoining house seems to have solved that issue in a good way for the Park and the School.
I’d love to include a sprinkler park (doable if they are going to tear up the road!) in the new playground area for the little kids, but Parks and Rec can’t get their head out of their collective orifices to look at the parks in surrounding communities and pull good ideas from outside Newton. Cabot Park could use some innovation and revitilazation too….
Btw, Greg/Gail, I WOULD appreciate a post on the Cabot school. There is a PTO petition going around and a final design proposal. Some stuff to talk about there I think.
I’ll post more on the cc later today.
Fully agree with Rhanna on term limits, couldn’t be said better.
Disappointed that she or others won’t provide any color on the proposed lack of ward representation. Not sure why the term limit point is being taken up here, but not the ward/at-large question.
PS Fig– agree with some of what you write, but there is more to the story. I won’t hijack this thread to respond but will await for a hopefully-created thread on Cabot.
Fully agree with Rhanna on term limits, couldn’t be said better.
Disappointed that she or others won’t provide any color on the proposed lack of ward representation. Not sure why the term limit point is being taken up here, but not the ward/at-large question.
PS Fig– agree with some of what you write, but there is more to the story. I won’t hijack this thread to respond but will await for a hopefully-created thread on Cabot.
Sorry, Rhanna, but I firmly believe Ward 3’s at large and school committee races indicate otherwise. “Contested” races are no replacement for “competitive” races. So term limits on councilors remains a deal breaker for me.
Sorry, Rhanna, but I firmly believe Ward 3’s at large and school committee races indicate otherwise. “Contested” races are no replacement for “competitive” races. So term limits on councilors remains a deal breaker for me.
Back to the topic of ward representation… In terms of local representation, there’s a HUGE difference between a) merely residing in a particular ward and b) being elected by a majority of voters in that ward. Mere residency is way too inadequate to ensure responsive representation.
Back to the topic of ward representation… In terms of local representation, there’s a HUGE difference between a) merely residing in a particular ward and b) being elected by a majority of voters in that ward. Mere residency is way too inadequate to ensure responsive representation.
The way to improve the quality of representation in the City Council is to a) make it easy to run for office against an incumbent and b) allow voters to keep people they’re happy with. In other words, maximize choice, foster a level playing field and keep the best.
As we see time and again in our elections, incumbents – particularly in city-wide races – are difficult to replace. Newcomers are typically less well-known and have smaller networks of support. And let’s face it, with low turnout, the people whose networks show up to support them at the voting booth are the ones that get in and stay in.
There is a place for both ward and at-large representatives, in the same sense that we have a bicameral legislature at the federal level. One set that is responsive to the current views of smaller groups of voters, which balances a longer term broadly representative set.
I don’t know anyone that thinks we should get rid of ward representation. And I’d be careful about emulating other cities and towns that have small councils voted in city/town-wide elections. Newton’s villages and neighborhoods are distinct enough that they should have their own voice.
And I agree with Emily Norton that there hasn’t been a problem definition that I’ve seen which we are trying to solve. Would love to see a *clear* statement from the Charter Commission as to what exactly we are trying to fix. Any takers?
The way to improve the quality of representation in the City Council is to a) make it easy to run for office against an incumbent and b) allow voters to keep people they’re happy with. In other words, maximize choice, foster a level playing field and keep the best.
As we see time and again in our elections, incumbents – particularly in city-wide races – are difficult to replace. Newcomers are typically less well-known and have smaller networks of support. And let’s face it, with low turnout, the people whose networks show up to support them at the voting booth are the ones that get in and stay in.
There is a place for both ward and at-large representatives, in the same sense that we have a bicameral legislature at the federal level. One set that is responsive to the current views of smaller groups of voters, which balances a longer term broadly representative set.
I don’t know anyone that thinks we should get rid of ward representation. And I’d be careful about emulating other cities and towns that have small councils voted in city/town-wide elections. Newton’s villages and neighborhoods are distinct enough that they should have their own voice.
And I agree with Emily Norton that there hasn’t been a problem definition that I’ve seen which we are trying to solve. Would love to see a *clear* statement from the Charter Commission as to what exactly we are trying to fix. Any takers?
I think the village concept is a bit outdated. I live in Newtonville. I care deeply about the village center. But I also care deeply about the library. That’s not in my ward. And Newton Center (where I visit more often that Newtonville some weeks). I care about my local school, but I pushed for Angier and Zervais to be done.
We live in a city. Each village is a neighborhood, but not as distinct as some like to think.
Look, the charter commission was a election by the city as a whole. I’m going to wait and see their full proposal, compare it to what we have and vote for what is best for the city as a whole. Sometimes that won’t be what is best for my village. That’s ok in my book, may not be ok in others. Either way will produce some negative results for some group of people.
And I keep hoping they will raise salaries. It is silly to reduce the number, hope for more competition for more work, but pay like utter garbage. Let’s not let our political class be just folks who can afford to give the time. Doesn’t that encourage a certain type of candidate. Increase their salaries.
And Paul, I’d love to hear more about Cabot. Really. Greg, please start a thread. And for the record, I’d love to be able to start threads. Can we have a 5 year option for those of us who have posted here for 5 years or more… ;-)
I think the village concept is a bit outdated. I live in Newtonville. I care deeply about the village center. But I also care deeply about the library. That’s not in my ward. And Newton Center (where I visit more often that Newtonville some weeks). I care about my local school, but I pushed for Angier and Zervais to be done.
We live in a city. Each village is a neighborhood, but not as distinct as some like to think.
Look, the charter commission was a election by the city as a whole. I’m going to wait and see their full proposal, compare it to what we have and vote for what is best for the city as a whole. Sometimes that won’t be what is best for my village. That’s ok in my book, may not be ok in others. Either way will produce some negative results for some group of people.
And I keep hoping they will raise salaries. It is silly to reduce the number, hope for more competition for more work, but pay like utter garbage. Let’s not let our political class be just folks who can afford to give the time. Doesn’t that encourage a certain type of candidate. Increase their salaries.
And Paul, I’d love to hear more about Cabot. Really. Greg, please start a thread. And for the record, I’d love to be able to start threads. Can we have a 5 year option for those of us who have posted here for 5 years or more… ;-)
Btw, I take into account the CC members positions on this, but I also realize that for some of them this means they will lose their jobs. Let’s recognize the weird position that puts them in.
Btw, I take into account the CC members positions on this, but I also realize that for some of them this means they will lose their jobs. Let’s recognize the weird position that puts them in.
Eliminate Ward Councelors? Big problem.
In theory, and, with a few exceptions, in practice, our Ward representatives are the most responsive and interested elected officials we have. Eliminating them makes a village relatively impotent against the larger forces within the city.
Also, there are some great people who are very active and respected within a village and ward but are unknown citywide, who have no chance in an at-large race against someone from a citywide organization, say, the League of Women Voters. There would be no Councelor John Rice under these rules, and anyone in Ward 5 will tell you that he’s the best of the lot!
If every official is elected on a city wide basis there would be a homogenization of thought and a lack of challenge to the status quo.
This issue could kill the chances of Charter review recommendations being approved by the voters.
Eliminate Ward Councelors? Big problem.
In theory, and, with a few exceptions, in practice, our Ward representatives are the most responsive and interested elected officials we have. Eliminating them makes a village relatively impotent against the larger forces within the city.
Also, there are some great people who are very active and respected within a village and ward but are unknown citywide, who have no chance in an at-large race against someone from a citywide organization, say, the League of Women Voters. There would be no Councelor John Rice under these rules, and anyone in Ward 5 will tell you that he’s the best of the lot!
If every official is elected on a city wide basis there would be a homogenization of thought and a lack of challenge to the status quo.
This issue could kill the chances of Charter review recommendations being approved by the voters.
Fig wrote:
Exactly. All members of the CC were elected at-large. And they came to the unanimous conclusion to have only at-large Councilors. Yet there does not seem to be unanimous support for this among the population to be represented, by a long shot.
Fig wrote:
Exactly. All members of the CC were elected at-large. And they came to the unanimous conclusion to have only at-large Councilors. Yet there does not seem to be unanimous support for this among the population to be represented, by a long shot.
I’m not sure I agree that we don’t have local representation here. The person who runs from each ward still has to live there. There will still be someone to call for that ward who is designated to deal with that wards issues.
Some of the ward councilors are excellent. Some less so. Competition in many wards would be a very good thing. This isn’t my proposal (I’d have proposed halving the CC, keeping the ratio the same, making the ward CCs be for twice the space to increase accountability to the city at large.
But ward councilors are a construct. They don’t represent villages, they represent wards. Local? yes. Village based, no.
To Bruce: 9 Charter critters were elected. That’s a big group. Are you saying that they are suffering from group-think because of how they are elected? Should we have had charter members from each ward too?
I’m not sure I agree that we don’t have local representation here. The person who runs from each ward still has to live there. There will still be someone to call for that ward who is designated to deal with that wards issues.
Some of the ward councilors are excellent. Some less so. Competition in many wards would be a very good thing. This isn’t my proposal (I’d have proposed halving the CC, keeping the ratio the same, making the ward CCs be for twice the space to increase accountability to the city at large.
But ward councilors are a construct. They don’t represent villages, they represent wards. Local? yes. Village based, no.
To Bruce: 9 Charter critters were elected. That’s a big group. Are you saying that they are suffering from group-think because of how they are elected? Should we have had charter members from each ward too?
Following up on Fig’s comment, I could see 8 at large plus 4 ward [covering two wards not one] and 1 al-large from anywhere in the city. [I like the idea of an odd number.]
But I think the CCs suggestion is also good.
Following up on Fig’s comment, I could see 8 at large plus 4 ward [covering two wards not one] and 1 al-large from anywhere in the city. [I like the idea of an odd number.]
But I think the CCs suggestion is also good.
I like the size, but you’d still be presenting a complicated ballot to voters, who’ll cast 13 votes for City Councillors and be asked to keep track of ward at-large races and pure at-large spots.
Are there other cities that have a ward residency requirement for at-large council positions? Do those cities have two different categories of at-large?
I like the size, but you’d still be presenting a complicated ballot to voters, who’ll cast 13 votes for City Councillors and be asked to keep track of ward at-large races and pure at-large spots.
Are there other cities that have a ward residency requirement for at-large council positions? Do those cities have two different categories of at-large?
@Kathy, agreed that your suggestion has simplicity as a virtue, but some form of compromise position might be beneficial?
@Kathy, agreed that your suggestion has simplicity as a virtue, but some form of compromise position might be beneficial?
Fig said, “There will still be someone to call for that ward who is designated to deal with that wards issues.”
Not so. They are not designated to deal with ward issues, they just need to live there. The ward is only 1/8 of their constituency and as politicians, they will tend to heed the larger constituency.
Fig’s last point;
“Are you saying that they are suffering from group-think because of how they are elected? ”
Yes, to a large degree. City-wide elections are largely influenced by city wide groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Democratic city committee. Ward and village interests are dwarfed by the city-wide aspect of these groups, so yes, there is a group think effect. Ward Councilors offer a hedge against that.
Fig said, “There will still be someone to call for that ward who is designated to deal with that wards issues.”
Not so. They are not designated to deal with ward issues, they just need to live there. The ward is only 1/8 of their constituency and as politicians, they will tend to heed the larger constituency.
Fig’s last point;
“Are you saying that they are suffering from group-think because of how they are elected? ”
Yes, to a large degree. City-wide elections are largely influenced by city wide groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Democratic city committee. Ward and village interests are dwarfed by the city-wide aspect of these groups, so yes, there is a group think effect. Ward Councilors offer a hedge against that.
Agreed @Dan on the value of compromise, but I hate to see further complexity added to the process. The residency requirement for at-large is very confusing to voters. I’d prefer 8 ward and 5 at-large (no residency requirement). A better compromise might be that leadership positions are restricted to the at-large spots.
I assume the CC reviewed data from other cities — are there other cities with residency requirements for at-large spots or with two categories of at large?
Agreed @Dan on the value of compromise, but I hate to see further complexity added to the process. The residency requirement for at-large is very confusing to voters. I’d prefer 8 ward and 5 at-large (no residency requirement). A better compromise might be that leadership positions are restricted to the at-large spots.
I assume the CC reviewed data from other cities — are there other cities with residency requirements for at-large spots or with two categories of at large?
Kathy-The term length has not yet been decided. There are several ways to set up the ballot, depending on the term length. If there’s a 4 year term, then terms can be staggered which would make the ballot less confusing.
Kathy-The term length has not yet been decided. There are several ways to set up the ballot, depending on the term length. If there’s a 4 year term, then terms can be staggered which would make the ballot less confusing.
Terry, I think you’re confusing the personality with the office…just because John Rice is awesome doesn’t mean any Ward Councilor is awesome. (I also think you dis John…he could win a city-wide contest in a landslide, he is much appreciated in the city…unless of course that recent firing scandal casts a shadow on his reputation… :) )
As Fig points out, every ward will still have a dedicated councilor. That person will be able to focus on local issues and make sure ward issues get attention. That person will also be accountable to all the voters in the city. This is how our School Committee works…and I don’t believe the SC has homogenization of thought or lack of challenge to the status quo.
As part of our learning process we gathered input from current and former Newton City Councilors / Aldermen in a public meeting. Multiple esteemed officials who have served as Ward Councilors opined that the job of Councilor should not look any different whether one is elected city-wide or by the ward…that we are one indivisible city and everyone in the city will experience the impact of local decisions. Unfortunately, in practice, being elected by only the ward can create a parochial approach with some Ward Councilors. This persuaded me to the opinion that, while every ward needs a representative, having the representatives thinking both locally and city-wide is a good thing. John Rice serving at-large from ward 5 would be no less awesome.
Finally, to be clear…this proposed Council has 11 fewer seats. If approved, any of the current 24 could run for one of these seats, either the ward seats or the 5 at-large. There is no aim being taking at any individual in the office of Ward Councilor.
Terry, I think you’re confusing the personality with the office…just because John Rice is awesome doesn’t mean any Ward Councilor is awesome. (I also think you dis John…he could win a city-wide contest in a landslide, he is much appreciated in the city…unless of course that recent firing scandal casts a shadow on his reputation… :) )
As Fig points out, every ward will still have a dedicated councilor. That person will be able to focus on local issues and make sure ward issues get attention. That person will also be accountable to all the voters in the city. This is how our School Committee works…and I don’t believe the SC has homogenization of thought or lack of challenge to the status quo.
As part of our learning process we gathered input from current and former Newton City Councilors / Aldermen in a public meeting. Multiple esteemed officials who have served as Ward Councilors opined that the job of Councilor should not look any different whether one is elected city-wide or by the ward…that we are one indivisible city and everyone in the city will experience the impact of local decisions. Unfortunately, in practice, being elected by only the ward can create a parochial approach with some Ward Councilors. This persuaded me to the opinion that, while every ward needs a representative, having the representatives thinking both locally and city-wide is a good thing. John Rice serving at-large from ward 5 would be no less awesome.
Finally, to be clear…this proposed Council has 11 fewer seats. If approved, any of the current 24 could run for one of these seats, either the ward seats or the 5 at-large. There is no aim being taking at any individual in the office of Ward Councilor.
My mistake about the term limits: I meant to say Ward 7, not 3, had a contested school committee race as a result of a seat opening up due to term limits.
My mistake about the term limits: I meant to say Ward 7, not 3, had a contested school committee race as a result of a seat opening up due to term limits.
@Kathy and Dan: I am intrigued by the possibility of simplifying the ballots further through staggered 4 year terms.
The ballots would then look something like this:
Mayoral years: Mayor, 5 aldermen at large, 1 school committee per ward
Off years: 1 alderman per ward, 1 school committee per ward
But I’m still tossing this around and am definitely open to suggestion on the best formulation, if people like 4 year terms, if people like staggering, etc.
@Kathy and Dan: I am intrigued by the possibility of simplifying the ballots further through staggered 4 year terms.
The ballots would then look something like this:
Mayoral years: Mayor, 5 aldermen at large, 1 school committee per ward
Off years: 1 alderman per ward, 1 school committee per ward
But I’m still tossing this around and am definitely open to suggestion on the best formulation, if people like 4 year terms, if people like staggering, etc.
The proposal should be changed to having 8 Ward Councilors elected by the Ward and 5 to be elected at large. I believe otherwise voters will defeat the entire proposal. Charlie Shapiro is right on!
I’m surprised so many participants here are positive they know (a) if they like this or not and (b) if Newton voters will approve it or not.
As for me, I’m intrigued but am going to take full advantage of waiting until we see the full proposed charter before deciding. As for whether or not this has the public’s support, I’d wager that the average voter doesn’t know the difference between ward and at-large seats so those voters may miss the nuance of the very issue that many here are passionately debating. Instead most voters will likely focus on the bigger question “Do you want 24 councilors or 13?” and, at the end of the day, so may I.
I do however admire the Charter Commissioners for being bold enough to suggest something that I’m sure they knew would get them left off of some Christmas card lists. It’s one thing to think of these things in a vacuum but harder when you think in context of what that may mean to people who are your friends and neighbors.
The proposal should be changed to having 8 Ward Councilors elected by the Ward and 5 to be elected at large. I believe otherwise voters will defeat the entire proposal. Charlie Shapiro is right on!
I’m surprised so many participants here are positive they know (a) if they like this or not and (b) if Newton voters will approve it or not.
As for me, I’m intrigued but am going to take full advantage of waiting until we see the full proposed charter before deciding. As for whether or not this has the public’s support, I’d wager that the average voter doesn’t know the difference between ward and at-large seats so those voters may miss the nuance of the very issue that many here are passionately debating. Instead most voters will likely focus on the bigger question “Do you want 24 councilors or 13?” and, at the end of the day, so may I.
I do however admire the Charter Commissioners for being bold enough to suggest something that I’m sure they knew would get them left off of some Christmas card lists. It’s one thing to think of these things in a vacuum but harder when you think in context of what that may mean to people who are your friends and neighbors.
Terry-
This was a decision that each member thought long and hard about. At the Hyde Community Center forum for charter commission candidates in the fall, I promised to comply with the spirit of the open meeting law and I do that as a member of the Commission. Two people on the Commission publicly declared their positions on this issue early on. Other than that, I hadn’t had one conversation with anyone else about how they planned to vote – or even what option they were leaning toward – before walking into that room last night.
We all have a list of priorities. For me, accountability to the voters is the highest priority. It’s my belief that elected officials who make decisions that affect the entire city need to be accountable to the voters in the entire city.
Terry-
This was a decision that each member thought long and hard about. At the Hyde Community Center forum for charter commission candidates in the fall, I promised to comply with the spirit of the open meeting law and I do that as a member of the Commission. Two people on the Commission publicly declared their positions on this issue early on. Other than that, I hadn’t had one conversation with anyone else about how they planned to vote – or even what option they were leaning toward – before walking into that room last night.
We all have a list of priorities. For me, accountability to the voters is the highest priority. It’s my belief that elected officials who make decisions that affect the entire city need to be accountable to the voters in the entire city.
Just to provoke some thought, I want to challenge people to really think about who their at large by ward councilors actually are.
I thought long and hard about this, and I felt strongly in the end that our at large councilors care about their ward every bit as much as those who are only elected by 1/8th of the city. It is easy to opine that in theory at large councilors don’t represent their neighborhoods, it is a lot harder to point to examples of that in practice.
Ask yourself whether there really are a significant number of at large councilors that you believe don’t represent their ward adequately.
Just to provoke some thought, I want to challenge people to really think about who their at large by ward councilors actually are.
I thought long and hard about this, and I felt strongly in the end that our at large councilors care about their ward every bit as much as those who are only elected by 1/8th of the city. It is easy to opine that in theory at large councilors don’t represent their neighborhoods, it is a lot harder to point to examples of that in practice.
Ask yourself whether there really are a significant number of at large councilors that you believe don’t represent their ward adequately.
Dear Charter Commissioners Who are Writing on Village 14:
You would better serve the purpose of OML if you do not answer the questions posed here by our curious and astute readers, but rather refer the readers to the tapes of your meetings or the documents and data you have gathered. That thought sickens me as much as it sickens all of us…but you will be voting on these issues and Village 14 is not a publically posted open meeting. Please check with David Olson if you think I am wrong and I will openly wear the egg on my face. I dislike OML intensely, but until it is repealed, we suffer with it!
@Sallee: I think — and hope — you are wrong. Why is the practice of having some Charter Commissioners commenting here than having some City Councilors or School Committee members commenting here, as has been happening for many years, or even taking about these things in a coffee shop? We don’t have a quorum, there are no deliberations.
Dear Charter Commissioners Who are Writing on Village 14:
You would better serve the purpose of OML if you do not answer the questions posed here by our curious and astute readers, but rather refer the readers to the tapes of your meetings or the documents and data you have gathered. That thought sickens me as much as it sickens all of us…but you will be voting on these issues and Village 14 is not a publically posted open meeting. Please check with David Olson if you think I am wrong and I will openly wear the egg on my face. I dislike OML intensely, but until it is repealed, we suffer with it!
@Sallee: I think — and hope — you are wrong. Why is the practice of having some Charter Commissioners commenting here than having some City Councilors or School Committee members commenting here, as has been happening for many years, or even taking about these things in a coffee shop? We don’t have a quorum, there are no deliberations.
I do watch the numbers of those commenting on a given topic. 3 of 9 commissioners here on this thread speaking about a topic on which they will vote, is very possibly a violation of the OML. Maybe, even two. David is my final arbiter. He either knows the answer or will find out from the Law Department what the correct answer is! (I think you may need four or five CC’s when there are 24…) Want to help repeal OML? The best way I know how is to sue to make the State Legislature operate under it if they impose it on us lowly elected officials!
I do watch the numbers of those commenting on a given topic. 3 of 9 commissioners here on this thread speaking about a topic on which they will vote, is very possibly a violation of the OML. Maybe, even two. David is my final arbiter. He either knows the answer or will find out from the Law Department what the correct answer is! (I think you may need four or five CC’s when there are 24…) Want to help repeal OML? The best way I know how is to sue to make the State Legislature operate under it if they impose it on us lowly elected officials!
Rhanna, I don’t think every Ward Counselor is awesome (nor every at-large) but I do think we get some independence and a few mavericks in the Ward position- because they are concerned with their constituency. Their constituency is not where they are designated to live, but who votes for them. There are quite a few current At-Large Counselors who vote independent of their Ward, with nothing to lose.
Dan Fahey may have a compromise that brings some of advantages of a smaller constituency into the equation: 8 at large, 4 double ward 1 all city.
( I used John Rice as an example, and I’ll stick with that one even though I’m beating it to death: if you look at the introduction of Rice to elective offce in 2009- if he had run as an At-large, there’s no doubt that he would have lost that race. In one competitor’s favor was the incumbancy and in the other was a city wide organization. We kill quality in the crib!)
Rhanna, I don’t think every Ward Counselor is awesome (nor every at-large) but I do think we get some independence and a few mavericks in the Ward position- because they are concerned with their constituency. Their constituency is not where they are designated to live, but who votes for them. There are quite a few current At-Large Counselors who vote independent of their Ward, with nothing to lose.
Dan Fahey may have a compromise that brings some of advantages of a smaller constituency into the equation: 8 at large, 4 double ward 1 all city.
( I used John Rice as an example, and I’ll stick with that one even though I’m beating it to death: if you look at the introduction of Rice to elective offce in 2009- if he had run as an At-large, there’s no doubt that he would have lost that race. In one competitor’s favor was the incumbancy and in the other was a city wide organization. We kill quality in the crib!)
Shame on me for misspelling publicly!
Shame on me for misspelling publicly!
FYI on the Open Meeting question, I am not clear on whether it would be a violation if there were a majority of us commenting on a given thread, but it is very clear that 2 or 3 of 9 would not constitute a violation. In relevant part:
“To be a deliberation, the communication must involve a quorum of the public body. A quorum is usually a simple majority of the members of a public body. Thus, a communication among less than a quorum of the members of a public body will not be a deliberation…”
FYI on the Open Meeting question, I am not clear on whether it would be a violation if there were a majority of us commenting on a given thread, but it is very clear that 2 or 3 of 9 would not constitute a violation. In relevant part:
“To be a deliberation, the communication must involve a quorum of the public body. A quorum is usually a simple majority of the members of a public body. Thus, a communication among less than a quorum of the members of a public body will not be a deliberation…”
If one assumes that the 6 other commissioners are reading this post, then it could be interpreted as a violation because of this subsequent paragraph in the law:
“Note that the expression of an opinion on matters within the body’s jurisdiction to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public body member responds. For example, if a member of a public body sends an email to a quorum of a public body expressing her opinion on a matter that could come before that body, this communication violates the law even if none of the recipients responds.”
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it is entirely plausible that this particular controversial vote and subsequent public discussion by members of the commission would generate discussion among most of the commissioners. I bet if there were a complaint filed and the commissioners emails subpoenaed that it would turn up some communications about the comments.
I don’t know what David Olson would say, but I’ve been surprised at how overreaching this law can be.
If one assumes that the 6 other commissioners are reading this post, then it could be interpreted as a violation because of this subsequent paragraph in the law:
“Note that the expression of an opinion on matters within the body’s jurisdiction to a quorum of a public body is a deliberation, even if no other public body member responds. For example, if a member of a public body sends an email to a quorum of a public body expressing her opinion on a matter that could come before that body, this communication violates the law even if none of the recipients responds.”
I’m going to go out on a limb and say it is entirely plausible that this particular controversial vote and subsequent public discussion by members of the commission would generate discussion among most of the commissioners. I bet if there were a complaint filed and the commissioners emails subpoenaed that it would turn up some communications about the comments.
I don’t know what David Olson would say, but I’ve been surprised at how overreaching this law can be.
As long as there is no quorum of the Charter Commission participating on the blog on any issue, there can be no “deliberation” and therefore no Open Meeting Law violation. While there is no decision directly on point with blogs, the Attorney General’s office has warned in at least two OML determinations that an exchange on Facebook betweena nd among a quorum of a public body could violate the Open Meeting Law.
A quorum is a majority of the public body.
As long as there is no quorum of the Charter Commission participating on the blog on any issue, there can be no “deliberation” and therefore no Open Meeting Law violation. While there is no decision directly on point with blogs, the Attorney General’s office has warned in at least two OML determinations that an exchange on Facebook betweena nd among a quorum of a public body could violate the Open Meeting Law.
A quorum is a majority of the public body.
May I join in the chorus of those thinking that removing ward-only voting for ward councilors is, on the whole, a bad idea? The only benefit that I can think of is that it combats NIMBY-ism. (But that might also be a bad thing, depending on your perspective.)
May I join in the chorus of those thinking that removing ward-only voting for ward councilors is, on the whole, a bad idea? The only benefit that I can think of is that it combats NIMBY-ism. (But that might also be a bad thing, depending on your perspective.)
Sallee – We’re very careful not to have a quorum comment on any one thread.
Steve – Please be assured that our email exchanges contain no comments about the V 14 comments, comments about emails sent to us, or conversations we’ve had with individual residents. They’re great bedtime reading though. Just got an email from Josh confirming the date and location of the next two meetings. It was riveting.
Sallee – We’re very careful not to have a quorum comment on any one thread.
Steve – Please be assured that our email exchanges contain no comments about the V 14 comments, comments about emails sent to us, or conversations we’ve had with individual residents. They’re great bedtime reading though. Just got an email from Josh confirming the date and location of the next two meetings. It was riveting.
Jane: Steve’s understanding of the law is close to what I believe is meant. I think that if Charter Commissioners discuss publicly (on a thread here, in the Tab, etc.) a topic on which they will then vote (and the straw vote is not the “real” vote), the other Commissioners could read their words and by definition that would not be a properly publicly “noticed” meeting. I repeat, ASK DAVID! Even Brook, with all her expertise in City Government, didn’t understand the OML particulars when she began working on this Committee, so I don’t know whether our resident Councilor who almost always has the correct information (Ted) definitely and definitively has it right! ASK DAVID! I’ll live with what he says!!!!!!! (or Ouida).
Jane: Steve’s understanding of the law is close to what I believe is meant. I think that if Charter Commissioners discuss publicly (on a thread here, in the Tab, etc.) a topic on which they will then vote (and the straw vote is not the “real” vote), the other Commissioners could read their words and by definition that would not be a properly publicly “noticed” meeting. I repeat, ASK DAVID! Even Brook, with all her expertise in City Government, didn’t understand the OML particulars when she began working on this Committee, so I don’t know whether our resident Councilor who almost always has the correct information (Ted) definitely and definitively has it right! ASK DAVID! I’ll live with what he says!!!!!!! (or Ouida).
I don’t want to get this thread any more off-topic, so, unless someone asks David, let’s move on.
What was the impetus for Charter Review? Two major arguments: Voter confusion at the Ballot Box and Government “Inefficiency”…it takes too long to get anything done!
The first mantra was that the voters are too confused and can’t vote intelligently for a ballot that contains so many names, up to 48 for City Council and that confusion favored incumbency and discourage challengers. The Charter Commissioners has partly answered a small part of that argument by straw-voting to remove the term “candidate for re-election” as a designation on the ballot.
Let’s argue the subject of voter ignorance further. If you knew that you had to vote for 24 contested Council races, wouldn’t you at minimum check the names and positions out in the Tab, if not attend any of the Candidates’ Showcases, such as the ones run by Ward 5’s Area Councils or the LWVN? Or watch the NewTV tapes of any of those nights? What about if there are 11 contested races? Will that be any easier for the poor, ignorant, confused voter? I believe that confusion about 48 names on the ballot is not appreciably lessened by a ballot with 26 names. The REAL, REAL issue, that none of these discussions addresses is education, communication and incentivization. Here the Charter Commission would have a real chance to change BAD VOTER behavior. Our voters are too busy to be involved locally. Too many reasons, none of which have merit if democracy is to thrive. Answers: The Charter Commission could mandate mock Municipal elections in the schools. They could mandate Election Day as a holiday to encourage kids to accompany voters to school. They could mandate that the Executive publish (by electronic means) an understandable printable booklet describing our gov’t structure with pages of candidates’ names and quals with comments to be added by the voter. (Not much different from the Sample Ballot by Ward that the Election Commission publishes now). To incentivize: The Commission could propose that voting of all eligible voters in a household in a city-wide election (by regular or absentee ballot) would reduce that year’s annual property taxes by $100 (renters to get same treatment in the form of a rental credit of $100). I’m sure there are other out-of-the box thoughts to promote better voter behavior.
The second mantra that pervades the arguments for Council size reduction is “It takes too long to get anything done! There are too many Councilors who take all night grandstanding on issues of importance, reiterating what earlier speakers have already said. The Council is inefficient!” This is the mantra that has an unspoken side. For those who want to make big, fast change happen in Newton… they are clearly correct. For those who want to make considered change here, they are dead wrong. The 24 voices speak in the Chambers after reaching many more of the voters in the City. They hear more of the substance of the arguments from the people, and are wiser for it. Twenty-four voices in the Council Chambers are safety brakes on the inexorable inertia of the locomotive of change. I think the results are better for Newton with the larger number of good minds deliberating.
By the way, no one, in the Ward vs. at-large representation argument is asking what unanticipated results could occur? Let’s assume that the voter will continue to exhibit BAD BEHAVIOR and that only a small percentage of voters will participate at the polls in each Ward. With City-wide at-large elections, will one or two Wards predominate? I remember about 35 years ago that Wards 1 and 8 together could run the City! There has been some allusion to the influence of City-wide organizations on voting. Whether single-party politics in a single-party town or ex-School-Committee-Member slates endorsing incumbents, there are certainly City-wide organizations that pursue their agendas out of the voters’ views. If a Ward elects its own representative to the Council, it expects that Councilor to respond to its voters’ needs. There is no decision so “universal” in Newton that it trumps a parochial challenge to its imposition on one Ward or another. That goes for any issue, whether your personal agenda is for or against it!
I don’t want to get this thread any more off-topic, so, unless someone asks David, let’s move on.
What was the impetus for Charter Review? Two major arguments: Voter confusion at the Ballot Box and Government “Inefficiency”…it takes too long to get anything done!
The first mantra was that the voters are too confused and can’t vote intelligently for a ballot that contains so many names, up to 48 for City Council and that confusion favored incumbency and discourage challengers. The Charter Commissioners has partly answered a small part of that argument by straw-voting to remove the term “candidate for re-election” as a designation on the ballot.
Let’s argue the subject of voter ignorance further. If you knew that you had to vote for 24 contested Council races, wouldn’t you at minimum check the names and positions out in the Tab, if not attend any of the Candidates’ Showcases, such as the ones run by Ward 5’s Area Councils or the LWVN? Or watch the NewTV tapes of any of those nights? What about if there are 11 contested races? Will that be any easier for the poor, ignorant, confused voter? I believe that confusion about 48 names on the ballot is not appreciably lessened by a ballot with 26 names. The REAL, REAL issue, that none of these discussions addresses is education, communication and incentivization. Here the Charter Commission would have a real chance to change BAD VOTER behavior. Our voters are too busy to be involved locally. Too many reasons, none of which have merit if democracy is to thrive. Answers: The Charter Commission could mandate mock Municipal elections in the schools. They could mandate Election Day as a holiday to encourage kids to accompany voters to school. They could mandate that the Executive publish (by electronic means) an understandable printable booklet describing our gov’t structure with pages of candidates’ names and quals with comments to be added by the voter. (Not much different from the Sample Ballot by Ward that the Election Commission publishes now). To incentivize: The Commission could propose that voting of all eligible voters in a household in a city-wide election (by regular or absentee ballot) would reduce that year’s annual property taxes by $100 (renters to get same treatment in the form of a rental credit of $100). I’m sure there are other out-of-the box thoughts to promote better voter behavior.
The second mantra that pervades the arguments for Council size reduction is “It takes too long to get anything done! There are too many Councilors who take all night grandstanding on issues of importance, reiterating what earlier speakers have already said. The Council is inefficient!” This is the mantra that has an unspoken side. For those who want to make big, fast change happen in Newton… they are clearly correct. For those who want to make considered change here, they are dead wrong. The 24 voices speak in the Chambers after reaching many more of the voters in the City. They hear more of the substance of the arguments from the people, and are wiser for it. Twenty-four voices in the Council Chambers are safety brakes on the inexorable inertia of the locomotive of change. I think the results are better for Newton with the larger number of good minds deliberating.
By the way, no one, in the Ward vs. at-large representation argument is asking what unanticipated results could occur? Let’s assume that the voter will continue to exhibit BAD BEHAVIOR and that only a small percentage of voters will participate at the polls in each Ward. With City-wide at-large elections, will one or two Wards predominate? I remember about 35 years ago that Wards 1 and 8 together could run the City! There has been some allusion to the influence of City-wide organizations on voting. Whether single-party politics in a single-party town or ex-School-Committee-Member slates endorsing incumbents, there are certainly City-wide organizations that pursue their agendas out of the voters’ views. If a Ward elects its own representative to the Council, it expects that Councilor to respond to its voters’ needs. There is no decision so “universal” in Newton that it trumps a parochial challenge to its imposition on one Ward or another. That goes for any issue, whether your personal agenda is for or against it!
Sallee-We asked Ouida this specific question at our very first meeting and she said it was fine to post on a blog as long as a quorum did not post on any particular thread. David was in the room at the time and he was agreed with Ouida.
Sallee-We asked Ouida this specific question at our very first meeting and she said it was fine to post on a blog as long as a quorum did not post on any particular thread. David was in the room at the time and he was agreed with Ouida.
all CC members might be incognito on V14, is the OML violated?
all CC members might be incognito on V14, is the OML violated?
Let’s move back onto topic. If David is ok with this, i am, too.
Let’s move back onto topic. If David is ok with this, i am, too.
I’m not sure I buy this argument that we need ward aldermen to better serve their wards.
If a ward alderman is elected at-large and s/he isn’t paying attention to ward constituents, shouldn’t that make it more likely that somebody else might vie for that seat? Good ward aldermen at-large, in all likelihood, would get more votes in their own wards than elsewhere in the city. And, because the board would be smaller, it should be easier to defeat an incumbent.
I’m not sure I buy this argument that we need ward aldermen to better serve their wards.
If a ward alderman is elected at-large and s/he isn’t paying attention to ward constituents, shouldn’t that make it more likely that somebody else might vie for that seat? Good ward aldermen at-large, in all likelihood, would get more votes in their own wards than elsewhere in the city. And, because the board would be smaller, it should be easier to defeat an incumbent.
I have gotten great response from all 3 of my aldercritters in the past. I’d email all 3, get responses back from all 3. Haven’t tried that with Jake yet, but I’m confident it would be the same.
I don’t think I agree with term limits though. Did you decide how many terms? length of terms? did I miss that?
I also wouldn’t feel right about taking into account prior time into the term limit before the change in charter. It should be going forward. Not fair otherwise in my book.
I have gotten great response from all 3 of my aldercritters in the past. I’d email all 3, get responses back from all 3. Haven’t tried that with Jake yet, but I’m confident it would be the same.
I don’t think I agree with term limits though. Did you decide how many terms? length of terms? did I miss that?
I also wouldn’t feel right about taking into account prior time into the term limit before the change in charter. It should be going forward. Not fair otherwise in my book.
I think that this commission should think very carefully about removing ward councilors.
One of the basic ideas of a legislative body is representation. Not all wards are the same. Each have different dynamics, resources, amenities, and infrastructure in various conditions and levels of need. One of the benefits of a ward councilor is to ensure that each village or community is given voice when decisions are made that affect them. In turn, voters can hold their ward representative accountable.
Consider the potential externalities. If each election turns into a popularity contest for the top candidates running, where would you expect them to spend their time campaigning, listening to voter needs and gaining votes? Citywide? In each ward and precinct? Or in those voter rich areas of, say, 4 or 5 wards? In office, where would the councilor focus their efforts and attention? Those areas most in need? Or where the voters are?
I have long expressed that there is much potential merit in reducing the number of councilors. However, the structure of representation is obviously critical. What is being proposed looks like a step backward in that regard.
I think that this commission should think very carefully about removing ward councilors.
One of the basic ideas of a legislative body is representation. Not all wards are the same. Each have different dynamics, resources, amenities, and infrastructure in various conditions and levels of need. One of the benefits of a ward councilor is to ensure that each village or community is given voice when decisions are made that affect them. In turn, voters can hold their ward representative accountable.
Consider the potential externalities. If each election turns into a popularity contest for the top candidates running, where would you expect them to spend their time campaigning, listening to voter needs and gaining votes? Citywide? In each ward and precinct? Or in those voter rich areas of, say, 4 or 5 wards? In office, where would the councilor focus their efforts and attention? Those areas most in need? Or where the voters are?
I have long expressed that there is much potential merit in reducing the number of councilors. However, the structure of representation is obviously critical. What is being proposed looks like a step backward in that regard.
I do like the idea of term limits, and I think fig’s suggestion about starting any incumbent at zero seems fair.
I do like the idea of term limits, and I think fig’s suggestion about starting any incumbent at zero seems fair.
I am all in favor of reducing the size of the City Council … to under 5’8″. That leaves me, Lipof and Kalis, and most of the female councilors. Same result and perfectly fair.
I am all in favor of reducing the size of the City Council … to under 5’8″. That leaves me, Lipof and Kalis, and most of the female councilors. Same result and perfectly fair.
Strongly apposed to all counsellors elected by all residents. This makes no sense. Most people live locally. I live in West Newton … Rarely do I go to Newton Center or Chestnut Hill, and that’s ok. Newton’s villages are vastly different from eachother in so many ways. I need someone representing my interests who understands the issues and people in my neighborhood. I have no interest in voting for a counsellor to represent Wabin. What am I missing in this? I don’t get why this is a plausible idea.
Strongly apposed to all counsellors elected by all residents. This makes no sense. Most people live locally. I live in West Newton … Rarely do I go to Newton Center or Chestnut Hill, and that’s ok. Newton’s villages are vastly different from eachother in so many ways. I need someone representing my interests who understands the issues and people in my neighborhood. I have no interest in voting for a counsellor to represent Wabin. What am I missing in this? I don’t get why this is a plausible idea.
I would not have been elected if I had run citywide. If you want independent-minded people, keep the ward councilors. If you want group-think and a City Council full of people approved by the various Establishment groups, then this is a wonderful change to suggest, and, I dare say, why it’s being suggested.
I would like to ask those who are suggesting that Alison, Barbara, Jay H, John R, Dick, Lisle, Cheryl & I are not looking out for the good of the city to provide some examples. And if you think that by opposing Austin St, that I was not looking out for the good of the City, then please do come out and say it. Because to me this proposal reads like a developer’s dream. Fill the City Council with a smaller group of the connected and powerful and then no need to worry about those pesky “NIMBY”ites right?
Interesting that the charter commission is convinced ward councilors only look out out for the wards and don’t care about the rest of the city, but apparently are convinced at large councilors look out for both. It sure seems like I spend a lot of time reading/deliberating/voting on issues outside Ward 2, but I’m sure the charter commissioners know better.
I’d also be interested in how the charter commission views the role of money in politics. I spent $9K on my ward race, Jake spent nearly $30K on his at-large race. Perhaps they think it’s good for democracy to make it more expensive to run.
Ok Emily, I don’t think you were looking out for the good of the city with your opposition to Austin Street. I do think you were doing a great job representing your ward.
I also don’t agree that you couldn’t have been elected at-large, although I’d agree that logic might apply to somebody else.
That said, I understand your arguments. Bear with me here because I’m torn on this one. The Austin Street debate made me think, for the first time, that the ward councillor position undermines the greater interests of the city. If you hadn’t opposed Austin Street, you probably would have had an opponent during the last election. Also, being accountable only to a small group of people allows–or encourages–councillors to trade votes for projects in their neighborhoods. (I’ll vote against Project X if you vote against Project Y.) Your job isn’t to look out for the greater interests of the city; it’s to look out for your constituents.
I don’t buy the group-think argument because I don’t see group-think in the current City Council. Somebody active in the League of Women Voters might get the support of that organization but that doesn’t mean that s/he isn’t capable of thinking independently.
Like I said, I’m torn though. I think that it would be harder for newcomers to win at-large elections. In some cases, they’d have to campaign as hard and spend as much money as Councillor Auchincloss spent, which would eliminate a lot of potential candidates.
Just thinking aloud here: What if the special permitting process required a majority vote for approval rather than 2/3? That would take some power away from councillors who are elected with only 700 voters (give or take). I can’t think of any other instances where a ward councillor might vote counter to the interests of the city.
I would not have been elected if I had run citywide. If you want independent-minded people, keep the ward councilors. If you want group-think and a City Council full of people approved by the various Establishment groups, then this is a wonderful change to suggest, and, I dare say, why it’s being suggested.
I would like to ask those who are suggesting that Alison, Barbara, Jay H, John R, Dick, Lisle, Cheryl & I are not looking out for the good of the city to provide some examples. And if you think that by opposing Austin St, that I was not looking out for the good of the City, then please do come out and say it. Because to me this proposal reads like a developer’s dream. Fill the City Council with a smaller group of the connected and powerful and then no need to worry about those pesky “NIMBY”ites right?
Interesting that the charter commission is convinced ward councilors only look out out for the wards and don’t care about the rest of the city, but apparently are convinced at large councilors look out for both. It sure seems like I spend a lot of time reading/deliberating/voting on issues outside Ward 2, but I’m sure the charter commissioners know better.
I’d also be interested in how the charter commission views the role of money in politics. I spent $9K on my ward race, Jake spent nearly $30K on his at-large race. Perhaps they think it’s good for democracy to make it more expensive to run.
Ok Emily, I don’t think you were looking out for the good of the city with your opposition to Austin Street. I do think you were doing a great job representing your ward.
I also don’t agree that you couldn’t have been elected at-large, although I’d agree that logic might apply to somebody else.
That said, I understand your arguments. Bear with me here because I’m torn on this one. The Austin Street debate made me think, for the first time, that the ward councillor position undermines the greater interests of the city. If you hadn’t opposed Austin Street, you probably would have had an opponent during the last election. Also, being accountable only to a small group of people allows–or encourages–councillors to trade votes for projects in their neighborhoods. (I’ll vote against Project X if you vote against Project Y.) Your job isn’t to look out for the greater interests of the city; it’s to look out for your constituents.
I don’t buy the group-think argument because I don’t see group-think in the current City Council. Somebody active in the League of Women Voters might get the support of that organization but that doesn’t mean that s/he isn’t capable of thinking independently.
Like I said, I’m torn though. I think that it would be harder for newcomers to win at-large elections. In some cases, they’d have to campaign as hard and spend as much money as Councillor Auchincloss spent, which would eliminate a lot of potential candidates.
Just thinking aloud here: What if the special permitting process required a majority vote for approval rather than 2/3? That would take some power away from councillors who are elected with only 700 voters (give or take). I can’t think of any other instances where a ward councillor might vote counter to the interests of the city.
Well said Emily!
I find this thinking quite disappointing. I am also worried these charter group members do not have diversity of opinions, and will promote changes which institutionalize the same.
I will vote against any charter which stacks the CC with at-large members.
Regrettably 2016 is the year when citizens everywhere got disfranchised. Shame!
Well said Emily!
I find this thinking quite disappointing. I am also worried these charter group members do not have diversity of opinions, and will promote changes which institutionalize the same.
I will vote against any charter which stacks the CC with at-large members.
Regrettably 2016 is the year when citizens everywhere got disfranchised. Shame!
Women of the Golden Circle are circling the wagons..
Women of the Golden Circle are circling the wagons..
Emily, you ask people to name which of the 8 ward councilors are parochial…why don’t you name which of the 16 at-large are guilty of group-think and are only in office because they were approved by an establishment group? I don’t think this discussion should be personalized, because it’s not about individuals, but you can’t have it both ways.
Based on Wednesday’s meeting, the charter commissioners seemed to see merit in the typical council configuration of 1 representative per ward plus some number of at-large who can live anywhere. There is a reason why many cities have that configuration–it has a lot of merit as a structure for governance. So the next question is whether the representatives from the wards should be elected at-large or by the ward only. Tradeoffs exist between the two forms. I can only speak for myself…our current Council has 2/3 elected at-large, and when considering a change to either 38% elected at-large or 100% elected at-large, I chose the latter.
It’s not possible to downsize the Council and keep all 24 of the current councilors, all of whom are dedicated public servants who invest a lot of time in service to the city. So let’s not try to make this about any individual.
The proposal is not to kick the 8 Ward Councilors out…conversely, if the proposal were to have the 8 Ward Councilors elected only by the ward, that doesn’t mean the Ward 2 seat would automatically be yours. You would have to fight for it along with whomever else wanted it, which would possibly include both Jake and Susan. Under the current proposal, any current Ward Councilor could run for the at-large-by-ward seat or one of the 5 at-large.
Finally, you know that Jake’s campaign spending was atypical. Let’s not try to plant the idea that it costs $30k to get elected to an at-large seat on the Council.
Emily, you ask people to name which of the 8 ward councilors are parochial…why don’t you name which of the 16 at-large are guilty of group-think and are only in office because they were approved by an establishment group? I don’t think this discussion should be personalized, because it’s not about individuals, but you can’t have it both ways.
Based on Wednesday’s meeting, the charter commissioners seemed to see merit in the typical council configuration of 1 representative per ward plus some number of at-large who can live anywhere. There is a reason why many cities have that configuration–it has a lot of merit as a structure for governance. So the next question is whether the representatives from the wards should be elected at-large or by the ward only. Tradeoffs exist between the two forms. I can only speak for myself…our current Council has 2/3 elected at-large, and when considering a change to either 38% elected at-large or 100% elected at-large, I chose the latter.
It’s not possible to downsize the Council and keep all 24 of the current councilors, all of whom are dedicated public servants who invest a lot of time in service to the city. So let’s not try to make this about any individual.
The proposal is not to kick the 8 Ward Councilors out…conversely, if the proposal were to have the 8 Ward Councilors elected only by the ward, that doesn’t mean the Ward 2 seat would automatically be yours. You would have to fight for it along with whomever else wanted it, which would possibly include both Jake and Susan. Under the current proposal, any current Ward Councilor could run for the at-large-by-ward seat or one of the 5 at-large.
Finally, you know that Jake’s campaign spending was atypical. Let’s not try to plant the idea that it costs $30k to get elected to an at-large seat on the Council.
@ Rhanna
You say that many cities choose this structure.
But the commission research showed that 2/3 of cities that were benchmarked have ward representation.
The points you make are generically true that apply to all cities. There is nothing in your rationale that is Newton-specific. Most other cities keep ward representation, while considering the same concerns you’re highlighting.
It would be helpful to understand why the Commission is recommending something that is used by a minority of cities and deviates from our current norms. The rationale provided thus far simply isn’t doesn’t hold.
@ Rhanna
You say that many cities choose this structure.
But the commission research showed that 2/3 of cities that were benchmarked have ward representation.
The points you make are generically true that apply to all cities. There is nothing in your rationale that is Newton-specific. Most other cities keep ward representation, while considering the same concerns you’re highlighting.
It would be helpful to understand why the Commission is recommending something that is used by a minority of cities and deviates from our current norms. The rationale provided thus far simply isn’t doesn’t hold.
Councilors elected at-large may very well “care” about their ward equally as someone elected just by the ward. But that’s just a sentiment. It is not actual representation.
What should matter most is the connection of the voters of the ward TO the councilor. (Not the other way around.)
You’d be relying on the sentiment of the councilor… rather than the requirement that she/he MUST serve the Ward and be ultimately answerable to the Ward.
Clearly there should be multiple public hearings and public comment on this. To allow this to proceed as suggested literally guts the foundation of representation in Newton. It needs to be re-thought. If 13 is the number that makes sense, I could live with that. But nothing is more important than the Wards having a Councilor elected by the Ward. It’s the most basic and necessary element of representation.
Councilors elected at-large may very well “care” about their ward equally as someone elected just by the ward. But that’s just a sentiment. It is not actual representation.
What should matter most is the connection of the voters of the ward TO the councilor. (Not the other way around.)
You’d be relying on the sentiment of the councilor… rather than the requirement that she/he MUST serve the Ward and be ultimately answerable to the Ward.
Clearly there should be multiple public hearings and public comment on this. To allow this to proceed as suggested literally guts the foundation of representation in Newton. It needs to be re-thought. If 13 is the number that makes sense, I could live with that. But nothing is more important than the Wards having a Councilor elected by the Ward. It’s the most basic and necessary element of representation.
@gregreibman wrote: “I’d wager that the average voter doesn’t know the difference between ward and at-large seats so those voters may miss the nuance of the very issue that many here are passionately debating.”
@gregreibman: I’m probably a fair example of an average voter. Your comment leaves me feeling liking I may be missing something. Of what nuances do you speak?
@gregreibman wrote: “I’d wager that the average voter doesn’t know the difference between ward and at-large seats so those voters may miss the nuance of the very issue that many here are passionately debating.”
@gregreibman: I’m probably a fair example of an average voter. Your comment leaves me feeling liking I may be missing something. Of what nuances do you speak?
“ouncilors elected at-large may very well “care” about their ward equally as someone elected just by the ward. But that’s just a sentiment. It is not actual representation.
What should matter most is the connection of the voters of the ward TO the councilor. (Not the other way around.)
You’d be relying on the sentiment of the councilor… rather than the requirement that she/he MUST serve the Ward and be ultimately answerable to the Ward.”
This is perfectly stated. Our system of equal representation shouldn’t be based on hoping that the at-large CC members are listening to their neighbors, even when there are more votes outside of their ward.
As I wrote before, we have a history in this city of not treating everyone equally. This proposal completely ignores that history.
“ouncilors elected at-large may very well “care” about their ward equally as someone elected just by the ward. But that’s just a sentiment. It is not actual representation.
What should matter most is the connection of the voters of the ward TO the councilor. (Not the other way around.)
You’d be relying on the sentiment of the councilor… rather than the requirement that she/he MUST serve the Ward and be ultimately answerable to the Ward.”
This is perfectly stated. Our system of equal representation shouldn’t be based on hoping that the at-large CC members are listening to their neighbors, even when there are more votes outside of their ward.
As I wrote before, we have a history in this city of not treating everyone equally. This proposal completely ignores that history.
@Gail
If the “greater interests of the city” involve allowing most high-density developments to be built in just 1 or 2 wards, are you OK with that? Even if the citizens in those 1 or 2 wards oppose it?
Philosophical question, not suggesting this is reality. (Yet.)
@Paul: No, I’m not ok with most high-density development occurring in just one or two wards.
@Gail
If the “greater interests of the city” involve allowing most high-density developments to be built in just 1 or 2 wards, are you OK with that? Even if the citizens in those 1 or 2 wards oppose it?
Philosophical question, not suggesting this is reality. (Yet.)
@Paul: No, I’m not ok with most high-density development occurring in just one or two wards.
@Mike Ciolino: I’d like to be proven wrong, but the very fact that you are active on Village 14 means you are probably not an average voter. You likely know a lot more about city government than the average voter.
@Rhanna: Jake’s campaign spending may not have been typical but it was probably necessary in order for him to beat an entrenched incumbent. I think it’s a fair example of what should be considered when deliberating this issue.
@Mike Ciolino: I’d like to be proven wrong, but the very fact that you are active on Village 14 means you are probably not an average voter. You likely know a lot more about city government than the average voter.
@Rhanna: Jake’s campaign spending may not have been typical but it was probably necessary in order for him to beat an entrenched incumbent. I think it’s a fair example of what should be considered when deliberating this issue.
“Jake’s campaign spending may not have been typical but it was probably necessary in order for him to beat an entrenched incumbent. I think it’s a fair example of what should be considered when deliberating this issue.”
Fully agree.
PS Gail, admire your deliberative thinking on this issue on both sides.
“Jake’s campaign spending may not have been typical but it was probably necessary in order for him to beat an entrenched incumbent. I think it’s a fair example of what should be considered when deliberating this issue.”
Fully agree.
PS Gail, admire your deliberative thinking on this issue on both sides.
@Emily:
Just to clear up one thing in response to your comment that we chose an atypical setup. I can only speak for myself, but I saw this as the right compromise between the 2 most common setups for municipal Government: All at large, and ward representation with some at large.
I also felt that it keeps with the tradition of Newton in that we are comfortable and familiar with the concept of the at large by ward councilor.
@Emily:
Just to clear up one thing in response to your comment that we chose an atypical setup. I can only speak for myself, but I saw this as the right compromise between the 2 most common setups for municipal Government: All at large, and ward representation with some at large.
I also felt that it keeps with the tradition of Newton in that we are comfortable and familiar with the concept of the at large by ward councilor.
I love how this thread ignores the fundamental bases for Council size reduction. Voter confusion, lack of contested positions, incumbency.That’s the Number 1 cry. The number 2 cry is the hidden agenda that the big picture as seen by the visionaries will be easier to get accomplished by at large reps with no real ties to the villages. It’s all about agendas for density in the at large reresentation.It’s not about increasing voter participation or voter representation.
I love how this thread ignores the fundamental bases for Council size reduction. Voter confusion, lack of contested positions, incumbency.That’s the Number 1 cry. The number 2 cry is the hidden agenda that the big picture as seen by the visionaries will be easier to get accomplished by at large reps with no real ties to the villages. It’s all about agendas for density in the at large reresentation.It’s not about increasing voter participation or voter representation.
Gail…without wading into whether I agree/disagree with your point on campaign spending…Emily ran for an open seat. She is comparing her spending to what someone spent to run against entrenched incumbents, so the figures are not apples to apples.
Gail…without wading into whether I agree/disagree with your point on campaign spending…Emily ran for an open seat. She is comparing her spending to what someone spent to run against entrenched incumbents, so the figures are not apples to apples.
@Rhanna, I agree.
@Rhanna, I agree.
Hellloooo. Just ignoring is not discussing!
Hellloooo. Just ignoring is not discussing!
Paul, Newton’s diversity…geographic, economic…is one of it’s defining characteristics and an important consideration in determining the government structure. Our diversity drives both a greater need for local representation and a greater need to remember that we are one city. I think the at-large-by-ward role is great at balancing that tension.
Per Bryan’s comment above, at-large-by-ward has worked well for our School Committee, and it is unusual as most SCs are elected fully at-large. But has served Newton because of our unique diversity.
Paul, Newton’s diversity…geographic, economic…is one of it’s defining characteristics and an important consideration in determining the government structure. Our diversity drives both a greater need for local representation and a greater need to remember that we are one city. I think the at-large-by-ward role is great at balancing that tension.
Per Bryan’s comment above, at-large-by-ward has worked well for our School Committee, and it is unusual as most SCs are elected fully at-large. But has served Newton because of our unique diversity.
Bryan says: “I thought long and hard about this, and I felt strongly in the end that our at large councilors care about their ward every bit as much as those who are only elected by 1/8th of the city”
I don’t doubt that at-large councilors “care” about their ward. Guess what: it’s not about them. It’s about the people who vote for them.
When a councilor is elected just by their ward, they are required to represent and fulfill the desires of the ward, or they won’t be re-elected.
By switching to a councilor who’s “from” the ward but elected city-wide, you’re simply relying on their “caring” that they will do what their ward wants. If their ward overwhelmingly wants A, but the remaining 7/8 wards prefer B, it is in their interests to vote B, no matter what “their” ward wants, and they can’t be penalized. However, if they follow their emotions and vote “with” their ward for A, they will immediately lose their seat at the next election when 7/8 of the other wards vote against them.
This is simply the death of the local representation/village concept of Newton and a plan for a homogenized city structure.
I was really hoping that the Charter commission would be able to retain and enhance the best of Newton government; instead they appear to want to enforce a standardized “city” rather than vibrant “village” structure, consolidate power in establishment hands and eliminate all local dissent.
If this provision is in the final proposal, I will work long and hard to defeat it.
Bryan says: “I thought long and hard about this, and I felt strongly in the end that our at large councilors care about their ward every bit as much as those who are only elected by 1/8th of the city”
I don’t doubt that at-large councilors “care” about their ward. Guess what: it’s not about them. It’s about the people who vote for them.
When a councilor is elected just by their ward, they are required to represent and fulfill the desires of the ward, or they won’t be re-elected.
By switching to a councilor who’s “from” the ward but elected city-wide, you’re simply relying on their “caring” that they will do what their ward wants. If their ward overwhelmingly wants A, but the remaining 7/8 wards prefer B, it is in their interests to vote B, no matter what “their” ward wants, and they can’t be penalized. However, if they follow their emotions and vote “with” their ward for A, they will immediately lose their seat at the next election when 7/8 of the other wards vote against them.
This is simply the death of the local representation/village concept of Newton and a plan for a homogenized city structure.
I was really hoping that the Charter commission would be able to retain and enhance the best of Newton government; instead they appear to want to enforce a standardized “city” rather than vibrant “village” structure, consolidate power in establishment hands and eliminate all local dissent.
If this provision is in the final proposal, I will work long and hard to defeat it.
As for campaign spending, it’s easy enough to look at the data from past elections. Most of the candidates still live in the city and likely will have no problem letting us know how much they spent. But we shouldn’t make suppositions based on a self selected data set.
When I heard Jake was running in January of 2015, I looked into the OCPF website to see about his financial backing. He had received the maximum donation ($1000) from 9 out of town family members in December 2014. It didn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out he’d receive the same amount from the same people for 2015. The issue wasn’t whether he was running for an at-large seat or a ward seat-it was who had family resources to fund a campaign. In fact, a case could be made that his financial backing worked against him. I didn’t vote for him based on that information because I didn’t think it was good for the city. However, he also worked very hard to get elected and that was what got him the victory in the end. I never heard about his glossy literature from his supporters – his outreach to voters was what made he difference.
As for campaign spending, it’s easy enough to look at the data from past elections. Most of the candidates still live in the city and likely will have no problem letting us know how much they spent. But we shouldn’t make suppositions based on a self selected data set.
When I heard Jake was running in January of 2015, I looked into the OCPF website to see about his financial backing. He had received the maximum donation ($1000) from 9 out of town family members in December 2014. It didn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out he’d receive the same amount from the same people for 2015. The issue wasn’t whether he was running for an at-large seat or a ward seat-it was who had family resources to fund a campaign. In fact, a case could be made that his financial backing worked against him. I didn’t vote for him based on that information because I didn’t think it was good for the city. However, he also worked very hard to get elected and that was what got him the victory in the end. I never heard about his glossy literature from his supporters – his outreach to voters was what made he difference.
I wanted to add another thought to this thread, my impression that the CC is asking for what could be considered an unfunded mandate for the City or at least a nebulous role for the City Council.
The statement “fall to the City Council to determine its responsibilities” is a problem as I understand its implications.
I am not sure this is an indication of the CC members being naive or not thinking to back up what many of us ran on. How many times did we tell voters “we can’t give you a number until we figure out what the Council will do.”
Worst case, the Council members decide they want to maintain their current roles, or can’t decide what to give up, or can’t find the budget to hire the staff to take over what is transferred. Resulting in fewer people doing the same work less efficiently.
So far this is a non-starter for me lacking Ward representation but I would be hard pressed to be sold on an idea of changing duties of the City Council as new members decided they want to do something different than the last Council picked from the menu of responsibilities.
I wanted to add another thought to this thread, my impression that the CC is asking for what could be considered an unfunded mandate for the City or at least a nebulous role for the City Council.
The statement “fall to the City Council to determine its responsibilities” is a problem as I understand its implications.
I am not sure this is an indication of the CC members being naive or not thinking to back up what many of us ran on. How many times did we tell voters “we can’t give you a number until we figure out what the Council will do.”
Worst case, the Council members decide they want to maintain their current roles, or can’t decide what to give up, or can’t find the budget to hire the staff to take over what is transferred. Resulting in fewer people doing the same work less efficiently.
So far this is a non-starter for me lacking Ward representation but I would be hard pressed to be sold on an idea of changing duties of the City Council as new members decided they want to do something different than the last Council picked from the menu of responsibilities.
Here’s a resource that popped up when I did a simple search.
http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-and-networks/resources/cities-101/city-officials/municipal-elections
According to that site, most cities, especially those the size of Newton, do not have all at-large municipal elections (in the 40% range. The larger the city, the less likely they are to have all at-large voting. The reason given against is “…at-large elections can weaken the representation of particular groups, especially if the group does not have a citywide base of operations or is an ethnic or racial group concentrated in a specific ward.”
When you think about the difficulties of zoning reform presented by the diverse and varied nature of the city and its neighborhoods, that exactly parallels the need for a more granular approach to representation.
But it seems like the trend is that the more diversity a city has, which is indicated by the size of the city, the more likely they are to choose district representation in the mix. Newton is on the small size for a city, but it has plenty of diversity and therefore should have voting by ward.
Also, as I’ve pointed out in the past, it’s very unusual for a city-wide race to unseat an incumbent if the challenger is a newcomer. Jake did it with a huge effort, but it’s a rare occurrence. At-large only seats would result in a virtually impenetrable politburo of insiders who can make unpopular decisions knowing they cannot be easily unseated.
We have to decide how much democracy we want in Newton. This decision seems to be saying we have too much of it now.
Here’s a resource that popped up when I did a simple search.
http://www.nlc.org/build-skills-and-networks/resources/cities-101/city-officials/municipal-elections
According to that site, most cities, especially those the size of Newton, do not have all at-large municipal elections (in the 40% range. The larger the city, the less likely they are to have all at-large voting. The reason given against is “…at-large elections can weaken the representation of particular groups, especially if the group does not have a citywide base of operations or is an ethnic or racial group concentrated in a specific ward.”
When you think about the difficulties of zoning reform presented by the diverse and varied nature of the city and its neighborhoods, that exactly parallels the need for a more granular approach to representation.
But it seems like the trend is that the more diversity a city has, which is indicated by the size of the city, the more likely they are to choose district representation in the mix. Newton is on the small size for a city, but it has plenty of diversity and therefore should have voting by ward.
Also, as I’ve pointed out in the past, it’s very unusual for a city-wide race to unseat an incumbent if the challenger is a newcomer. Jake did it with a huge effort, but it’s a rare occurrence. At-large only seats would result in a virtually impenetrable politburo of insiders who can make unpopular decisions knowing they cannot be easily unseated.
We have to decide how much democracy we want in Newton. This decision seems to be saying we have too much of it now.
@ Rhanna you write “There is a reason why many cities have that configuration–it has a lot of merit as a structure for governance. So the next question is whether the representatives from the wards should be elected at-large or by the ward only.”
I apologize for repeating the same question but I really am curious, do other cities have ward representatives elected at-large? Or put another way, do other cities have ward residency requirements for their at-large reps? Is it common or rare? I have spent some time researching this and I don’t recall seeing it as a common structure, but my research isn’t as complete as that which the CC has access to through your consultant. Did you examine that?
@ Rhanna you write “There is a reason why many cities have that configuration–it has a lot of merit as a structure for governance. So the next question is whether the representatives from the wards should be elected at-large or by the ward only.”
I apologize for repeating the same question but I really am curious, do other cities have ward representatives elected at-large? Or put another way, do other cities have ward residency requirements for their at-large reps? Is it common or rare? I have spent some time researching this and I don’t recall seeing it as a common structure, but my research isn’t as complete as that which the CC has access to through your consultant. Did you examine that?
I have gone back/forth on the issue of the number of City Councilors needed for at least two decades for various reasons and arguments. But LOSING the chance to vote for someone NOT at-large that represents the ward only is a huge non-starter with me. While I prefer to think of us as “one city” , having only at-large councilors contributes to a diffusion of responsibilities and responsiveness.
I have gone back/forth on the issue of the number of City Councilors needed for at least two decades for various reasons and arguments. But LOSING the chance to vote for someone NOT at-large that represents the ward only is a huge non-starter with me. While I prefer to think of us as “one city” , having only at-large councilors contributes to a diffusion of responsibilities and responsiveness.
Kathy, the City of Everett has at-large-by-Ward. It is not common but not unheard of. We have had it on our School Committee for decades, which is unusual, most SCs are elected truly at-large.
Steve, the website is discussing truly at-large with no residency requirement. At-large-by-ward is very different, it counters the specific objections that you quote.
Kathy, the City of Everett has at-large-by-Ward. It is not common but not unheard of. We have had it on our School Committee for decades, which is unusual, most SCs are elected truly at-large.
Steve, the website is discussing truly at-large with no residency requirement. At-large-by-ward is very different, it counters the specific objections that you quote.
I testified before the Charter Commission at its first meeting and one other meeting and accepted its invitation to participate in a panel before them. I am stunned that they have jumped to a knee-jerk position on the most controversial issue before the Commission and apparently misunderstood the positions presented to them by me and others.
I am also perplexed that they took testimony from Counicilors from cities not similar to Newton. Waltham”s Council President described a Committee structure of NINE (!) Committees that including the Committee of the whole that meet the same night as the full Council and are mainly staffed by Department Heads with other full time jobs. Kiss follow up and independent checks and balances good bye.
The Councillor from Everett had a hard time understanding a Commissioner’s question about who grants the Special Permits in his city.
The other Councillors seemed to have no comprehension of what goes on in Newton. What communities were they from? Medford and where? Perhaps Cambridge would not have been a good match with two World Class Universities rather than one and Coouncil-Manager5 government., but where were Somerville with its cutting edge zoning and Quincy with its transit terminals like Riverside ? The Commission might have actually learned something useful from them.
One Commissioner above said that if the Board is smaller, it would be easier to defeat an incumbent. I respectfully suggest that the reverse is true/
Someone commented that the School Committee is equally competitive to the Board/Council. Throw out the Ward races and an apples to apples comparison of at large from ward races shows clearly that the Council was much more competitive. There were four competitive Council races and two one-sided SC races last year.
A blogger commented that it is not good for incumbents to stay in office until their deaths.
I respectfully suggest that Dick McGrath, Wendell Bauckman, Tony Salvucci, and Carleton Merrill to mention a few continued to contribute to the common good of the City until their final illnesses which did not incapitate them for their full final terms. I vividly remember debating Dick McGrath on the floor of the Board of Aldermen shortly before his death in office. His performance was like Newton Legend Ted Williams hitting a Home Run on his last at bat. Great public servants like great athletes should not be dismissed casually by spectators.
The Charter Commission has not demonstrated that Newton Legislative Body is Broken.
Yet they propose to fix it. What reasons do they offer based in reality for this solution in search of a problem.
I’ll try to answer some more of the fallacious reasoning offered by and in support of the Commission later.
Former Alderman/City Councilor Brian Yates
@Councilor Yates: I’m having trouble precisely following your point. But please assure me that you’re NOT suggesting that us Newtonians are so perfect that we couldn’t possibly learn from riff-raff in some other communities, especially those who may not have lawns as nicely manicured as ours.
I testified before the Charter Commission at its first meeting and one other meeting and accepted its invitation to participate in a panel before them. I am stunned that they have jumped to a knee-jerk position on the most controversial issue before the Commission and apparently misunderstood the positions presented to them by me and others.
I am also perplexed that they took testimony from Counicilors from cities not similar to Newton. Waltham”s Council President described a Committee structure of NINE (!) Committees that including the Committee of the whole that meet the same night as the full Council and are mainly staffed by Department Heads with other full time jobs. Kiss follow up and independent checks and balances good bye.
The Councillor from Everett had a hard time understanding a Commissioner’s question about who grants the Special Permits in his city.
The other Councillors seemed to have no comprehension of what goes on in Newton. What communities were they from? Medford and where? Perhaps Cambridge would not have been a good match with two World Class Universities rather than one and Coouncil-Manager5 government., but where were Somerville with its cutting edge zoning and Quincy with its transit terminals like Riverside ? The Commission might have actually learned something useful from them.
One Commissioner above said that if the Board is smaller, it would be easier to defeat an incumbent. I respectfully suggest that the reverse is true/
Someone commented that the School Committee is equally competitive to the Board/Council. Throw out the Ward races and an apples to apples comparison of at large from ward races shows clearly that the Council was much more competitive. There were four competitive Council races and two one-sided SC races last year.
A blogger commented that it is not good for incumbents to stay in office until their deaths.
I respectfully suggest that Dick McGrath, Wendell Bauckman, Tony Salvucci, and Carleton Merrill to mention a few continued to contribute to the common good of the City until their final illnesses which did not incapitate them for their full final terms. I vividly remember debating Dick McGrath on the floor of the Board of Aldermen shortly before his death in office. His performance was like Newton Legend Ted Williams hitting a Home Run on his last at bat. Great public servants like great athletes should not be dismissed casually by spectators.
The Charter Commission has not demonstrated that Newton Legislative Body is Broken.
Yet they propose to fix it. What reasons do they offer based in reality for this solution in search of a problem.
I’ll try to answer some more of the fallacious reasoning offered by and in support of the Commission later.
Former Alderman/City Councilor Brian Yates
@Councilor Yates: I’m having trouble precisely following your point. But please assure me that you’re NOT suggesting that us Newtonians are so perfect that we couldn’t possibly learn from riff-raff in some other communities, especially those who may not have lawns as nicely manicured as ours.
@Rhanna, so if at-large by ward is unusual, how would you know that it’s better than district voting, which is much more common? I think that requiring an at-large councilor from each ward accomplishes zilch. That’s actually the mean result – if you assume a uniform distribution of candidates – if you had no such ward requirement. On average you would get about one councilor per ward.
The fact is, anyone running city-wide is not beholden to a particular ward. If they are an incumbent, they’ll be very difficult to unseat (they can come in last in their ward but still win re-election). We’ve seen that happen time and again. Someone mentioned the School Committee – classic case of this.
And I echo Councilor Yates’ question, as well as Councilor Norton’s: where is the analysis of the current Council’s effectiveness, what is the problem that needs to be solved, and why does this proposal, about which the charter commission is of one mind barely a few months into its work, a solution to that problem?
I also am opposed to term limits. With so few people willing and able to serve, why kick out good people that bring their talents, knowledge and hard work to serve the city? I agree with Sallee – let’s do things to get more voter participation and awareness. Let’s make it easier for people to run a successful campaign at the ward level.
Democracy means representation of all voters. This proposal means less democracy, more centralization of power. I don’t need to hear any other details of the recommendation to know that I oppose it.
@Rhanna, so if at-large by ward is unusual, how would you know that it’s better than district voting, which is much more common? I think that requiring an at-large councilor from each ward accomplishes zilch. That’s actually the mean result – if you assume a uniform distribution of candidates – if you had no such ward requirement. On average you would get about one councilor per ward.
The fact is, anyone running city-wide is not beholden to a particular ward. If they are an incumbent, they’ll be very difficult to unseat (they can come in last in their ward but still win re-election). We’ve seen that happen time and again. Someone mentioned the School Committee – classic case of this.
And I echo Councilor Yates’ question, as well as Councilor Norton’s: where is the analysis of the current Council’s effectiveness, what is the problem that needs to be solved, and why does this proposal, about which the charter commission is of one mind barely a few months into its work, a solution to that problem?
I also am opposed to term limits. With so few people willing and able to serve, why kick out good people that bring their talents, knowledge and hard work to serve the city? I agree with Sallee – let’s do things to get more voter participation and awareness. Let’s make it easier for people to run a successful campaign at the ward level.
Democracy means representation of all voters. This proposal means less democracy, more centralization of power. I don’t need to hear any other details of the recommendation to know that I oppose it.
that’s the idea, the League will be able to subversively control citywide policy. Toe the machine line or else – no gettin’ in for you.
that’s the idea, the League will be able to subversively control citywide policy. Toe the machine line or else – no gettin’ in for you.
The Charter Commission has to do a much better job at Council due diligence. Rubber stamping the people that got you on the commission will not help the residents of the city. Frankly this is the most disappointing outcome you could have delivered as there is no basis for the recommendations. Why not 15, 11, 9?
As one of the newer members of city government, and one with no real ties as a walk-on, I recommend that careful thought be given to Emily Norton, and Ted Hess-Mahan’s detailed comments, the thoughtful analysis from Brian Yates, and Steve Feinstein’s right-on view of the process.
In all fairness to the commission members, prior to my election to the Board of Alderman in 2013, I may have shared some of your thoughts.
As they say: “back to the drawing board.”
The Charter Commission has to do a much better job at Council due diligence. Rubber stamping the people that got you on the commission will not help the residents of the city. Frankly this is the most disappointing outcome you could have delivered as there is no basis for the recommendations. Why not 15, 11, 9?
As one of the newer members of city government, and one with no real ties as a walk-on, I recommend that careful thought be given to Emily Norton, and Ted Hess-Mahan’s detailed comments, the thoughtful analysis from Brian Yates, and Steve Feinstein’s right-on view of the process.
In all fairness to the commission members, prior to my election to the Board of Alderman in 2013, I may have shared some of your thoughts.
As they say: “back to the drawing board.”
I do hope Charter Commission members are all reading this thread because it’s a great discussion. But I really object to the insinuations and outright statements that Charter Commission members have an agenda. What they are doing has to as thankless a job as they come, and the implications that they are trying to strengthen the power of “insiders” is offensive. This was a straw vote; it is not binding. It’s also only one article of a very comprehensive Charter. And, any changes they suggest have to withstand time. If you disagree, write to them at [email protected]. Maybe there are unintended consequences they haven’t considered.
I do hope Charter Commission members are all reading this thread because it’s a great discussion. But I really object to the insinuations and outright statements that Charter Commission members have an agenda. What they are doing has to as thankless a job as they come, and the implications that they are trying to strengthen the power of “insiders” is offensive. This was a straw vote; it is not binding. It’s also only one article of a very comprehensive Charter. And, any changes they suggest have to withstand time. If you disagree, write to them at [email protected]. Maybe there are unintended consequences they haven’t considered.
The bottom line as they say. I would feel more comfortable if the Commission could spell out what’s broken, indeed it anything is really broken at all, before telling us how to fix it
The bottom line as they say. I would feel more comfortable if the Commission could spell out what’s broken, indeed it anything is really broken at all, before telling us how to fix it
One of the problems stated for reconsidering the size of the city council was the time it takes to get things done. I’m not sure that is a problem.
I’ve been trying to understand the varying perspectives.
I can see that if the size of the council is reduced to 13, in theory, it might seem inefficient to have Ward representation be 38% of the total. If the intent is to change the percentage, there could be ~16 Councilors, 8 Ward and 8 at-large. Another way could be to create fewer Ward Councilors by enlarging several wards by merging them in some way.
I can see that many think that Ward representation holds up city-wide decisions. The example in play is Emily’s opposition to Austin Street because she put the desires of the residents of her Ward above the city.
First, Emily herself was not in favor of the ASP development. She believed that Newtonville needed its parking lot, like other village centers need their’s. She voted for what she believed was right for her Ward.
Secondly, she did not vote against ASP because she was doing what her voters wanted because many members of her Ward were supportive of Austin Street. Many agreed with her.
Third, it was because of the opposition drawing the proceedings out that Austin Street kept its parking lot accessible and gained 6 more affordable apartments.
I see no benefit from the proposed 13 at-large and Ward-at-large Councilors. Each Ward needs its own representation in the city council, regardless of the number of votes they won. They definitely bring their own unique opinions to the mix. In addition, it’s those Ward Councilors who get involved in the little things that don’t affect the city as a whole but mean a great deal to those involved. They spend more time talking to and working with the people who live in their ward. It would definitely be a deal breaker for me to not have them.
One of the problems stated for reconsidering the size of the city council was the time it takes to get things done. I’m not sure that is a problem.
I’ve been trying to understand the varying perspectives.
I can see that if the size of the council is reduced to 13, in theory, it might seem inefficient to have Ward representation be 38% of the total. If the intent is to change the percentage, there could be ~16 Councilors, 8 Ward and 8 at-large. Another way could be to create fewer Ward Councilors by enlarging several wards by merging them in some way.
I can see that many think that Ward representation holds up city-wide decisions. The example in play is Emily’s opposition to Austin Street because she put the desires of the residents of her Ward above the city.
First, Emily herself was not in favor of the ASP development. She believed that Newtonville needed its parking lot, like other village centers need their’s. She voted for what she believed was right for her Ward.
Secondly, she did not vote against ASP because she was doing what her voters wanted because many members of her Ward were supportive of Austin Street. Many agreed with her.
Third, it was because of the opposition drawing the proceedings out that Austin Street kept its parking lot accessible and gained 6 more affordable apartments.
I see no benefit from the proposed 13 at-large and Ward-at-large Councilors. Each Ward needs its own representation in the city council, regardless of the number of votes they won. They definitely bring their own unique opinions to the mix. In addition, it’s those Ward Councilors who get involved in the little things that don’t affect the city as a whole but mean a great deal to those involved. They spend more time talking to and working with the people who live in their ward. It would definitely be a deal breaker for me to not have them.
I listened to the entire recording, and there was no rationale behind the unanimous vote for Scenario D (ie – no Ward Aldermen).
I hope (highly recommend) the commission members can share the data, examples they referred to to shed light on their unanimous decision.
I listened to the entire recording, and there was no rationale behind the unanimous vote for Scenario D (ie – no Ward Aldermen).
I hope (highly recommend) the commission members can share the data, examples they referred to to shed light on their unanimous decision.
Bob-The people on V14 aren’t necessarily representative of the residents of the city. Many people have expressed opinions through email, at events, in the produce section of the supermarket. If you read this thread carefully, other than elected officials and members of the charter commission, a total of 28 people have commented on this thread.
It’s important to realize that other residents prefer other means of communicating their concerns about an issue and their opinions matter as much as the people who choose to post on V14. This may be an interesting discussion, but V14 is not a barometer of the community sentiment on any issue. Just today, I received a phone call, about 4 emails, and a conversation expressing support because they think it’s time to change the structure of the Council. My experience today also isn’t a barometer of of community sentiment. I’ve attended 2 area council meetings, plan to attend one of each area council, spoken to many Councilors, current and former School Committee members, and plan to continue to attend events where residents are engaged in conversation about the city.
Bob-The people on V14 aren’t necessarily representative of the residents of the city. Many people have expressed opinions through email, at events, in the produce section of the supermarket. If you read this thread carefully, other than elected officials and members of the charter commission, a total of 28 people have commented on this thread.
It’s important to realize that other residents prefer other means of communicating their concerns about an issue and their opinions matter as much as the people who choose to post on V14. This may be an interesting discussion, but V14 is not a barometer of the community sentiment on any issue. Just today, I received a phone call, about 4 emails, and a conversation expressing support because they think it’s time to change the structure of the Council. My experience today also isn’t a barometer of of community sentiment. I’ve attended 2 area council meetings, plan to attend one of each area council, spoken to many Councilors, current and former School Committee members, and plan to continue to attend events where residents are engaged in conversation about the city.
I would like to point out that our meetings are open to the public and we strongly encourage participation. There is a 20 minute public comment period at the beginning of every commission meeting.
I am confident that those who have suggested we are making these decisions without proper consideration would change their mind if they joined us.
I would like to point out that our meetings are open to the public and we strongly encourage participation. There is a 20 minute public comment period at the beginning of every commission meeting.
I am confident that those who have suggested we are making these decisions without proper consideration would change their mind if they joined us.
I’ll say something obvious that is likely to upset people I like. Sorry. Sometimes my fingers type more quickly than the part of my brain that monitors restraint.
We can argue about the best charter for the city, but let’s realize it is impossible to make a change without ruffling the feathers of some elected officials. There is a reason why a change in the charter requires voters’ support, not elected official support. Of course, elected officials may have valuable insight into the problems and benefits of various plans. Of course, some CC members may have less-than-ideal political aspirations that influence their thinking. All of these issues played out in the 69 CC. History will repeat.
What do voters think? I don’t know where I stand yet on at-large versus ward councilors and I don’t know where the voters’ stand. I am pro-term limits and the evidence from the original CC and from a 1985 ballot initiative is that the majority of voters agree with me. I support a reduced board size, and 80%+ of the voters I talk to, agree with me.
This is Newton, not Pyongyang. Like me, a lot of voters are sickened by the prospect walking into a voting booth and not being able to exercise choice. In the last election there were 24 races. Only 3 were “fully” contested, meaning all the incumbents had a chance of not returning to office. Only 5 races were fully or partially contested. For 19 races, voters were impotent.
I wish the CC would focus more on promoting contested elections. Contested elections are important beyond whether or not the challenger is, as some might say “competitive.” A noncompetitive challenger is better than no challenger. Without a contested election, the incumbent never has to shake hands and ask voters for support. The incumbent does not have to have a website that lists priorities or defend his record. Without a contested election, newspaper stories are scant. Debates never happen. Op-eds are never written. New ideas are never introduced on how to run the city better. The toll of uncontested elections is high.
Jeffery’s right we are certainly witnessing some incumbent feather ruffling here. Newton (then) aldermen have blocked efforts to reduce the board size previously, I’d expect City Councilors would too. That’s why many folks favored establishing the commission in the first place; because the board ignored the public call to do this themselves.
I’ll say something obvious that is likely to upset people I like. Sorry. Sometimes my fingers type more quickly than the part of my brain that monitors restraint.
We can argue about the best charter for the city, but let’s realize it is impossible to make a change without ruffling the feathers of some elected officials. There is a reason why a change in the charter requires voters’ support, not elected official support. Of course, elected officials may have valuable insight into the problems and benefits of various plans. Of course, some CC members may have less-than-ideal political aspirations that influence their thinking. All of these issues played out in the 69 CC. History will repeat.
What do voters think? I don’t know where I stand yet on at-large versus ward councilors and I don’t know where the voters’ stand. I am pro-term limits and the evidence from the original CC and from a 1985 ballot initiative is that the majority of voters agree with me. I support a reduced board size, and 80%+ of the voters I talk to, agree with me.
This is Newton, not Pyongyang. Like me, a lot of voters are sickened by the prospect walking into a voting booth and not being able to exercise choice. In the last election there were 24 races. Only 3 were “fully” contested, meaning all the incumbents had a chance of not returning to office. Only 5 races were fully or partially contested. For 19 races, voters were impotent.
I wish the CC would focus more on promoting contested elections. Contested elections are important beyond whether or not the challenger is, as some might say “competitive.” A noncompetitive challenger is better than no challenger. Without a contested election, the incumbent never has to shake hands and ask voters for support. The incumbent does not have to have a website that lists priorities or defend his record. Without a contested election, newspaper stories are scant. Debates never happen. Op-eds are never written. New ideas are never introduced on how to run the city better. The toll of uncontested elections is high.
Jeffery’s right we are certainly witnessing some incumbent feather ruffling here. Newton (then) aldermen have blocked efforts to reduce the board size previously, I’d expect City Councilors would too. That’s why many folks favored establishing the commission in the first place; because the board ignored the public call to do this themselves.
Jeffrey, I also would like more contested elections. But lets recognize one huge reason why we don’t get contested elections. The hours are long and the pay is low. If we reduce the size of the CC, let’s increase the pay accordingly.
I’d be fine keeping the local/at-large ratio the same, and just have larger “local” zones (4 instead of 8). I also ok with the proposal put forth, although the terms and the term limits matter.
It does feel like folks are dividing among similar lines as the Austin Street debate. Perhaps that debate was as much about local vs. localized control than the actual development…
Jeffrey, I also would like more contested elections. But lets recognize one huge reason why we don’t get contested elections. The hours are long and the pay is low. If we reduce the size of the CC, let’s increase the pay accordingly.
I’d be fine keeping the local/at-large ratio the same, and just have larger “local” zones (4 instead of 8). I also ok with the proposal put forth, although the terms and the term limits matter.
It does feel like folks are dividing among similar lines as the Austin Street debate. Perhaps that debate was as much about local vs. localized control than the actual development…
I probably sound like a broken record after advocating this for years. But there is a way to make every local election a contested election, while also providing a powerful tool for voters to remove unchallenged incumbents. Include “None of the Above” on every ballot, and let democracy work.
I probably sound like a broken record after advocating this for years. But there is a way to make every local election a contested election, while also providing a powerful tool for voters to remove unchallenged incumbents. Include “None of the Above” on every ballot, and let democracy work.
Mike: Is NOTA an allowable ballot option according to whatever governmental agency develops the Election rules? It may not be an item that a Charter Commission can legally mandate. Does anyone know? I assume if NOTA won the highest number of votes, the position would remain open. What would happen then? Would the Council fill the “vacancy” itself according to the Charter’s rules for doing so? It seems this raises more questions and the possibilities of bad results than electing a non-contested candidate until you can find a real challenger to knock him/her out of the race!
Mike: Is NOTA an allowable ballot option according to whatever governmental agency develops the Election rules? It may not be an item that a Charter Commission can legally mandate. Does anyone know? I assume if NOTA won the highest number of votes, the position would remain open. What would happen then? Would the Council fill the “vacancy” itself according to the Charter’s rules for doing so? It seems this raises more questions and the possibilities of bad results than electing a non-contested candidate until you can find a real challenger to knock him/her out of the race!
NOTA is not allowable by state law.
NOTA is not allowable by state law.
Thanks, Jane!
Thanks, Jane!
Fig: I don’t like the idea of career politicians…better they have a day job! So, that’s also one of the reasons that I like 24 Councilors just the way it is!
But, why is NO ONE talking about the inadequacy of voter education…so that more voters exercise that right/responsibility. Do we not care? 13 Councilors means 26 names on the ballot…not much easier on the voter than 48 if all Council races were contested.
Want to do some good? Talk about how to awaken the power of the ballot box…How to entice the busy Newtonian to do his/her political housekeeping here at home…much more important to everyday life than what happens in D.C. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL!
Fig: I don’t like the idea of career politicians…better they have a day job! So, that’s also one of the reasons that I like 24 Councilors just the way it is!
But, why is NO ONE talking about the inadequacy of voter education…so that more voters exercise that right/responsibility. Do we not care? 13 Councilors means 26 names on the ballot…not much easier on the voter than 48 if all Council races were contested.
Want to do some good? Talk about how to awaken the power of the ballot box…How to entice the busy Newtonian to do his/her political housekeeping here at home…much more important to everyday life than what happens in D.C. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL!
I don’t know the answers to your questions, Sallee. I often make the mistake of believing we live in a democracy, when that’s factually untrue. I could propose a solution for filling the seats won by NOTA. But I’d rather leave that as an open idea for the Charter Commission to consider. The one thing I strongly disagree with you about, is that it would be better to let an unqualified, unchallenged candidate take possession of an elective office, by virtue of being the only name on the ballot. I believe that scenario is the most unacceptable, and makes a sham of our “democracy.”
I don’t know the answers to your questions, Sallee. I often make the mistake of believing we live in a democracy, when that’s factually untrue. I could propose a solution for filling the seats won by NOTA. But I’d rather leave that as an open idea for the Charter Commission to consider. The one thing I strongly disagree with you about, is that it would be better to let an unqualified, unchallenged candidate take possession of an elective office, by virtue of being the only name on the ballot. I believe that scenario is the most unacceptable, and makes a sham of our “democracy.”
Our State Reps and State Senator are only elected from within Newton, yet weigh in on statewide issues. I am wondering how the charter commission feels about that. Do they think it would be better if Marlborough and Dalton got to vote on our State delegation? And if not, why not?
Our State Reps and State Senator are only elected from within Newton, yet weigh in on statewide issues. I am wondering how the charter commission feels about that. Do they think it would be better if Marlborough and Dalton got to vote on our State delegation? And if not, why not?
@Jane– “Not allowable by state law” means what exactly? That NOTA is specifically disallowed by law. Or it requires an act of the Legislature to approve, in similar fashion to the requirement we met in changing BoA to City Council?
@Jane– “Not allowable by state law” means what exactly? That NOTA is specifically disallowed by law. Or it requires an act of the Legislature to approve, in similar fashion to the requirement we met in changing BoA to City Council?
@Gail you seem to be assuming everyone shares your view that the Austin Street project is good for the City as a whole. That is actually not objective truth, that is, rather, your opinion.
No Emily, I’m assuming that more than 2/3 of the board approving the Austin Street project means that it is good for the city as a whole.
@Gail you seem to be assuming everyone shares your view that the Austin Street project is good for the City as a whole. That is actually not objective truth, that is, rather, your opinion.
No Emily, I’m assuming that more than 2/3 of the board approving the Austin Street project means that it is good for the city as a whole.
Someone told me once that every time he votes in Newton municipal elections, he feels like it’s a system of taxation without representation. I believe his point was that there are so many names on the ballot, with most of them unopposed, that people can’t possibly know all the candidates and make informed decisions, so essentially voters are just picking based on irrelevant information (his name sounds good, I think I’ve heard of her, his daughter goes to my kids’ school, etc.).
That’s the problem I think the Charter Commission should be–and most likely is–trying to fix. There are too many names on the ballot. Even staggering the terms of 24 councilors would leave a lot of names on the ballot. I’m not sure that eliminating ward positions is the answer but I think a smaller board would engage more voters on Election Day.
Someone told me once that every time he votes in Newton municipal elections, he feels like it’s a system of taxation without representation. I believe his point was that there are so many names on the ballot, with most of them unopposed, that people can’t possibly know all the candidates and make informed decisions, so essentially voters are just picking based on irrelevant information (his name sounds good, I think I’ve heard of her, his daughter goes to my kids’ school, etc.).
That’s the problem I think the Charter Commission should be–and most likely is–trying to fix. There are too many names on the ballot. Even staggering the terms of 24 councilors would leave a lot of names on the ballot. I’m not sure that eliminating ward positions is the answer but I think a smaller board would engage more voters on Election Day.
Fig. We don’t want being on the council to be a full time job. Given this, I don’t think doubling or halving the compensation will make very much difference. People don’t do this primarily for the money. I think most people don’t run because they think beating an incumbent is nearly impossible. I might be wrong and you might be right. Will we ever know the truth?
If I were Josh Krintzman I would use the CC budget to hire someone to collect data from every city in MA. I would call up Boston College and ask if a senior in Economics or Political Science or Management with a good statistics background wants to write their senior thesis on what determines the proportion of contested elections. I would ask them to estimate an ordinary least squares regression of the percentage of contested elections on the number of councilor seats, term limits, population size, and the compensation of the office. If you are correct the slope coefficient on compensation would be positive. If am correct it would be close to zero.
I am not Josh Krintzman. So, we will probably never know the answer.
Fig. We don’t want being on the council to be a full time job. Given this, I don’t think doubling or halving the compensation will make very much difference. People don’t do this primarily for the money. I think most people don’t run because they think beating an incumbent is nearly impossible. I might be wrong and you might be right. Will we ever know the truth?
If I were Josh Krintzman I would use the CC budget to hire someone to collect data from every city in MA. I would call up Boston College and ask if a senior in Economics or Political Science or Management with a good statistics background wants to write their senior thesis on what determines the proportion of contested elections. I would ask them to estimate an ordinary least squares regression of the percentage of contested elections on the number of councilor seats, term limits, population size, and the compensation of the office. If you are correct the slope coefficient on compensation would be positive. If am correct it would be close to zero.
I am not Josh Krintzman. So, we will probably never know the answer.
@Gail I’m here because I’m a friend of Greg and wanted to support his sorry blog before he had members. Never once have I stepped foot in city hall. Most here can run circles around me. But I do care about my neighborhood. So I’m prob a bit more average than most here.
@Gail I’m here because I’m a friend of Greg and wanted to support his sorry blog before he had members. Never once have I stepped foot in city hall. Most here can run circles around me. But I do care about my neighborhood. So I’m prob a bit more average than most here.
I’d really like clarification as to the legality of adding NOTA to local ballots in Massachusetts. Can anyone point me to a law prohibiting it? Other than rejected legislation that would have put NOTA on the ballot for all State elections, I can’t seem to find a specific law that prohibits NOTA being placed on local ballots.
I’d really like clarification as to the legality of adding NOTA to local ballots in Massachusetts. Can anyone point me to a law prohibiting it? Other than rejected legislation that would have put NOTA on the ballot for all State elections, I can’t seem to find a specific law that prohibits NOTA being placed on local ballots.
I question whether the stated goal, by some, of encouraging contested elections is genuine.
Dick Blazer beat a 30 year incumbant by walking door to door and spending practically no money.
It would be extremely unlikely he would have been able to win if it had been an at large race.
An at large race substacially increases the amount of money needed to have a real shot. Very exclusionary.
I question whether the stated goal, by some, of encouraging contested elections is genuine.
Dick Blazer beat a 30 year incumbant by walking door to door and spending practically no money.
It would be extremely unlikely he would have been able to win if it had been an at large race.
An at large race substacially increases the amount of money needed to have a real shot. Very exclusionary.
Jeffrey – I agree with much of what you have to say. A contested race forces the incumbent to articulate why s/he is the best person for the job, and that’s good for the community.
We have not completed the deliberations on the City Council; there are other issues to address in Article 2 (Legislative Branch) at the April 27th meeting.
Jeffrey – I agree with much of what you have to say. A contested race forces the incumbent to articulate why s/he is the best person for the job, and that’s good for the community.
We have not completed the deliberations on the City Council; there are other issues to address in Article 2 (Legislative Branch) at the April 27th meeting.
Why is this discussion largly focused on the politician/ candidate point of view? The number of reps should be determined by how many are needed to provide fair and timely representation and proper management of the city. What does it matter if seats are uncontested.
Why is this discussion largly focused on the politician/ candidate point of view? The number of reps should be determined by how many are needed to provide fair and timely representation and proper management of the city. What does it matter if seats are uncontested.
@Gail, you wrote “Ok Emily, I don’t think you were looking out for the good of the city with your opposition to Austin Street.”
The implication is that I had done a calculation and purposely decided to vote in such a way as to advantage Ward 2 but disadvantage the rest of the City, because I was fully aware that the passage of Austin Street was in the best interests of the City.
I am trying to point out that the assessment of the worthiness of the Austin Street project is not objective fact but rather subjective opinion, and that by opposing Austin Street I was deploying my own admittedly subjective opinion (as I am not, in fact, God) that the Austin Street project was bad for Ward 2 AND ALSO BAD FOR THE REST OF THE CITY. Thus, I held no split loyalties between Ward 2 and the rest of the City.
Now you can still think that my vote was wrong, and that’s fine. But that’s a separate point than to say that my vote on Austin Street demonstrates that Ward councilors consider the interests of their ward to the detriment of the City.
And I’m still waiting to hear why the converse isn’t true, that at-large councilors aren’t disproportionately likely to vote in such a way as to benefit the whole but harm the small group or ward. Or is it only ward councilors that wear blinders?
@Gail, you wrote “Ok Emily, I don’t think you were looking out for the good of the city with your opposition to Austin Street.”
The implication is that I had done a calculation and purposely decided to vote in such a way as to advantage Ward 2 but disadvantage the rest of the City, because I was fully aware that the passage of Austin Street was in the best interests of the City.
I am trying to point out that the assessment of the worthiness of the Austin Street project is not objective fact but rather subjective opinion, and that by opposing Austin Street I was deploying my own admittedly subjective opinion (as I am not, in fact, God) that the Austin Street project was bad for Ward 2 AND ALSO BAD FOR THE REST OF THE CITY. Thus, I held no split loyalties between Ward 2 and the rest of the City.
Now you can still think that my vote was wrong, and that’s fine. But that’s a separate point than to say that my vote on Austin Street demonstrates that Ward councilors consider the interests of their ward to the detriment of the City.
And I’m still waiting to hear why the converse isn’t true, that at-large councilors aren’t disproportionately likely to vote in such a way as to benefit the whole but harm the small group or ward. Or is it only ward councilors that wear blinders?
I looked into the law because I find it an intriguing option, especially given the high number of blank votes we have in each election. I’ll find it in and post it tomorrow.
I looked into the law because I find it an intriguing option, especially given the high number of blank votes we have in each election. I’ll find it in and post it tomorrow.
@Emily Don’t let @Gail bully you. You had to weigh all the varried considerations … ward and city and choose. There was no right answer … and if you did choose ward over city … so be it. I didn’t agree with your vote. However I believe you were elected to make decisions as you see fit. There is no loss of honor for voting ward over city if that is what you did.
@Mike Ciolino: I’m bullying? Excuse me but Emily wrote, “And if you think that by opposing Austin St, that I was not looking out for the good of the City, then please do come out and say it.” So, I did as she asked. I also praised her representation of her ward during that vote.
That was a completely unfair accusation.
@Emily Don’t let @Gail bully you. You had to weigh all the varried considerations … ward and city and choose. There was no right answer … and if you did choose ward over city … so be it. I didn’t agree with your vote. However I believe you were elected to make decisions as you see fit. There is no loss of honor for voting ward over city if that is what you did.
@Mike Ciolino: I’m bullying? Excuse me but Emily wrote, “And if you think that by opposing Austin St, that I was not looking out for the good of the City, then please do come out and say it.” So, I did as she asked. I also praised her representation of her ward during that vote.
That was a completely unfair accusation.
@Mike C – Thank you but… I really did vote for what I thought was best for both. Pinky promise, on a stack of bibles, on my ancestors’ graves, you name it.
@Mike C – Thank you but… I really did vote for what I thought was best for both. Pinky promise, on a stack of bibles, on my ancestors’ graves, you name it.
Not surprisingly, when a small group of similarly minded political insiders with a specifically defined and predetermined vision control the show, this is what happens.
That being said, regardless of one’s position on this, it’s important for us to recognize that the Charter Commission was elected to carry out a very important task that requires a broad range of skills. In my opinion, one of the most important of these skills is the ability to communicate. Consequently, to me at least, I find it unacceptable that we are nearly 140 comments into this thread and are yet to be offered a coherent reason as to why the Charter Commission unanimously voted to change one of the defining characteristics of American democracy. Since this was a unanimous decision, it should not be hard for someone like Bryan Barash to clearly spell out the pros, cons, and justifications. Given that this was not some simple vote, but instead a proposed substantive policy shift with significant implications, we should demand nothing less than an unambiguous explanation, grounded in fact – not opinion – as to why such a proposal is in Newton’s best interest.
Additionally, according to Gail’s logic re: Austin Street, when a legislative body makes a decision it is because it is in the community’s best interest. Therefore, according to that logic, when the North Carolina Legislature passed its recent anti-transgender law, it was because it was in the best interest of North Carolina. Obviously, that would be a ridiculous assumption, which is why it is important to point out that just because a legislative body passes something does not mean that it has assumed “best interest” status.
Some dismiss our charter commissioners as “political insiders.” I prefer the term “democratically elected.”
Not surprisingly, when a small group of similarly minded political insiders with a specifically defined and predetermined vision control the show, this is what happens.
That being said, regardless of one’s position on this, it’s important for us to recognize that the Charter Commission was elected to carry out a very important task that requires a broad range of skills. In my opinion, one of the most important of these skills is the ability to communicate. Consequently, to me at least, I find it unacceptable that we are nearly 140 comments into this thread and are yet to be offered a coherent reason as to why the Charter Commission unanimously voted to change one of the defining characteristics of American democracy. Since this was a unanimous decision, it should not be hard for someone like Bryan Barash to clearly spell out the pros, cons, and justifications. Given that this was not some simple vote, but instead a proposed substantive policy shift with significant implications, we should demand nothing less than an unambiguous explanation, grounded in fact – not opinion – as to why such a proposal is in Newton’s best interest.
Additionally, according to Gail’s logic re: Austin Street, when a legislative body makes a decision it is because it is in the community’s best interest. Therefore, according to that logic, when the North Carolina Legislature passed its recent anti-transgender law, it was because it was in the best interest of North Carolina. Obviously, that would be a ridiculous assumption, which is why it is important to point out that just because a legislative body passes something does not mean that it has assumed “best interest” status.
Some dismiss our charter commissioners as “political insiders.” I prefer the term “democratically elected.”
I do not agree at all with the recent straw vote decision on at-large representation by the Charter Review Commissioners, but I have been attending the Charter Commission meetings regularly. I may have missed one or two, but have listened to the recordings afterwards. What I can tell you unequivocally, is that the Commissioners are a group of honest, respectful, caring, extremely hard working and dedicated individuals who are doing their best to carry out their mission. I have not seen obvious agenda biases. Quite the opposite. The Commissioners whom I originally believed to be biased toward a smaller Council have spoken out about their reservations about shrinking… even though they didn’t straw vote that way.
I think the alternatives available to them are many and varied and that they have chosen one that they believe to be a compromise smaller model without truly appreciating how they would be empowering larger interests, rather than the People. Perhaps they are idealists who believe that viewing Newton through an “at-large” lens will free representatives to vote for healthy City-wide policies. They have failed to recognize that what makes Newton appealing to its residents is the uniqueness of its Villages within a weak “City” alliance with a strong Mayor, as opposed to the one they are envisioning which would impose regulations and changes from the top down. I personally don’t think it will be good for Newton. I think they believe it will be. Again…we can agree to disagree, respectfully. They may be wrong, but they are not evil!
I do not agree at all with the recent straw vote decision on at-large representation by the Charter Review Commissioners, but I have been attending the Charter Commission meetings regularly. I may have missed one or two, but have listened to the recordings afterwards. What I can tell you unequivocally, is that the Commissioners are a group of honest, respectful, caring, extremely hard working and dedicated individuals who are doing their best to carry out their mission. I have not seen obvious agenda biases. Quite the opposite. The Commissioners whom I originally believed to be biased toward a smaller Council have spoken out about their reservations about shrinking… even though they didn’t straw vote that way.
I think the alternatives available to them are many and varied and that they have chosen one that they believe to be a compromise smaller model without truly appreciating how they would be empowering larger interests, rather than the People. Perhaps they are idealists who believe that viewing Newton through an “at-large” lens will free representatives to vote for healthy City-wide policies. They have failed to recognize that what makes Newton appealing to its residents is the uniqueness of its Villages within a weak “City” alliance with a strong Mayor, as opposed to the one they are envisioning which would impose regulations and changes from the top down. I personally don’t think it will be good for Newton. I think they believe it will be. Again…we can agree to disagree, respectfully. They may be wrong, but they are not evil!
@Greg: perhaps democratically challenged. (Snarky…but I couldn’t resist).
@Greg: perhaps democratically challenged. (Snarky…but I couldn’t resist).
Excellent point by Tom Davis. If the definition of a good decision for the city is that a majority of the City Council voted for it… then MY BAD for thinking we screwed up on voting against solar carports because they’re “too ugly.”
(Though if the City Council majority decisions are that infallible… why change a thing?) :-)
Excellent point by Tom Davis. If the definition of a good decision for the city is that a majority of the City Council voted for it… then MY BAD for thinking we screwed up on voting against solar carports because they’re “too ugly.”
(Though if the City Council majority decisions are that infallible… why change a thing?) :-)
It seems all are in agreement about wanting “ward representation”. By creating a scenario in which all councilors are elected city wide, you are establishing a potential dynamic in which the person representing the ward, can fail to get a majority within their ward, and still be elected to represent them. Seems counter to the very premise.
There are other ways to reduce the overall size, without creating a dilemma of a ward being forced to be represented by someone they don’t want.
It seems all are in agreement about wanting “ward representation”. By creating a scenario in which all councilors are elected city wide, you are establishing a potential dynamic in which the person representing the ward, can fail to get a majority within their ward, and still be elected to represent them. Seems counter to the very premise.
There are other ways to reduce the overall size, without creating a dilemma of a ward being forced to be represented by someone they don’t want.
Emily is our ward hero, without her and a handful of a few others, the brinkmanship of extra last minute affordable units persevered to the dismay and rectitude of the outside-ward councilors. Checkpoint Emily well done.
Upside to this ‘at large’ representation proposal, the CC on this one point has invalidated the majority street voter opinion in such a way as to jeopardize the entire effort. I feel bad for truly honorable people such as Josh putting in the extraordinary tolerant effort in dealing with clearly a biased special interest subversively based political power play by the Women of the Golden Circle.
Emily is our ward hero, without her and a handful of a few others, the brinkmanship of extra last minute affordable units persevered to the dismay and rectitude of the outside-ward councilors. Checkpoint Emily well done.
Upside to this ‘at large’ representation proposal, the CC on this one point has invalidated the majority street voter opinion in such a way as to jeopardize the entire effort. I feel bad for truly honorable people such as Josh putting in the extraordinary tolerant effort in dealing with clearly a biased special interest subversively based political power play by the Women of the Golden Circle.
Its official. I am converted. Last night (as my earlier post implied) I was uncertain about Ward representation. After thinking about it, I think Ward Councilor representation is the way to go.
1) Voters are confronted with too many choices which often turns into apathy. If all races were Ward races, we could condense the voting decision for a particular voter to 3 or so races per election.
2) Elected officials stick together and actively campaign against challengers. If all races were Ward races, the “power” of an email from the Ward 12 Councilor telling me who to vote for in Ward 10, would be greatly diminished.
3) Familiarity benefits incumbents and is an obstacle to challengers. A challenger’s ability to shake hands and get to know the constituents in his Ward is much less daunting than pulling-an-Auchincloss and shaking everyone’s hand in the city.
4) Ward races work well as races as one position races. In a multi-position race like the current at-Large races, a ground-swell against a particular incumbent with minority support is muted. For example, let’s pretend the current Councilors from Ward 17 are Dorothy and the Wicked Witch of the West (WWW). The adorable Toto is thinking of running for Ward 17 at large. The WWW receives minority support from the evil winged monkeys, who will vote for neither Dorothy nor Toto. Toto is much better for Ward 17 than WWW, but she may decide to not run, because there is a chance she may defeat Dorothy instead of the WWW. Even if Toto does run, there is a chance that both Dorothy and Toto will not win, even if they both would win in individual races against WWW. Ken Arrow won the Noble Prize for this–Wikipedia “Arrow’s impossibility theorem.”
5) Going back to the last example, even if Toto runs in a three way race for two position, the information and public discourse produced in a three-way race is much different than a two-way race. In two way races that include an incumbent, more discussion focuses on the accomplishments and failings of the incumbent. In a three way race, this is less likely to happen. In my mind, these discussions are crucial and we should encourage them.
Its official. I am converted. Last night (as my earlier post implied) I was uncertain about Ward representation. After thinking about it, I think Ward Councilor representation is the way to go.
1) Voters are confronted with too many choices which often turns into apathy. If all races were Ward races, we could condense the voting decision for a particular voter to 3 or so races per election.
2) Elected officials stick together and actively campaign against challengers. If all races were Ward races, the “power” of an email from the Ward 12 Councilor telling me who to vote for in Ward 10, would be greatly diminished.
3) Familiarity benefits incumbents and is an obstacle to challengers. A challenger’s ability to shake hands and get to know the constituents in his Ward is much less daunting than pulling-an-Auchincloss and shaking everyone’s hand in the city.
4) Ward races work well as races as one position races. In a multi-position race like the current at-Large races, a ground-swell against a particular incumbent with minority support is muted. For example, let’s pretend the current Councilors from Ward 17 are Dorothy and the Wicked Witch of the West (WWW). The adorable Toto is thinking of running for Ward 17 at large. The WWW receives minority support from the evil winged monkeys, who will vote for neither Dorothy nor Toto. Toto is much better for Ward 17 than WWW, but she may decide to not run, because there is a chance she may defeat Dorothy instead of the WWW. Even if Toto does run, there is a chance that both Dorothy and Toto will not win, even if they both would win in individual races against WWW. Ken Arrow won the Noble Prize for this–Wikipedia “Arrow’s impossibility theorem.”
5) Going back to the last example, even if Toto runs in a three way race for two position, the information and public discourse produced in a three-way race is much different than a two-way race. In two way races that include an incumbent, more discussion focuses on the accomplishments and failings of the incumbent. In a three way race, this is less likely to happen. In my mind, these discussions are crucial and we should encourage them.
It would seem that the will of the majority of over-informed voters on this blog not only favor keeping the Ward Councilors, but see it as critical. During the entire campaign for CC not one person running ever even suggested that Ward Councilors be eliminated. It was always about the total number.
Interestingly, there’s been very little pushback to the actual number of Councilors. I think you could probably get people to agree on almost any reduced number if you keep the Ward election intact. And it would be considered a win by a lot of people who don’t want to see 9 well-meaning volunteers waste 18 months of genuine effort.
Someone on the CC should move to reconsider/re-open the topic in a very public way. They would be doing a great service in enhancing the credibility and likely success of any new Charter being approved. Right now, it’s sounding DOA.
Who will step up on the CC and make that motion…perhaps there’s one or two who had issues with the vote, but for the sake of being unanimous went along with it?
…even Toto is calling for a “paws” in the action.
It would seem that the will of the majority of over-informed voters on this blog not only favor keeping the Ward Councilors, but see it as critical. During the entire campaign for CC not one person running ever even suggested that Ward Councilors be eliminated. It was always about the total number.
Interestingly, there’s been very little pushback to the actual number of Councilors. I think you could probably get people to agree on almost any reduced number if you keep the Ward election intact. And it would be considered a win by a lot of people who don’t want to see 9 well-meaning volunteers waste 18 months of genuine effort.
Someone on the CC should move to reconsider/re-open the topic in a very public way. They would be doing a great service in enhancing the credibility and likely success of any new Charter being approved. Right now, it’s sounding DOA.
Who will step up on the CC and make that motion…perhaps there’s one or two who had issues with the vote, but for the sake of being unanimous went along with it?
…even Toto is calling for a “paws” in the action.
Charlie-I repeat: 29 people have commented on this thread. Village 14 is not a barometer of community sentiment. The vast majority of residents make their views known in a different way.
Charlie-I repeat: 29 people have commented on this thread. Village 14 is not a barometer of community sentiment. The vast majority of residents make their views known in a different way.
How?
How?
Jane. I agree this thread is not a barometer of community sentiment, but neither are the comments that get emailed to CC nor are the comments during the CC’s open mic time. Assessing community support is tricky. Most people probably don’t care and for that matter most people don’t vote.
Jane. I agree this thread is not a barometer of community sentiment, but neither are the comments that get emailed to CC nor are the comments during the CC’s open mic time. Assessing community support is tricky. Most people probably don’t care and for that matter most people don’t vote.
Jeffrey-Agreed on all counts. At this point in my life, I can’t leave my house without hearing an opinion on a variety of issues and you’d be amazed at the variety of options residents have considered, asked about, and advocated for. I enjoy the conversations – they’ve been thoughtful and informative and the tone has been respectful and civil.
Jeffrey-Agreed on all counts. At this point in my life, I can’t leave my house without hearing an opinion on a variety of issues and you’d be amazed at the variety of options residents have considered, asked about, and advocated for. I enjoy the conversations – they’ve been thoughtful and informative and the tone has been respectful and civil.
When I made my off-the-cuff remark about NIMBYism being a byproduct of local voting, I implied that it was a bad thing. (And thinking of the whole Engine 6 kerfuffle, with the ugly mischaracterization of homeless people as being sex offenders and drug addicts, it certainly can be a bad thing.)
But we do need representatives who are responsive to their constituents on local issues, and Councillor Norton’s stance on Austin Street is a perfect example of this.
When I made my off-the-cuff remark about NIMBYism being a byproduct of local voting, I implied that it was a bad thing. (And thinking of the whole Engine 6 kerfuffle, with the ugly mischaracterization of homeless people as being sex offenders and drug addicts, it certainly can be a bad thing.)
But we do need representatives who are responsive to their constituents on local issues, and Councillor Norton’s stance on Austin Street is a perfect example of this.
@Jane,
@Charlie’s didn’t suggest that this blog was a barometer of community sentiment.
What is the most alarming to me is that this commission (and I don’t know who they are) voted unanimously to move away from Ward representation, which seems to me to be a critical element of our city’s government.
This seems so wrong to me that I’ve posted to this conversation multiple times. I’m not a regular here, I forget to read my newspaper for weeks at a time, I’m not an insider – But I have been a resident, homeowner and business owner here for 16 years and I don’t understand how a commission of people who I assume are qualified to evaluate such issues unanimously opposed a position that to me is so critically important to the running of our city’s government.
Simply put I need my ward representative.
Newton is vast and diverse. The concerns and vision of residents living in Newton Corner vs Chestnut Hill vs Upper Falls can be very different. A wealthier, more suburban, less urban, less dense, quieter newton vs the latter.
In this past year, I have felt more than once that the concerns and vision of residents here in West Newton did not align with “the city” as a whole. and this dynamic shows up in public policy all the time. If Newton were more homogeneous, maybe this would work. But we’re not, and we can’t pretend that we are.
So, yes, please, the public needs to weigh in here.
Mike
@Jane,
@Charlie’s didn’t suggest that this blog was a barometer of community sentiment.
What is the most alarming to me is that this commission (and I don’t know who they are) voted unanimously to move away from Ward representation, which seems to me to be a critical element of our city’s government.
This seems so wrong to me that I’ve posted to this conversation multiple times. I’m not a regular here, I forget to read my newspaper for weeks at a time, I’m not an insider – But I have been a resident, homeowner and business owner here for 16 years and I don’t understand how a commission of people who I assume are qualified to evaluate such issues unanimously opposed a position that to me is so critically important to the running of our city’s government.
Simply put I need my ward representative.
Newton is vast and diverse. The concerns and vision of residents living in Newton Corner vs Chestnut Hill vs Upper Falls can be very different. A wealthier, more suburban, less urban, less dense, quieter newton vs the latter.
In this past year, I have felt more than once that the concerns and vision of residents here in West Newton did not align with “the city” as a whole. and this dynamic shows up in public policy all the time. If Newton were more homogeneous, maybe this would work. But we’re not, and we can’t pretend that we are.
So, yes, please, the public needs to weigh in here.
Mike
Harry, what’s with this appellation of the League of Women Voters as being “the Women of the Golden Circle”? You seem to enjoy playing the role of the Chorus in a Greek tragedy, but are those august ladies really akin to members of a 19th Century pro-slavery secret society?
Harry, what’s with this appellation of the League of Women Voters as being “the Women of the Golden Circle”? You seem to enjoy playing the role of the Chorus in a Greek tragedy, but are those august ladies really akin to members of a 19th Century pro-slavery secret society?
Councilor Yates…city councilors from both Somerville and Quincy were invited to participate in the forum, but were unable to be there. We invited councilors from cities of comparable size to talk about how their smaller city councils function. They were not invited because of their “comprehension of what’s going on in Newton”. Those who participated on the panel are extremely busy people who generously gave up an evening of their lives to offer a service to Newton. They had no stake in the process and got nothing in return. I’m troubled by your attempts to discredit them.
Councilor Yates…city councilors from both Somerville and Quincy were invited to participate in the forum, but were unable to be there. We invited councilors from cities of comparable size to talk about how their smaller city councils function. They were not invited because of their “comprehension of what’s going on in Newton”. Those who participated on the panel are extremely busy people who generously gave up an evening of their lives to offer a service to Newton. They had no stake in the process and got nothing in return. I’m troubled by your attempts to discredit them.
The members of the commission decided(in a straw vote) the size of the board needed to be reduced. Separate from that is if ward representation ( under current rules) is a good or bad idea.
The members of the commission need to explain why each ward holding an election for a ward councilor is bad for the city.
You can just as easily reduce the size of the board and maintain both types of elections.
In all the years, while I have constantly heard about the need to reduce the size, I can not recall a single time anyone called for the elimination of the ward councilor(alderman)
Where is the Commission coming up with this stuff?
Do they have their pulse on the sentiment of the city, or are they out of touch.
Greg mentioned a wait and see, not trying to prognosticate what the average voter will do.
We are spending a lot of money on this project, and it needs to be done right. If this gets voted down, I am not so sure the voters are likely to give another opportunity anytime soon.
I would like to ask a member of the commission to explain where this idea of eliminating the ward councilor originated from.
The members of the commission decided(in a straw vote) the size of the board needed to be reduced. Separate from that is if ward representation ( under current rules) is a good or bad idea.
The members of the commission need to explain why each ward holding an election for a ward councilor is bad for the city.
You can just as easily reduce the size of the board and maintain both types of elections.
In all the years, while I have constantly heard about the need to reduce the size, I can not recall a single time anyone called for the elimination of the ward councilor(alderman)
Where is the Commission coming up with this stuff?
Do they have their pulse on the sentiment of the city, or are they out of touch.
Greg mentioned a wait and see, not trying to prognosticate what the average voter will do.
We are spending a lot of money on this project, and it needs to be done right. If this gets voted down, I am not so sure the voters are likely to give another opportunity anytime soon.
I would like to ask a member of the commission to explain where this idea of eliminating the ward councilor originated from.
I can only speak for Ward 5, but even the slimmest chance that John Rice could be replaced as our Ward Councilor for a watered down hybrid ward and city wide system is going to be a non starter here. I suspect the same is true for every other current Ward Councilor. To the best of my knowledge, each of them has a strong record of grass roots constituency service that is deeply appreciated by the voters they serve; but I don’t believe any of them are so parochial that they can’t also focus in on items that are of importance to the entire City.
@Bob: I’m a big John Rice fan too. And I greatly admire many of our other ward and at-large councilors as well. But I caution everyone to not think about the individuals involved when considering our best form of government. A charter should outlive us all. The question needs to be “what’s the best system of governance long term, not next term?”
I can only speak for Ward 5, but even the slimmest chance that John Rice could be replaced as our Ward Councilor for a watered down hybrid ward and city wide system is going to be a non starter here. I suspect the same is true for every other current Ward Councilor. To the best of my knowledge, each of them has a strong record of grass roots constituency service that is deeply appreciated by the voters they serve; but I don’t believe any of them are so parochial that they can’t also focus in on items that are of importance to the entire City.
@Bob: I’m a big John Rice fan too. And I greatly admire many of our other ward and at-large councilors as well. But I caution everyone to not think about the individuals involved when considering our best form of government. A charter should outlive us all. The question needs to be “what’s the best system of governance long term, not next term?”
I wondered whether at-large versus local voting would have led to different results in last November’s city elections, so I looked at the numbers for the contested at-large races. The same councilors would have been elected, but the #1 and #2 positions would have been switched in some cases.
I wondered whether at-large versus local voting would have led to different results in last November’s city elections, so I looked at the numbers for the contested at-large races. The same councilors would have been elected, but the #1 and #2 positions would have been switched in some cases.
So what is the argument against ward voted representation? In order to answer the question what is the best system, we need to understand why the CC has decided to eliminate all ward voted representation. That is question that needs to be answered: how has that been bad for the governance of Newton all these years?
So what is the argument against ward voted representation? In order to answer the question what is the best system, we need to understand why the CC has decided to eliminate all ward voted representation. That is question that needs to be answered: how has that been bad for the governance of Newton all these years?
I agree with Greg’s formulation of the question. I think a 100% at-large system is a step backward. There’s a reason at-large systems have been found to violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am certainly not suggesting any racially discriminatory intent or effect here, but the fact remains that at-large systems promote the tyranny of the majority. I hope the CC rethinks this early on.
I agree with Greg’s formulation of the question. I think a 100% at-large system is a step backward. There’s a reason at-large systems have been found to violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I am certainly not suggesting any racially discriminatory intent or effect here, but the fact remains that at-large systems promote the tyranny of the majority. I hope the CC rethinks this early on.
To answer Rihanna and Greg thought I clearly stated that I clearly stated that the Waltham Councillor described a system, that is clearly more “inefficient and ineffective” than our current system.
NINE Committees including the Committee of the whole that meet the same night as the full Council is a bizarre arrangement.. He admitted that he steers items away from the Committee of the Whole because this Committee has hard time handling them to his satisfaction.
I don’t think we can really learn anything about Governmental Structure
from our neighbor to the North though I think Waltham’s regard for its history is inspiring.. The slogan that “America’s History is Our History” on one of the gateways to the city is very touching. The fact that they have two sites that are Partnership Sites of the Naional Trusty for Historic Preservation as well as a city Museum and the industrial sites along the Charles that triggered the American Industrial Revolution is something that should be emulated. Not their Council structure.
The thing bothered me almost as much as the NINE Committees meeting on the same night as The full Council was the staffing. If I understood him correctly, only three of these are staffed by people under the Control of the the Council. Others are staffed by Department Heads who work for the Mayor. In any local government or government at any level, the legislative body should have its own staff to follow up on its concerns. The basis principles of separation of powers and checks balances that should be taught in American History or Civic Education are absent from this arrangement. Even in the best of circumstances, a Mayoral appointtee will respond to the concerns of her supervisor before those of her colleagues from every other Monday night.
The Councillor from Medford (?) varied between praise for his city’s system and reasonable questions as to why the Commission had invited him. The Councillor from Everett was asked by a Commissioner which body in his city gave out Special Permits. He responded briskly that the Building Department did. Only after a careful explanation of the very obvious question that should have been included in the invitation to him, he opined that it was the Zoning Committe. I don’t remember anything that the fourth panelist said that was relevevant to the topic at hand.
I’m not casting aspersions on these communities or these individuals.,I’m simply saying that they offered nothing that appeared to lay the groundwork for the Straw Vote the next night to remove one of the cornerstones of our government structure and one that just might have contributed to Newton’s rating by Money Magazine as the Fourth Best Place to live in the country. Perhaps their invitations were not clear as to the Commission’s expectations.
I ‘m pleased to learn that Somerville and Quincy were invited to participate but baffled why the Commission didn’t wait until a time when they could attend. Somerville’s cutting edge zoning and pattern books clearly inspired the RFP for Phase 2 of Zoning Reform. in Newton. Their insight as to how it was developed in Somerville might have been extremely relevant to the deliberations of the Comission Similarly, Quincy has had a difficult time implementing a redevelopment of its historic downtown . Perhaps we could have learned from their experience and proposed Charter changes that could avoid the problems that they faced. Given our long deliberations on the re development of the Riverside transit terminal and the fact that it was gone nowhere since it was approved, we could have learned something from the Quincy Council on the difficulties they have had with the Red Line terminating in their city like the Green Line does in ours.
I’m sorry to drone on so long on just the topics in this thread, but my attempts to share my concerns with the Commission through oral and written testimony appear to have been “inefficient and ineffective.” Are the written comments that I submitted to the Commission on its website? Is an easy link available?
To briefly return to the Ward Councillor cut issue, I’d like to suggest again the alternative that I offered at the Commissions’s first hearing. Staggered four year terms for Councilors at Large. Therefore Each Alderman at Large could stand for election by herself and voters who were dissatisfied could vote against her or even run against her. This would significantly reduce that voter confusion that has been cited as the best reason for Charter
Change. I f a voter were dissatisfied with my performance in office or my turgid posts on Village 14, he could vote against me without fear of striking down another Councillor at Large more to his liking..
I never suspected that the Commission would propose a combination of at large by Ward and totally at large. To read the comments above, no body else outside the Commissioners did either.
Happy Patriots Day
Former Alderman at Large/Current Councillor at Large from Ward Five but voted on by the whole city Brian Yates
To answer Rihanna and Greg thought I clearly stated that I clearly stated that the Waltham Councillor described a system, that is clearly more “inefficient and ineffective” than our current system.
NINE Committees including the Committee of the whole that meet the same night as the full Council is a bizarre arrangement.. He admitted that he steers items away from the Committee of the Whole because this Committee has hard time handling them to his satisfaction.
I don’t think we can really learn anything about Governmental Structure
from our neighbor to the North though I think Waltham’s regard for its history is inspiring.. The slogan that “America’s History is Our History” on one of the gateways to the city is very touching. The fact that they have two sites that are Partnership Sites of the Naional Trusty for Historic Preservation as well as a city Museum and the industrial sites along the Charles that triggered the American Industrial Revolution is something that should be emulated. Not their Council structure.
The thing bothered me almost as much as the NINE Committees meeting on the same night as The full Council was the staffing. If I understood him correctly, only three of these are staffed by people under the Control of the the Council. Others are staffed by Department Heads who work for the Mayor. In any local government or government at any level, the legislative body should have its own staff to follow up on its concerns. The basis principles of separation of powers and checks balances that should be taught in American History or Civic Education are absent from this arrangement. Even in the best of circumstances, a Mayoral appointtee will respond to the concerns of her supervisor before those of her colleagues from every other Monday night.
The Councillor from Medford (?) varied between praise for his city’s system and reasonable questions as to why the Commission had invited him. The Councillor from Everett was asked by a Commissioner which body in his city gave out Special Permits. He responded briskly that the Building Department did. Only after a careful explanation of the very obvious question that should have been included in the invitation to him, he opined that it was the Zoning Committe. I don’t remember anything that the fourth panelist said that was relevevant to the topic at hand.
I’m not casting aspersions on these communities or these individuals.,I’m simply saying that they offered nothing that appeared to lay the groundwork for the Straw Vote the next night to remove one of the cornerstones of our government structure and one that just might have contributed to Newton’s rating by Money Magazine as the Fourth Best Place to live in the country. Perhaps their invitations were not clear as to the Commission’s expectations.
I ‘m pleased to learn that Somerville and Quincy were invited to participate but baffled why the Commission didn’t wait until a time when they could attend. Somerville’s cutting edge zoning and pattern books clearly inspired the RFP for Phase 2 of Zoning Reform. in Newton. Their insight as to how it was developed in Somerville might have been extremely relevant to the deliberations of the Comission Similarly, Quincy has had a difficult time implementing a redevelopment of its historic downtown . Perhaps we could have learned from their experience and proposed Charter changes that could avoid the problems that they faced. Given our long deliberations on the re development of the Riverside transit terminal and the fact that it was gone nowhere since it was approved, we could have learned something from the Quincy Council on the difficulties they have had with the Red Line terminating in their city like the Green Line does in ours.
I’m sorry to drone on so long on just the topics in this thread, but my attempts to share my concerns with the Commission through oral and written testimony appear to have been “inefficient and ineffective.” Are the written comments that I submitted to the Commission on its website? Is an easy link available?
To briefly return to the Ward Councillor cut issue, I’d like to suggest again the alternative that I offered at the Commissions’s first hearing. Staggered four year terms for Councilors at Large. Therefore Each Alderman at Large could stand for election by herself and voters who were dissatisfied could vote against her or even run against her. This would significantly reduce that voter confusion that has been cited as the best reason for Charter
Change. I f a voter were dissatisfied with my performance in office or my turgid posts on Village 14, he could vote against me without fear of striking down another Councillor at Large more to his liking..
I never suspected that the Commission would propose a combination of at large by Ward and totally at large. To read the comments above, no body else outside the Commissioners did either.
Happy Patriots Day
Former Alderman at Large/Current Councillor at Large from Ward Five but voted on by the whole city Brian Yates
Good to see that Upper Falls Neighborhood Councillor Kathy Winters has joined Highlands Councilor Bob Burke and Waban Council President Sallee Lipchitz has frequent Village 14 contributors. I hope the Commission will keep the thoughtfulness of their contributions as well as the effectievness and efficiency of their Council in mind when they get to the relevant part of the Charter? Or has the Commission already correctly voted down elimination of the Neighborhood Area Councils.
Brian Yates (frequento observer of the Councils including last Thursday’s joint meeting of the Highlands and Waban Councils on Zervas Transportation Issues)
Good to see that Upper Falls Neighborhood Councillor Kathy Winters has joined Highlands Councilor Bob Burke and Waban Council President Sallee Lipchitz has frequent Village 14 contributors. I hope the Commission will keep the thoughtfulness of their contributions as well as the effectievness and efficiency of their Council in mind when they get to the relevant part of the Charter? Or has the Commission already correctly voted down elimination of the Neighborhood Area Councils.
Brian Yates (frequento observer of the Councils including last Thursday’s joint meeting of the Highlands and Waban Councils on Zervas Transportation Issues)
Brian-
The Commission is scheduled to address Article 9: Area Councils in September. I’m presently visiting a meeting of each of the area councils in preparation for that meeting. Next month is the Upper Falls Area Councils and I plan to speak to Bob Burke tonight to set a date to visit the Highlands Area Council. I’ve also attended a meeting of the Lower Falls Neighborhood Association and would enjoy visiting other neighborhood groups as well.
Brian-
The Commission is scheduled to address Article 9: Area Councils in September. I’m presently visiting a meeting of each of the area councils in preparation for that meeting. Next month is the Upper Falls Area Councils and I plan to speak to Bob Burke tonight to set a date to visit the Highlands Area Council. I’ve also attended a meeting of the Lower Falls Neighborhood Association and would enjoy visiting other neighborhood groups as well.
Jane:
While you are visiting other neighborhood groups, please keep in mind that the Area Councils are not simple, neighborhood groups. They are legitimately elected representation of the registered voters within their catchments areas. This gives them access to Department Heads, Councilors and the Mayor’s Office that un-elected bodies may or may not be able to gain in a manner that is timely when needed. They are also an effective conduit between City Hall and their constituents on area-specific issues.
Jane:
While you are visiting other neighborhood groups, please keep in mind that the Area Councils are not simple, neighborhood groups. They are legitimately elected representation of the registered voters within their catchments areas. This gives them access to Department Heads, Councilors and the Mayor’s Office that un-elected bodies may or may not be able to gain in a manner that is timely when needed. They are also an effective conduit between City Hall and their constituents on area-specific issues.
Absolutely, Sallee. My intent in visiting neighborhood groups is to be inclusive because I know they also do a great deal to enhance city life. The area councils are definitely different in their structure and scope of responsibility.
The current Article 9 was written in a vacuum – area councils didn’t exist in 1970. It’s time to update the article to reflect their place in the community into the future.
Absolutely, Sallee. My intent in visiting neighborhood groups is to be inclusive because I know they also do a great deal to enhance city life. The area councils are definitely different in their structure and scope of responsibility.
The current Article 9 was written in a vacuum – area councils didn’t exist in 1970. It’s time to update the article to reflect their place in the community into the future.
@Mike Ciolino wrote “Newton is vast and diverse. The concerns and vision of residents living in Newton Corner vs Chestnut Hill vs Upper Falls can be very different. A wealthier, more suburban, less urban, less dense, quieter newton vs the latter.”
This is very very important point. People with more money have more voice in Newton, as they have everywhere. That is why we don’t have Full Day Kindergarten, because it is not as valued (or even supported) by wealthier families, and they have more time & capacity to advocate for their point of view, as compared to the working families, immigrant families, single parent-headed families, who would benefit enormously from it.
That is also why we persist in barring parking overnight in the winter months even when there is not a speck of snow on the ground. As one of my colleagues on the South side put it, “We have long driveways, so we don’t care.”
You get rid of ward councilors, you make it that much harder for the disenfranchised — and yes there are plenty, even in Newton – to have a voice.
@Mike Ciolino wrote “Newton is vast and diverse. The concerns and vision of residents living in Newton Corner vs Chestnut Hill vs Upper Falls can be very different. A wealthier, more suburban, less urban, less dense, quieter newton vs the latter.”
This is very very important point. People with more money have more voice in Newton, as they have everywhere. That is why we don’t have Full Day Kindergarten, because it is not as valued (or even supported) by wealthier families, and they have more time & capacity to advocate for their point of view, as compared to the working families, immigrant families, single parent-headed families, who would benefit enormously from it.
That is also why we persist in barring parking overnight in the winter months even when there is not a speck of snow on the ground. As one of my colleagues on the South side put it, “We have long driveways, so we don’t care.”
You get rid of ward councilors, you make it that much harder for the disenfranchised — and yes there are plenty, even in Newton – to have a voice.
@Emily
In case you’ve missed it, I’d appreciate your input on the Cabot thread. A bit concerning to hear the latest developments, and Susan Albright mentioned you specifically.
@Emily
In case you’ve missed it, I’d appreciate your input on the Cabot thread. A bit concerning to hear the latest developments, and Susan Albright mentioned you specifically.
@Emily Thanks for expanding on my point. Winter parking ban is a great example … the override and new water rate structure were other examples where i felt my concerns and interests as a homeowner were less important than the other Newton. I think this dynamic is to be expected, however we need to be mindful not to set up a structure that creates an even greater imbalance of power between the two Newtons. This is what moving to an all at large system would do.
@Emily Thanks for expanding on my point. Winter parking ban is a great example … the override and new water rate structure were other examples where i felt my concerns and interests as a homeowner were less important than the other Newton. I think this dynamic is to be expected, however we need to be mindful not to set up a structure that creates an even greater imbalance of power between the two Newtons. This is what moving to an all at large system would do.
@Mike, exactly.
And since the CC members are very well versed and would clearly understand the power imbalance of which you speak…it would be reasonable to conclude that they find the imbalance acceptable or desireable.
Both of which seem counterintuitive. So there must be something else at work here.
A “long driveway” charter is not in the best interest of our diverse city.
@Mike, exactly.
And since the CC members are very well versed and would clearly understand the power imbalance of which you speak…it would be reasonable to conclude that they find the imbalance acceptable or desireable.
Both of which seem counterintuitive. So there must be something else at work here.
A “long driveway” charter is not in the best interest of our diverse city.
It sounds as if the way the charter commission is setting this up, that you could potentially have a near majority of councilors from one ward. It would be possible to have 6 of the 13 from a single ward.
You certainly could easily concentrate power in a few wards.
The more I look at this, the less I understand the thought process behind it.
It sounds as if the way the charter commission is setting this up, that you could potentially have a near majority of councilors from one ward. It would be possible to have 6 of the 13 from a single ward.
You certainly could easily concentrate power in a few wards.
The more I look at this, the less I understand the thought process behind it.
Is it safe to assume the charter omission has been following this conversation?
Is it safe to assume the charter omission has been following this conversation?
This thread gives me hope.
For a brief moment, I thought the city will organize and push this down everyone’s throat using resources and apparatus from big organization groups.
However, after seeing Emily, Charlie and Yates speaking so eloquently and convincingly, I feel hopeful an opposition will get organized. And as long as CC members do not justify their decision and provide transparency, the residents will oppose it (again my hope).
I wish it was not that way. I truly believe Newton will benefit from a smaller, more accountable Council, and from more contested elections.
PS – @Jane – According to the audio of sessions – the CC has not received many more letters than the 24 people commenting here. Please correct if wrong.
PPS – CC Yates – Could you please post your letter to the CC here.
This thread gives me hope.
For a brief moment, I thought the city will organize and push this down everyone’s throat using resources and apparatus from big organization groups.
However, after seeing Emily, Charlie and Yates speaking so eloquently and convincingly, I feel hopeful an opposition will get organized. And as long as CC members do not justify their decision and provide transparency, the residents will oppose it (again my hope).
I wish it was not that way. I truly believe Newton will benefit from a smaller, more accountable Council, and from more contested elections.
PS – @Jane – According to the audio of sessions – the CC has not received many more letters than the 24 people commenting here. Please correct if wrong.
PPS – CC Yates – Could you please post your letter to the CC here.
There is a compromise that might address both the longstanding desire to downsize the City Council and also provide local representation, for the reasons stated above. Candidly, I was surprised that the Charter Commission went this far, but I am somewhat sympathetic to the concern about councilors chairing important committees or presiding over the Council when they are elected by less than 2% of registered voters. I would support reducing the size of the Council to 12, with 8 at large from each of the wards and 4 district councilors who are elected from within a district comprising a quarter of the city. That would maintain the current proportion of local and at large representation but would, in my view, make the Council more efficient and accountable, since local representatives would be elected by at least a quarter of the city.
Just my two cents.
There is a compromise that might address both the longstanding desire to downsize the City Council and also provide local representation, for the reasons stated above. Candidly, I was surprised that the Charter Commission went this far, but I am somewhat sympathetic to the concern about councilors chairing important committees or presiding over the Council when they are elected by less than 2% of registered voters. I would support reducing the size of the Council to 12, with 8 at large from each of the wards and 4 district councilors who are elected from within a district comprising a quarter of the city. That would maintain the current proportion of local and at large representation but would, in my view, make the Council more efficient and accountable, since local representatives would be elected by at least a quarter of the city.
Just my two cents.
Neil-We receive input from people in many ways. The city website in one way but in terms of numbers, it’s generated a bit more traffic than V14 but not much. When I attend events or run into folks while doing my daily business, people talk to me about various charter related issues. Since September, I’ve had coffee with many people and those extended conversations have been helpful.
In addition, during the campaign in the fall, I was out most evenings and on weekends talking to people whom I’d never met before. I was advised that canvassing was a waste of time, but I never think it is. It’s the best way to meet people you’ve never met before and who aren’t involved in city politics so I canvassed quite a bit. All in all, I can tell you we’ve received a great deal of input from many constituencies throughout the city about many issues.
Of the 22 candidates who ran for the Commission, 6 lived in ward 5, 6 lived in ward 2, 6 lived in ward 6. One strong sentiment people I heard from all over the city was that not more than 2 people from a ward should be on the Commission. As it turns out, 2 people from wards 2, 5, and 6 were elected. The candidates who ran as singles from a ward were elected with one exception.
Neil-We receive input from people in many ways. The city website in one way but in terms of numbers, it’s generated a bit more traffic than V14 but not much. When I attend events or run into folks while doing my daily business, people talk to me about various charter related issues. Since September, I’ve had coffee with many people and those extended conversations have been helpful.
In addition, during the campaign in the fall, I was out most evenings and on weekends talking to people whom I’d never met before. I was advised that canvassing was a waste of time, but I never think it is. It’s the best way to meet people you’ve never met before and who aren’t involved in city politics so I canvassed quite a bit. All in all, I can tell you we’ve received a great deal of input from many constituencies throughout the city about many issues.
Of the 22 candidates who ran for the Commission, 6 lived in ward 5, 6 lived in ward 2, 6 lived in ward 6. One strong sentiment people I heard from all over the city was that not more than 2 people from a ward should be on the Commission. As it turns out, 2 people from wards 2, 5, and 6 were elected. The candidates who ran as singles from a ward were elected with one exception.
Ted – That was one of the scenarios we considered and it’s an intriguing idea with virtually no community support. The concern was that it would involve combining villages or wards into a district and residents had no interest in doing that.
In truth, this was the compromise position. No one on V14 wants to hear it, but many residents have been advocating for an 8/9 member Council.
Ted – That was one of the scenarios we considered and it’s an intriguing idea with virtually no community support. The concern was that it would involve combining villages or wards into a district and residents had no interest in doing that.
In truth, this was the compromise position. No one on V14 wants to hear it, but many residents have been advocating for an 8/9 member Council.
@Ted
“I am somewhat sympathetic to the concern about councilors chairing important committees or presiding over the Council when they are elected by less than 2% of registered voters. ”
Another alternative would be to restrict CC chairmanships to at-large reps, while still having ward representation. I think you need an odd number of total councilors. I could support 8 ward, 5 at-large, with the latter running the CC and committees. It would heighten the importance of the at-large positions, encouraging seasoned ward reps to consider at-large bids to pursue broader roles.
@Jane
I assume the Commission wants to put forth a proposal that has a reasonable chance of passing. Irrespective of the merits on both sides, this proposal on CC structure is clearly controversial. How does the Commission plan to seek out feedback to ensure they aren’t putting forth a proposal that gets sunk by one component of the proposed changes?
@Ted
“I am somewhat sympathetic to the concern about councilors chairing important committees or presiding over the Council when they are elected by less than 2% of registered voters. ”
Another alternative would be to restrict CC chairmanships to at-large reps, while still having ward representation. I think you need an odd number of total councilors. I could support 8 ward, 5 at-large, with the latter running the CC and committees. It would heighten the importance of the at-large positions, encouraging seasoned ward reps to consider at-large bids to pursue broader roles.
@Jane
I assume the Commission wants to put forth a proposal that has a reasonable chance of passing. Irrespective of the merits on both sides, this proposal on CC structure is clearly controversial. How does the Commission plan to seek out feedback to ensure they aren’t putting forth a proposal that gets sunk by one component of the proposed changes?
@Ted, you will notice that fig and I separately had floated [earlier on this thread] an 8/4 makeup, to replace the 16/8 now in place. I took that 1 step further to suggest adding a 13th at-large with no residency restriction. The ward position would get elected by 2 wards instead of 1.
I’m in favor of term limits for the city council, but do think an existing councilor should have the clock reset to zero.
I’ve also felt all along that only at-large councilors should be eligible for committee chairs, but would worry about that more if there’s only 8 or 9 of them.
Having said all that, I don’t feel the arrangement the charter commission has floated is a bad one, and unlike some, I’d view a unanimous vote on that to be a reflection of their take based on lots of input from both within and without Newton. Sooner or later, when all the pieces of the charter equation are sorted out, they will presumably visit the issue of what changes have the highest priority and whether the package is salable to the community.
@Ted, you will notice that fig and I separately had floated [earlier on this thread] an 8/4 makeup, to replace the 16/8 now in place. I took that 1 step further to suggest adding a 13th at-large with no residency restriction. The ward position would get elected by 2 wards instead of 1.
I’m in favor of term limits for the city council, but do think an existing councilor should have the clock reset to zero.
I’ve also felt all along that only at-large councilors should be eligible for committee chairs, but would worry about that more if there’s only 8 or 9 of them.
Having said all that, I don’t feel the arrangement the charter commission has floated is a bad one, and unlike some, I’d view a unanimous vote on that to be a reflection of their take based on lots of input from both within and without Newton. Sooner or later, when all the pieces of the charter equation are sorted out, they will presumably visit the issue of what changes have the highest priority and whether the package is salable to the community.
Paul – Every proposal on the size and configuration of the Council is controversial. That’s a given.
Paul – Every proposal on the size and configuration of the Council is controversial. That’s a given.
RE: Term Limits … I would appreciate hearing an argument in favor of term limits … It seems to me that if a city councilor is passionate, hard-working, effective, and most importantly elected by constituents at regular intervals they should be allowed to serve as many terms as the people want them to.
The only arguments I can construe in favor of term limits is “new blood/new ideas” or “to give others a chance” … Both of which put personal politics and aspiration ahead of the core democratic principles.
From a constituent’s standpoint, if my rep is doing a great job, I don’t care if he’s there for a lifetime. I don’t think democracy requires us to give others a turn …. unless of course they can unseat him/her in an election.
It seems to me that a supporter of term limits either has political aspirations or fears enduring lengthy representation of someone they disagree with … Both of which seem to be secondary to the people choosing who they want to represent them.
Maybe I’m missing something?
Mike
RE: Term Limits … I would appreciate hearing an argument in favor of term limits … It seems to me that if a city councilor is passionate, hard-working, effective, and most importantly elected by constituents at regular intervals they should be allowed to serve as many terms as the people want them to.
The only arguments I can construe in favor of term limits is “new blood/new ideas” or “to give others a chance” … Both of which put personal politics and aspiration ahead of the core democratic principles.
From a constituent’s standpoint, if my rep is doing a great job, I don’t care if he’s there for a lifetime. I don’t think democracy requires us to give others a turn …. unless of course they can unseat him/her in an election.
It seems to me that a supporter of term limits either has political aspirations or fears enduring lengthy representation of someone they disagree with … Both of which seem to be secondary to the people choosing who they want to represent them.
Maybe I’m missing something?
Mike
To extend Emily’s analogy around state senate elections, how about US Senators? Should the US vote nationally to elect 100 senators, with a requirement that the body be composed of set of two currently reside in each state?
To extend Emily’s analogy around state senate elections, how about US Senators? Should the US vote nationally to elect 100 senators, with a requirement that the body be composed of set of two currently reside in each state?
Newton is not broken. So, the “do no harm” concept should be the #1 priority.
If voters had been told “…would you please sign these papers so we can eliminate your ward alderman?”…..does anyone really believe enough sigs would be collected to put it on the ballot?
Not. A. Chance.
Most thought they were signing because they were specifically told that it might reduce the overall number of aldermen…and the majority felt that was reasonable. Zero times was it ever suggested that ward alderman would vanish.
That being said, I am still not 100% sold that such a major reduction is needed to start with. Originally I was thinking that if a smaller board was “necessary”, 8 Ward and 8 At large seemed like it made sense. But the discussion has opened my eyes to other possibilities and factors.
I would be able to support 8 ward, 5 at-large, (even though I still think that’s too few) and I would even be open to the idea of the latter in leadership, although I don’t think that restriction is needed and anyone who has actually been there/done that knows a lot of it is time-consuming procedural and housekeeping mixed in with said leadership.
The elimination of the True Ward representation in our city is an absolute deal breaker…and it’s basically a bait and switch being played on an unsuspecting public.
Newton is not broken. So, the “do no harm” concept should be the #1 priority.
If voters had been told “…would you please sign these papers so we can eliminate your ward alderman?”…..does anyone really believe enough sigs would be collected to put it on the ballot?
Not. A. Chance.
Most thought they were signing because they were specifically told that it might reduce the overall number of aldermen…and the majority felt that was reasonable. Zero times was it ever suggested that ward alderman would vanish.
That being said, I am still not 100% sold that such a major reduction is needed to start with. Originally I was thinking that if a smaller board was “necessary”, 8 Ward and 8 At large seemed like it made sense. But the discussion has opened my eyes to other possibilities and factors.
I would be able to support 8 ward, 5 at-large, (even though I still think that’s too few) and I would even be open to the idea of the latter in leadership, although I don’t think that restriction is needed and anyone who has actually been there/done that knows a lot of it is time-consuming procedural and housekeeping mixed in with said leadership.
The elimination of the True Ward representation in our city is an absolute deal breaker…and it’s basically a bait and switch being played on an unsuspecting public.
@Mike: In theory no term limits makes sense, and is consistent with democracy.
But reality sets in, and we all know there are negatives to unlimited terms. It became so bad, they had to add a constitutional amendment to prevent a president from more than two terms.
We have term limits on school committee members, and I don’t see any negatives as a result.
I think the biggest negative to unlimited terms, is a complacency and lack of ideas over time. Newly elected individuals lack institutional knowledge, but often times bring a willingness to shake things up a bit.
Charlie makes a good point, the city is doing just fine, by almost universal accounts. But still, we have had issues, and continue to. I think had we had a different makeup of alderman during the Newton North issue, it would have been very different. Very few were willing to ask tough questions; sitting back, and were quite dismissive of anyone challenging the stated position of the administration. I do think Newton North was an instructive situation, which showed the need for turn over in our elected officials- not just that one time, but as a rule.
@Mike: In theory no term limits makes sense, and is consistent with democracy.
But reality sets in, and we all know there are negatives to unlimited terms. It became so bad, they had to add a constitutional amendment to prevent a president from more than two terms.
We have term limits on school committee members, and I don’t see any negatives as a result.
I think the biggest negative to unlimited terms, is a complacency and lack of ideas over time. Newly elected individuals lack institutional knowledge, but often times bring a willingness to shake things up a bit.
Charlie makes a good point, the city is doing just fine, by almost universal accounts. But still, we have had issues, and continue to. I think had we had a different makeup of alderman during the Newton North issue, it would have been very different. Very few were willing to ask tough questions; sitting back, and were quite dismissive of anyone challenging the stated position of the administration. I do think Newton North was an instructive situation, which showed the need for turn over in our elected officials- not just that one time, but as a rule.
Ted’s 8/4 idea sounds good to me. As I think about things more, I question have any at-large.
Ted’s 8/4 idea sounds good to me. As I think about things more, I question have any at-large.
Term limits sound good — fresh blood! New ideas! Throw the bums out! — but a review of what actually happens when it’s instituted is revealing. Bureaucrats are empowered as they are the only ones with institutional knowledge. There is less incentive for long-term thinking.
From California:
“Overall, the effects of term limits on Sacramento’s policymaking process have been profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the governor’s budget, and its own budget process fails to encourage fiscal discipline. Legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. “Legislators are learning more quickly than in the past, but frequent changes in the membership – and especially in the leadership – are taking a toll,” says Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies and Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley.”
From Governing Magazine Governing Magazine:
“Maine, along with other term limit states, is experiencing an added phenomenon: the orphaned program, vulnerable to reduction or elimination because of the forced retirement of its champions. “We’re probably seeing more neglect because legislators aren’t there to babysit their own legislation,” says Renee Bukovchik Van Vechten, a political scientist at the University of Redlands, in California. “We’re seeing laws that need updating, and that’s the least sexy part of the job…Legislators become like people who inherit large, complicated appliances for which the owner’s manual has been tossed aside….It shouldn’t come as a surprise that short-term legislators aren’t prone to engage in long-term thinking…In other ways, though, the revolving-door system created by term limits has reduced the influence of the legislature itself. In particular, it has lost influence to the executive branch. One southern legislator-turned-lobbyist, who prefers not to be identified, says that he sometimes bypasses his state’s legislature altogether, taking his clients’ business directly to agency officials–the people who actually know how to operate the machinery of government.”
Term limits sound good — fresh blood! New ideas! Throw the bums out! — but a review of what actually happens when it’s instituted is revealing. Bureaucrats are empowered as they are the only ones with institutional knowledge. There is less incentive for long-term thinking.
From California:
“Overall, the effects of term limits on Sacramento’s policymaking process have been profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the governor’s budget, and its own budget process fails to encourage fiscal discipline. Legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly. “Legislators are learning more quickly than in the past, but frequent changes in the membership – and especially in the leadership – are taking a toll,” says Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies and Robson Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley.”
From Governing Magazine Governing Magazine:
“Maine, along with other term limit states, is experiencing an added phenomenon: the orphaned program, vulnerable to reduction or elimination because of the forced retirement of its champions. “We’re probably seeing more neglect because legislators aren’t there to babysit their own legislation,” says Renee Bukovchik Van Vechten, a political scientist at the University of Redlands, in California. “We’re seeing laws that need updating, and that’s the least sexy part of the job…Legislators become like people who inherit large, complicated appliances for which the owner’s manual has been tossed aside….It shouldn’t come as a surprise that short-term legislators aren’t prone to engage in long-term thinking…In other ways, though, the revolving-door system created by term limits has reduced the influence of the legislature itself. In particular, it has lost influence to the executive branch. One southern legislator-turned-lobbyist, who prefers not to be identified, says that he sometimes bypasses his state’s legislature altogether, taking his clients’ business directly to agency officials–the people who actually know how to operate the machinery of government.”
Hi Emily:
So is that what we see from the school committee? Dropped projects, ineffective leadership because of the term limits?
What happens in Congress and the state is not directly applicable to local government, in my estimation. 8 years is not a short period of time to accomplish something at the local level.
Hi Emily:
So is that what we see from the school committee? Dropped projects, ineffective leadership because of the term limits?
What happens in Congress and the state is not directly applicable to local government, in my estimation. 8 years is not a short period of time to accomplish something at the local level.
Emily, you are reaching. Come on! The California study is over 10 years old, and it was never published in peer-review study. When academics have a 10 year old study that has not been published in a peer-review journal it is a bad signal about the quality of the work.
Let’s think about Newton. 8 years is plenty of time for an elected official be effective. When the original CC got together there was someone on the SC for 42 years! Everyone must have been relieved when she got term limited out.
We have a buddy system. You know it. Insiders email everyone telling them to vote for incumbents. We have so many positions, people blindly trust the recommendations of the insiders.
Emily, you are reaching. Come on! The California study is over 10 years old, and it was never published in peer-review study. When academics have a 10 year old study that has not been published in a peer-review journal it is a bad signal about the quality of the work.
Let’s think about Newton. 8 years is plenty of time for an elected official be effective. When the original CC got together there was someone on the SC for 42 years! Everyone must have been relieved when she got term limited out.
We have a buddy system. You know it. Insiders email everyone telling them to vote for incumbents. We have so many positions, people blindly trust the recommendations of the insiders.
Jeffrey, when you have served for 8 years on the City Council, I might take your opinions more seriously.
It takes a number of years to build relationships on the City Council and with other elected and appointed officials in town, not to mention the people who do a lot of the day to day work of running the city. And there are also the folks who are on the boards and commissions, or serve with school and community organizations who can access resources outside municipal government. All of these folks change over time, and maintaining those relationships and knowing who to cal when a problem arises is how local elected officials can be most effective. Ideas are great, but knowing who to talk to when there is a pothole or some red tape that needs cutting is how you get things done.
But, please, tell me more about how 8 years is enough.
Jeffrey, when you have served for 8 years on the City Council, I might take your opinions more seriously.
It takes a number of years to build relationships on the City Council and with other elected and appointed officials in town, not to mention the people who do a lot of the day to day work of running the city. And there are also the folks who are on the boards and commissions, or serve with school and community organizations who can access resources outside municipal government. All of these folks change over time, and maintaining those relationships and knowing who to cal when a problem arises is how local elected officials can be most effective. Ideas are great, but knowing who to talk to when there is a pothole or some red tape that needs cutting is how you get things done.
But, please, tell me more about how 8 years is enough.
@Niel Thank you for answeing my question regading term limits. Your answer was reasonable. But then i tool my dog out for a walk and had time to think on it…and your logic fell apart. I have an uncle who is a 5 or 6 term city councellor in another ma city…And he is by far more effective and relevant thIs year than in previous years. Its become so clear to me that term limits are about insiders not trusting the voters to choose (or yank) the right people to represent them.
@Jeff says 8 years is enough time for someone to be effective. The thing is, it’s not … and should not be your gd choice. Let the voters decide how long someone should be in office.
My take on this weekends conversation is that if the course of this charter review doesnt change the voters are getting screwed.
Both proposals we have discussed blaitently shift power away from the voter. And you think voters are apathetic now?
@Niel Thank you for answeing my question regading term limits. Your answer was reasonable. But then i tool my dog out for a walk and had time to think on it…and your logic fell apart. I have an uncle who is a 5 or 6 term city councellor in another ma city…And he is by far more effective and relevant thIs year than in previous years. Its become so clear to me that term limits are about insiders not trusting the voters to choose (or yank) the right people to represent them.
@Jeff says 8 years is enough time for someone to be effective. The thing is, it’s not … and should not be your gd choice. Let the voters decide how long someone should be in office.
My take on this weekends conversation is that if the course of this charter review doesnt change the voters are getting screwed.
Both proposals we have discussed blaitently shift power away from the voter. And you think voters are apathetic now?
Ted, I still think your 8/4 idea is good.
8? Actually, I think 6 years is enough to be effective. I love having elections and choices. I am willing to put up with the tears of 7 year break-up, to have all the great things that come with contested elections.
Mike. Are you a councilor in disguise or are you the only non-elected official who thinks that term limits are a bad idea?
Let’s let the voters decide on term limits.
Ted, I still think your 8/4 idea is good.
8? Actually, I think 6 years is enough to be effective. I love having elections and choices. I am willing to put up with the tears of 7 year break-up, to have all the great things that come with contested elections.
Mike. Are you a councilor in disguise or are you the only non-elected official who thinks that term limits are a bad idea?
Let’s let the voters decide on term limits.
@Jeff I’ve never understood term limits… They dont make sense to me. They serve to give the opposition an unearned reprieve and/or open up oportunity but at the expense of the voter. My Uncle is a great example. He was born to be a counsellor. He cares about his city to his core, and he’s good at it. To me, being a counsellor sounds like torture. But i want someone like my uncle to take care of things and i dont care how many years he’s been there.
@Jeff I’ve never understood term limits… They dont make sense to me. They serve to give the opposition an unearned reprieve and/or open up oportunity but at the expense of the voter. My Uncle is a great example. He was born to be a counsellor. He cares about his city to his core, and he’s good at it. To me, being a counsellor sounds like torture. But i want someone like my uncle to take care of things and i dont care how many years he’s been there.
If we have term limits, but only at-large seats, all we’ll do is replace one very connected person with another. This is what usually happens with the School Committee races.
The best way to have more competition is have more ward seats. With a ward race you can actually knock on all the doors and make your case to people directly – just as I did, just as Dick Blazar did, just as Barbara Brousal-Glaser did, just as Alison Leary did. If you don’t like a sitting ward councilor, you can put on your running shoes and go door to door to try to replace them. However if you don’t like an at-large councilor, it’s nigh impossible to dislodge them unless you come from one of the established political networks. Jake Auchincloss went door to door across the city but that was an extraordinary effort that we never, ever see, because it’s so darn hard, especially for anyone with a job and/or kids.
I would eliminate term limits for School Committee, but make them ward seats rather than at-large, in order to increase the chances of having competitive races.
If we have term limits, but only at-large seats, all we’ll do is replace one very connected person with another. This is what usually happens with the School Committee races.
The best way to have more competition is have more ward seats. With a ward race you can actually knock on all the doors and make your case to people directly – just as I did, just as Dick Blazar did, just as Barbara Brousal-Glaser did, just as Alison Leary did. If you don’t like a sitting ward councilor, you can put on your running shoes and go door to door to try to replace them. However if you don’t like an at-large councilor, it’s nigh impossible to dislodge them unless you come from one of the established political networks. Jake Auchincloss went door to door across the city but that was an extraordinary effort that we never, ever see, because it’s so darn hard, especially for anyone with a job and/or kids.
I would eliminate term limits for School Committee, but make them ward seats rather than at-large, in order to increase the chances of having competitive races.
Emily, of the current 8 ward councilors, Dick Blazar is the only one who did as you describe. Of the other 7, 6 ran for open seats. The 8th is Councilor Baker, who has been in office since before my time in Newton, but certainly hasn’t been contested often, if ever.
In local politics, we are all friends and neighbors to some degree. Win or lose, there can be long-term side effects of challenging an incumbent, which is a deterrent for most people. That is the same whether the incumbent is elected city-wide or by the ward.
Emily, of the current 8 ward councilors, Dick Blazar is the only one who did as you describe. Of the other 7, 6 ran for open seats. The 8th is Councilor Baker, who has been in office since before my time in Newton, but certainly hasn’t been contested often, if ever.
In local politics, we are all friends and neighbors to some degree. Win or lose, there can be long-term side effects of challenging an incumbent, which is a deterrent for most people. That is the same whether the incumbent is elected city-wide or by the ward.
@Rhanna, my point was that if you want to challenge a sitting councilor, it’s a lot easier to run ward-wide rather than city-wide and I offered up examples of people who ran in the ward by knocking on doors, whether for an open seat or against an incumbent. It’s a doable thing. Citywide we virtually never see people run that way because of the size of the City, it’s twice the size of State Rep district.
@Rhanna, my point was that if you want to challenge a sitting councilor, it’s a lot easier to run ward-wide rather than city-wide and I offered up examples of people who ran in the ward by knocking on doors, whether for an open seat or against an incumbent. It’s a doable thing. Citywide we virtually never see people run that way because of the size of the City, it’s twice the size of State Rep district.
In the last 15 years, five incumbent at-large Councilors and two incumbent School Committee members (elected at large) have lost elections. In that same period of time, only two ward Councilors have lost elections. Emily Norton, Barbara Brousel-Glazer and Alison Leary ran for open seats which is a different situation altogether.
While it seems as though it should be easier to unseat an incumbent ward Councilor, the facts appear to tell a different story.
In the last 15 years, five incumbent at-large Councilors and two incumbent School Committee members (elected at large) have lost elections. In that same period of time, only two ward Councilors have lost elections. Emily Norton, Barbara Brousel-Glazer and Alison Leary ran for open seats which is a different situation altogether.
While it seems as though it should be easier to unseat an incumbent ward Councilor, the facts appear to tell a different story.
@Jane-
Apples and oranges. Let’s not get distracted. It comes back to the central point: Direct Ward representation is a fundamental cornerstone of Newton democracy and ensuring the needs and desires of a diverse population are attended to.
The fact that having to run city-wide costs more, takes way more time, and unnecessarily raises the barrier of entry for new candidates in many ways, just adds to the argument for saving our ward councilors structure.
So to repeat an earlier question:
If voters had been told “…would you please sign these papers so we can eliminate your ward alderman?”…..does anyone really believe enough sigs would be collected to put it on the ballot?
The answer is pretty obvious. “No”.
@Jane-
Apples and oranges. Let’s not get distracted. It comes back to the central point: Direct Ward representation is a fundamental cornerstone of Newton democracy and ensuring the needs and desires of a diverse population are attended to.
The fact that having to run city-wide costs more, takes way more time, and unnecessarily raises the barrier of entry for new candidates in many ways, just adds to the argument for saving our ward councilors structure.
So to repeat an earlier question:
If voters had been told “…would you please sign these papers so we can eliminate your ward alderman?”…..does anyone really believe enough sigs would be collected to put it on the ballot?
The answer is pretty obvious. “No”.
@Jeff posted “Let’s let the voters decide on term limits.”
Jeff – Actually we already do! With every election voters decide if an elected official’s term is up or not. My point exactly.
@Jeff posted “Let’s let the voters decide on term limits.”
Jeff – Actually we already do! With every election voters decide if an elected official’s term is up or not. My point exactly.
@Rhanna posted: ” Win or lose, there can be long-term side effects of challenging an incumbent, which is a deterrent for most people.”
Rihanna please explain, what are the long-term side effects of challenging an incumbent?
@Rhanna posted: ” Win or lose, there can be long-term side effects of challenging an incumbent, which is a deterrent for most people.”
Rihanna please explain, what are the long-term side effects of challenging an incumbent?
Charlie, couldn’t you say that about almost any change the charter commission folks make? The whole point of the exercise is to evaluate the status quo. That was pretty clear in my mind.
Claiming an all-knowing power that folks wouldn’t support something you personally don’t like doesn’t make it true. Is it possible folks would object to this proposal? Certainly. Is it possible a majority would approve it after discussion? Certainly.
And I definitely think there would have been enough folks willing to put it on the ballet. Not saying this will pass, still like the 8/4 idea, but let’s not get carried away with universal belief regarding folks approving of the ward structure either. Frankly I think it depends on your ward and if you like your ward councilor for most folks. Folks tend to look at things through the rubric of their own experience.
This certainly isn’t a change for the faint hearted. Major change. I give the CC credit for going bold.
Charlie, couldn’t you say that about almost any change the charter commission folks make? The whole point of the exercise is to evaluate the status quo. That was pretty clear in my mind.
Claiming an all-knowing power that folks wouldn’t support something you personally don’t like doesn’t make it true. Is it possible folks would object to this proposal? Certainly. Is it possible a majority would approve it after discussion? Certainly.
And I definitely think there would have been enough folks willing to put it on the ballet. Not saying this will pass, still like the 8/4 idea, but let’s not get carried away with universal belief regarding folks approving of the ward structure either. Frankly I think it depends on your ward and if you like your ward councilor for most folks. Folks tend to look at things through the rubric of their own experience.
This certainly isn’t a change for the faint hearted. Major change. I give the CC credit for going bold.
@Fig: You like the CC’s going bold? Why not Commissars then? I haven’t heard any convincing reasons from them for taking away the most democratic (small d) type of representation on the Council! Going bold should have a very specific appeal that they could explain unequivocally.
@Fig: You like the CC’s going bold? Why not Commissars then? I haven’t heard any convincing reasons from them for taking away the most democratic (small d) type of representation on the Council! Going bold should have a very specific appeal that they could explain unequivocally.
Sallee:
C’mon now. Equating my appreciation for a “bold” move should not be equated with my approval of something “crazy”. Commissars indeed. Don’t turn around…the Comissars in town. Now I’ve got that horrible song stuck in my head. ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Kommissar_(song)
But I get your point that in your view the CC is solving for a problem that doesn’t exist (and causing more problems along the way). My point is that I admire the fact that they didn’t ask for incremental change. I was surprised.
Sallee:
C’mon now. Equating my appreciation for a “bold” move should not be equated with my approval of something “crazy”. Commissars indeed. Don’t turn around…the Comissars in town. Now I’ve got that horrible song stuck in my head. ;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Kommissar_(song)
But I get your point that in your view the CC is solving for a problem that doesn’t exist (and causing more problems along the way). My point is that I admire the fact that they didn’t ask for incremental change. I was surprised.
Sallee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfFDTPPlaM
I didn’t know there were two versions! English video link attached!
Sallee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfFDTPPlaM
I didn’t know there were two versions! English video link attached!
on a side note, 1980’s video’s are hilarious. Carry on.
on a side note, 1980’s video’s are hilarious. Carry on.
@fignewtonville
I’ll never forgive you for planting that brainworm in my head. Make it stop!
@fignewtonville
I’ll never forgive you for planting that brainworm in my head. Make it stop!
By doing away with the WARD COUNCIL, I will vote no and join with the Ward 2 rep.
By doing away with the WARD COUNCIL, I will vote no and join with the Ward 2 rep.
@John M: Agreed. The value of Ward representation can not be overstated.
My belief is that if true Ward Councilors are eliminated in a proposed new Charter, the entire Charter process will go down in defeat. (Maybe that’s not a bad thing?)
So far, nothing else proposed or discussed relating to the Charter has been this contentious, and yet, it appears to be a risk the commissioners are willing to take for reasons that are far from clear.
Or to give the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they just focused on numbers of Councilors and said “well, if reduce those, but at-large these, it evens out the power ratio”….. but forgot to contemplate the pushback that happens when you try to take generations of voting power and self determination away from the people. It actually creates a much bigger problem than “too many councilors”.
Newton Newsmakers (yours truly) has been asked by dozens of people to do a program on the topic. Stay tuned for date/time/channel.
@John M: Agreed. The value of Ward representation can not be overstated.
My belief is that if true Ward Councilors are eliminated in a proposed new Charter, the entire Charter process will go down in defeat. (Maybe that’s not a bad thing?)
So far, nothing else proposed or discussed relating to the Charter has been this contentious, and yet, it appears to be a risk the commissioners are willing to take for reasons that are far from clear.
Or to give the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they just focused on numbers of Councilors and said “well, if reduce those, but at-large these, it evens out the power ratio”….. but forgot to contemplate the pushback that happens when you try to take generations of voting power and self determination away from the people. It actually creates a much bigger problem than “too many councilors”.
Newton Newsmakers (yours truly) has been asked by dozens of people to do a program on the topic. Stay tuned for date/time/channel.
I completely agree with Emily and Charlie – the value of Ward representation cannot be overstated. Ward representation keeps government local. Term limits can be skirted by a seat warmer, who fills the spot for a term and then gives it back to the original occupant, especially in situations with City wide representation like the School Committee.
I completely agree with Emily and Charlie – the value of Ward representation cannot be overstated. Ward representation keeps government local. Term limits can be skirted by a seat warmer, who fills the spot for a term and then gives it back to the original occupant, especially in situations with City wide representation like the School Committee.