Now that a couple of weeks have passed since the Newton Charter Commission created a fair amount of anxiety by proposing a 13 member city council (with one at-large councilor coming from each of Newton’s eight wards and five elected city-wide regardless of ward residency), let’s talk about alternatives.
How many city councilors do you think Newton should have? And how should those seats be defined?
As a reminder, Newton now has 24 council seats. Eight of those are ward councilors, meaning they are elected only by voters within that ward. Sixteen are elected (two per ward) citywide.
We’ve had plenty of folks tell us why they don’t like the Charter Commission’s idea. But what’s your suggestion?
As I’ve told the Charter Commission at least twice, the only valid criticism of the current City Council structure (which has led, in my view, to our status as one of the one desireable places to live in the Commonwealth and in the country) is of voter confusion because of the large number of people on the ballot and the lack of ability to hold individual Councilors at large accountable for their votes.
As I have noted previously, two Councillors at Large per Ward gives cover to Councilors for our votes. In one specific case that I know of . an Alderman had outraged a considerable number of residents of his home ward and home precinct by a specific vote. One of them decided to run against him. Because of the structure of the Board, the result was another Alderman lost his seat but the targeted Alderman survived.
The way around this as Councilor Laredo and I have separately suggested based our diverse experiences and observations is four year staggered terms for Councilors at Large. Ffor example if a citizen is unsatisfied with my service on the Council, he or she would be able to run to replace me. Two years later, a citizen distressed with the other Councilor from my ward could run against him or her. There would be fewer candidates on the ballot and each could be held accountable.,the next time they face the voters .
A side benefit that I have observed in other Aldermanic contests would be that Aldermen disatsifield with a sitting Mayor would have the opportunity to run against her or him without forfeiting his or or her seat to do so. (Most Mayoral candidates have been unlike Ted Hess-Mahan. They lacked the fortitude or tactical situation to run for Mayor and for re-election in the same year.
I believe that future elections will resemble the more distant past more than the recent past. Councilors who want to run for Mayor will not want to jeopardize their Council seats.
If they are in the opposite four-year cycle from the Mayoral four year cycle, they will be able to run without being in jeopardy of leaving the government completely. If the Charter Commission strongly values contested elections, they can adopt the concept that Councilor Laredo and I have advanced.
The major downside is that four years is a long time to wait for citizens to wait for a clean electoral shot at removing a Councilor that they really don’t like. The Charter Commission needs to think very carefully about the values involved in such a change.
Councilor/former Alderman at Large Brian Yates
last Dean of the Board of Aldermen
Councilor Yates: How many years do you suggest the terms for ward seats be?
I believe 13 is the right number. I’d like to see 8 ward councilors elected by their respective wards, and 5 at-large councilors elected city wide. I think all the the elections should be held at the same time. I do not support term limits for city councilors.
I think 13 is the right number as well. I’d like to see 4 ward councilors and 8 at large. The mayor can be the tie breaking vote. That keeps the same ratio of local vs. at large, it lowers the size of the board, it increases the ward size (which allows for “local” control but allows for some increased accountability to a wider portion of the city). North/South/East/West. You can combine wards 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8.
I am undecided on term limits.
I would be opposed to the mayor, any mayor, having the 13th vote. Separation of powers etc. I still think the 13th CC should be completely at large with no defined ward affiliation.
@ fig, let’s get imaginative; why not align wards 1 and 8, 2 and 7, 3 and 6 and 4 and 5!
I’m in favor of term limits, for both bodies, and maybe even the mayor.
The Charter Commission made a terrible mistake by reducing the size of the Board by eliminating the most democratic institution (Ward Councilors) without first delineating changes in duties. This seems rather nefarious because it has the appearance of a power grab.
But to answer the question: 8 Ward Councilors voted on by Ward, and 8 Ward Councilors voted on by voter of the City. While odd numbers are preferred, 8 + 8 seems fair and reasonable. I know, I know: what about a tie?! Still, the need for cooperation and the need to reach out to residents in highly contested issues seems highest with that even number.
It’s unfortunate that individuals need to drag this conversation into to the mud by implying a conspiracy. Our Charter Commission was democratically elected to review and potentially propose revisions to our municipal government. Folks should be able to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
It’s funny that this keeps coming up as if it’s something new. We have an even number of councilors now so presumably we face the prospect of ties every two weeks. Of course, not having the Board President vote except to break a tie seems to work.
Lynne, the charter doesn’t delineate duties of the City Council, nor should it. The charter just specifies broad powers, and the ability to delegate powers. The details of how the Councilors carry out their powers…e.g. delegate licensing to a licensing board or delegate traffic issues to the traffic council or retain land use decisions for the Council, or detailing which committees a docket item must go through…are specified in the ordinances. They need to be in there ordinances, where there is flexibility to make changes as needed.
So, the Charter Commission won’t be proposing how a smaller council would accomplish its work. If the Council is downsized, that would be for the Council itself to decide. But we did do research on the topic–we looked at committee structures of other city councils, heard testimony from Councilors from other cities of comparable size to understand how they accomplish the work with fewer people, and also heard testimony from Newton Councilors.
In the course of our work, I was persuaded that we don’t need 24 to accomplish the work. The 20 largest cities in Massachusetts (excluding Boston), ranging in population from 52,000 to 182,000, have Councils that range in size from 7 to 15 and they all achieve the work differently. Whether a smaller Council would delegate more or streamline the committee processes would be up to the Council itself to decide.
Dan:
I’m not wed to the mayor idea. I was just trying to find a way to keep the proportions the same. And the US Senate does have the vice president break ties…
I’m embarrassed to say that I don’t know the splits for the wards off the top of my head, but besides making them contiguous, I don’t care how the “mega” wards would be created.
As for term limits, I think the key is how many years? 8? 12?
Lynn, I don’t see this being nefarious. The Charter Commission folks were elected democratically. They are putting forth a proposal. It gets voted on again. You and I don’t live in the bountiful land of Ward 2, we live in Newton. This is just about how we govern ourselves. I love my village, but it is an arbitrary delineation. My neighbor a few streets over is technically in Newton Center. Is your argument that this process is the tyranny of the majority?
Power grab by whom, btw? The mayor? The League? Waban? The elites?
I still like the hybrid proposal better.
I would leave the Council composition and election alone. Indeed, I would celebrate its success for Newton. Does anyone on this blog want to live elsewhere? Newton has been well-governed over the years in large part because of its large, diverse, hard-working, and unusually collaborative, but also carefully deliberative, citizen City Council.
There’s lots of work to be done, and it has been well-done by citizen legislators, not professional politicians. Ward Councilors are the first line of help for citizens with a problem. In my Ward alone, it was my responding as a Ward Councilor to individual constituents that led to saving the Newton Commonwealth Golf Course for public recreation, constructing the Covenant Residences Affordable Housing Project on Commonwealth Avenue, acquiring the historic Durant-Kenrick Homestead, making the Waban Hill Reservoir available for public recreation, and establishing the Chestnut Hill Historic District.
None of these successes would have been possible without the aid of citizens and others in Newton government, including my two at-large Council colleagues, to share the hundreds of hours of work those successes involved. Newton is physically large, diverse, with villages, neighborhoods, and desirable city and school services. It has benefited us all to have 24 councilors to divide the labor, respond to needs as they arise, and serve our constituents, and no one of us controls the agenda as in the state legislature. Newton’s City Council is representative democracy at its best. Where government elsewhere is dysfunctional or in gridlock, Newton’s Council works well for Newton. That should be the criterion, and if you like living in Newton, may I suggest just leave the Council size and elections alone? The easiest way to a smaller City Council is to move to a city that has one, but I don’t see a rush to the exits. We know this Newton Council works; let’s keep it that way, and then let’s get back to the work we need to do.
@Rhanna
“In the course of our work, I was persuaded that we don’t need 24 to accomplish the work.”
That may well be true, but it doesn’t disprove that 24 can also accomplish the work. Lisle makes a good case that 24 HAS worked for Newton. What problem are you trying to fix by reducing the CC?
If you can’t highlight what would be improved, we should leave it alone.
Why yes Mr. Baker, I actually would very much prefer to live elsewhere. Sadly, that is not in the cards at least for a while. To be fair though, I would not have guessed prior to living in Newton just how distasteful I would have found it. It took a good three-five years of living here for me to conclude that Newton is, at best, nothing special.
The discussion here is largely irrelevant. Where there are and have been problems with governing Newton, the fault lies in the people elected to office and not the minutia associated with the number of Aldermen, length of their terms or staggering of their elections. Ultimately, the shortcomings of the officeholders is a combination of the quality of the folks who stand for election and the actual will/interests of the Newton voters. Neither will change markedly by tweaking the charter.
There is no question in my mind that councilors are in fact a first line of communication (and help, as Lisle points out) for many citizens, and ward councilors do play a vital role.
The size of the Board appears to be a thorn in the side of the citizenry for many years. Watching a Board meeting is a most difficult thing to sit through, and I think many have decided we just don’t need that many councilors.
Reducing the size seems to be what many people want. Eliminating Ward councilors completely, was something I heard of, only after the straw vote by the commission. I just don’t know where that suggestion came from. Seems odd.
8 at large and 4 ward ( representing 2 wards), keeps the proportional representation the same.
Or we can consider re-configuring the number of wards, to bring us to a different total of councilors; while maintaining the same proportional framework.
This sudden concern with an odd number of votes, never seemed to be a great concern before; not sure it should be now.
I agree with Lynne and am put off and disturbed by Rhanna’s reply.
Rhanna’s comment may be legally accurate, but I don’t see how reducing our City Council size without somehow addressing the role of the City Council vs. professional employees of the City solves anything….we might just create a new and larger problem of the same amount of work to do with fewer people to do it. What’s the point in that?
I have the greatest respect for Councillor Baker’s comments and feel that we all should. My concern is about how the City’s long range strategy is set vs. tactics and implementation. My concerns are about issues that seem to rarely get addressed, or, are only addressed incrementally or in response to crises (condition of our roads and infrastructure, a cohesive commercial strategy for Newton Centre, a cohesive strategy for housing/teardowns/zoning, etc. I want our City Council available to lead on these issues with our Mayor, and not to be so bogged down in leading tactical processes and chairing administrative committees.
If the Charter Commission doesn’t have the power to address these kinds of issues then it’s the wrong tool for our problems and won’t solve anything. I’d like to ask what has to happen to address the question of responsibilities? Who determines whether or not we need professional employees? Is this the Mayor and/or the current City Council?
Is the real issue that we’re underfunding what we spend on City Government? Maybe the Charter Commission should be benchmarking our cost of government vs. the cost of government in other benchmark cities. That would be really helpful and interesting! I’d appreciate hearing Councillor Baker’s thoughts on my questions…
To answer Greg’s question. I strongly support 8 Ward Councillors serving two year terms. The four year staggered term for at large Councilors is proposed only a a preferable change to cuttng the number of at large Councillors
Rhanna, You say that in the course of the Commission’s work you became convinced that a significant cut in the number of Councilors was necessary. Are you sure you didn’t have a slight predeliction in this direction that inspired all your hard work to put the Charter on the ballot and get elected to it?
What convinced you that a Council cut is the best way to go? I testified against it before the Commission and I didn’t hear anything from the other Newton Councilors or the outside Councilors that pointed in that direction. The Waltham President described a system of Nine Committees all meeting on the same night and most staffed by Mayorally supervised Department heads? Did something of the Waltham arrangement seem preferable to ours.?
If so , what was it? Did the other outside councilors say something that convinced you that copying their smaller Councils would improve the quality of govenannce in Newton?
Are there some guiding principles on local government that you and your colleagues want to emulate.? What are they?
Have you consulted some texts on municipal government that point in the direction of your straw votes? If so, what are they?
What are the Commission’s principles on Checks and Balances,Separation of Powers and Legislative Oversight?
Can you or any other Commissioners respond to the Questions raised by Mr. Slater in this thread?
I want to make it clear that although I have cited the city’s high property values , good schools and proximity to Boston, Cambridge , 128, I harbor no delusions that Newton is a perfect place to live. In fact, I have spent much of my service to the city opposing policies that will make or have made things worse in my view I don’t see how any of the amendments to the Charter advanced thus far will prevent future problems or correct past one. “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it” should be joined by the the related admonitions and questions:
” In what way is it broken? How will the proposed changes make it better? How do you know? What observations or analyses have convinced you of your position?”
My education in the Newton public schools and experience and higher education since have made me extremely skeptical of panaceas.
Councilor Yates: One of the reasons you say you’d like at largers to have four year terms is so half the at largers would be able to challenge a sitting mayor in their off year without risking loss of their seat. Forgetting for a second how how that would be unfair to at largers on the same four year cycle as a mayor, why deprive wards from that same opportunity or even the chance to run at-large during a year they don’t have to defend their ward seat?
To be clear, I’m not advocating any of this, just finding some shortfalls your thought process.
If voter confusion over the large number of Councilors on a voter ballot is a concern, one thing is certain: at the very least, most residents know who their Ward Councilors are and see them as their most direct link to City Hall. From my perspective, there is something nefarious about distancing voters from that best link. It is no secret the League of Women Voters has long advocated elimination Ward Councilors and advocates for only at-Large seats (and not necessarily by Ward). For the CC to see fit to eliminate Ward Councilors so early in the process suggests there is an agenda at play. During Feb. 23rd CC meetings, a member said (I am paraphrasing) “…once the charter is approved and the next City Council is in its new form…” During the campaign, CC candidates claimed they had no agenda but I think this quick elimination of Ward representation and the CC member comment above suggests otherwise.
The right number? Councilor Baker delineates some good reasons to keep all 24. And I really do believe the intent of the current Charter, to have all Wards represented, is a consideration that should be not be discounted: Ward Councilors make our City its most democratic, it allows the most people to have political access and direct representation, and is a configuration that has served the entire City. Whatever the “right” number is, Ward representation is key. As noted above, my personal preference is 1 Ward, 1 at-Large per Ward.
A person wiser than I said: “Democracy is messy business.” And many others wiser than I have warned: “Beware those claiming efficient democracy can be formulated.” Current frustration with political divides is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Please don’t think my comments are meant to belittle or negate the work the CC has taken on.
Voters agreed a look at the Charter was in order. Thank you to all who stepped up to the plate and for all the hard work that has been undertaken. But recommendations that do not serve the best interest of residents should be brought to light and vigorously debated.
The official position of the LWVN on the size of the City Council (page 27 of the current handbook):
“Support the reduction of the size of the Board of Aldermen with a mix of at-large and district representation or with at-large representatives with residency requirement (amended 2010)”
Brian, no one participates in a signature drive for a charter commission if they think everything is perfect the way it is. But does participating in the signature drive disqualify someone from serving on the charter commission?
I doubt many of the people who ran for charter commission had no opinions at all about possible changes. But you can have opinions and still be committed to the process of research, public input, and deliberation. My primary motivation in collecting signatures was to give Newton the opportunity to go through this process, which I think can be healthy for any city. As a charter commission member, I have been completely committed to the process of exploration.
But…even if I did come in with a hidden agenda…I have one vote out of nine. Due to open meeting law, I have not discussed charter reform issues with other CC members outside of the public meetings. I have no ability to influence other commissioners outside of the public eye.
Our Article 2 Discussion Guide lays out research (including the recommendations of the Model City Charter, published by the National Civic League) and 5 scenarios for council size and composition. This, along with 3 public forums where we gathered input from voters, from current and former Newton Councilors, and from Councilors from nearby cities of comparable size, all helped to inform the discussion at the 4/13 meeting where the straw vote was taken.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/74391
@Rhanna- Your passion for being thoughtful in revising the Charter is commendable, and I genuinely have respect for the way you communicate your ideas.
But, come on….. you personally, along with the LWV, were quite vocal and fully transparent about wanting a reduction in the number of Aldermen. It would be entirely disingenuous to say that you (and some others) only were convinced while serving on the Commission.
It was, in fact, probably the most often used selling point used when gathering signatures for the ballot question….it was really easy for everyone to understand when you have a clipboard, a pen, and maybe 30 seconds of someone’s time.
A smaller BoA [City Council] has been passed twice by Newton voters at the ballot box. Far more meaningful than Charlie’s suggestion that this was simply a 30 second selling point for Charter reform.
Hi Lynne:
Thanks for posting here. Glad to get your perspective.
Perhaps we are all operating from our own set of preconceived notions about what is best for Newton. You state that ward representation is key, and that you would reduce at-large representation to a one to one ratio. Wouldn’t that move things in the opposite direction, and give the ward councilors far more power? I believe you ran for city councilor on a platform that was, from my perspective at least, very ward centric. So it makes sense for you to like a plan that diffuses city wide voting blocks, and increases the ability of ward councilors to advocate for their respective wards. It’s a choice in either direction, isn’t it? Not nefarious on your part though, or the part of the CC.
I definitely believe the CC is too large, and that it gets bogged down quite a bit. I love the neighborhood counsels to communicate day to day issues with the CC as well. I also like the idea that we keep the ratios the same, but increase the size of the wards.
Do folks think that certain wards vote more, percentage wise, and therefore control more of the at-large CCers? That seems to be the implication, doesn’t it, from some of the responses. Is the concern that the poorer areas of Newton will get treated unfairly?
I ask because I’m not seeing as much difference as others in ward vs at-large in my district. Jake and Susan are all over the place. Emily is super responsive as always, but Susan (and now Jake) respond very quickly as well. And I’ve found that Susan has active on the Cabot issues in particular. (not that I always agree with her, hurumph…) I’m trying to understand the fear here.
I personally would prefer a smaller council – 8+8 would be perfect. I see no shame in having councilors represent the interest of their ward constituents. I wish even the at-large would listen to us. Really!
So eliminating ward councilors, especially without any reasoning would be a non starter. I would rather take the 24 member council than lose the local ward representation.
So here’s a question for the members of the Commission: do the voters get to vote on their entire (eventual) proposal for a reformed city government as a package, up or down, or can it be broken up into pieces?
@Mike- no argument there. those votes are much more meaningful than the sig drive for the charter review.
My point was only that reducing the number was used as a sales tool to get the signatures, and it was totally clear that helped sell the ballot question.
I would disagree that the Council gets bogged down. It actually moves along quite well and quite smoothly. Does it move with lightning speed? No. But that’s a good thing.
Unless you think things are broken. Which they’re not.
PS: My preference (IF it must be reduced) would be 8 ward and 8 at large from a ward. Keeps accountability and allows new voices a path into the process. Anything that guts the direct ward input concentrates power and gives the voters less representation.
@Brian Yates. Councillor, I await your closing parenthesis (in your opening comment) with bated breath.
@Marie: ). Does that help? 😉
@Fig: “Do folks think that certain wards vote more, percentage wise, and therefore control more of the at-large CCers?” Yup…I remember when Wards 1 and 8 ruled the City (years and years ago). I think I now live in a Ward that is more active than others at the polls. I haven’t checked the numbers…but would be interested to see if I am right! So, my arguing for direct Ward representation (as I said last night at the CC meeting) goes counter to my own personal interests. But I really think the neighborhood should have a direct advocate to argue for its interests, lest a tyranny of a majority of Wards dump on one poor unfortunate Ward! Yes, we’re one City, but not one mind. Fewer Councilors, all At-Large, could promote NON-publically debated platforms (be they zoning, housing, bicycle lanes or the location of Houses of Ill Repute 😉 !)
I honestly love the representation that we have now.
BTW, no one is speaking of the consequences of reduction to the Committees of the Council. Where 8 now serve on six important Council Standing Committees and debate the issues assigned to them, there would be 4 to do the same, OR 8 to do double that duty. I think the weight of that workload would reduce the effective government we now have.
I would argue that, democracy is difficult to sustain. We all have such busy lives and such global worries that our values have been distorted. We would rather vote for fewer candidates whom we don’t know than more that we don’t know (less guilt in a shorter ballot?). Easy is better than that which requires effort. Study the Kardashians over the Candidates. Once again, I scream that the CC should be figuring out how to get the time-challenged, lazy and ignorant (NOT DUMB) voters to vote responsibly. We are lucky to have 24 Councilors. They are what make Newton different and BETTER! Keep the 24 (8 Direct Ward and 16 At-Large). The Council diet being proposed is not the best nutriment for Newton.
Robert, the charter vote will be for the entire charter presented. It will not be broken up into pieces.
I agree with both Fig and Sallee. Obviously I have some thinking to do.
While I’ve been in favor of a smaller City Council, staggering terms might serve some of the same function. My big problem is that when you have so many people running at a time, it’s difficult to intelligently research and weigh all of them (esp. while keeping track of who’s running against whom), plus it’s hard to find enough people to run so that all – or at least most – positions will be contested. If terms are staggered, that will alleviate some of the problems.
And I am very strongly in favor of ward representation. We have local representation at all other levels of our government. People in Montana don’t get to vote for my U.S. Senator, and people from Worcester don’t get to vote for my state rep. If most of Ward 5 prefers Candidate A and most of the rest of Newton prefers Candidate B from that ward, then Ward 5 doesn’t get a real representative on the City Council just because B lives in their ward.
Any proposed new Charter will stand or fall as a whole on the ballot. Any provisions that are sufficiently unpopular could drag down the whole Charter.
The extreme value of the Neighborhood Area Councils is demonstrated above where an Upper Falls Councilor pointed out my poor punctuation and a Waban Councilor corrected it.
I hope the Commission will recognize the value of the Councils and not propose any detrimntal changes when they get to them. I would support a provision that made them directly eligible to apply for Community Preservation Act funding. The CPA did not exist when the Charter was adopted. Councils do many of the things that the CPA is intended for.
They should be eligible to apply for CPA funding to do them.