Newton’s Charter Commission last night proposed term limits for Newton City Councilors of six consecutive two-year terms. Share your thoughts here.
Charter Commission proposes term limits for City Council
by Greg Reibman | Apr 28, 2016 | Newton | 82 comments
so a total of 12 years. do our current folks start from scratch? I’m assuming so. If someone gets off for two years, can they rejoin 2 years later?
So this is really about if we want our city councilors to be lifers or not. I kind of like the idea of not. 12 years is a long time.
@Fig Our current councilors do start from scratch. My understanding is that we cannot impose it retroactively, and I believe it would be unwise to do so regardless.
I believe in the long run, it will be beneficial for our city. We are designing a system to last for decades or even centuries, not for tomorrow or next year necessarily.
In the short run, we have some amazing voices on the council now, some of whom have been in office for a long time. They will already be faced with decisions about whether to run and for which seat with a smaller number of seats up for grabs if the charter is approved. I think it is right and appropriate for them to have an additional 12 years from the time the charter is implemented.
I have not been to any of the meetings (sorry). Can someone fill me in on why 2 years vs. 4? If the terms were 4 years, Councilors would have some opportunities to make the tougher decisions and give it time to play out. 2 years means they are almost always running.
Alicia: The argument was persuasively made for 2 year terms to enable the electorate to remove any Councilor they felt was not producing high quality Councilor effort (missing too many meetings, not being prepared, etc.) and not having to wait 4 years to “throw the bum out” (my words).
The 12 year term limit is for six consecutive terms. So a Councilor could serve 12 years, go off the Council for 2 years and then run for another 12 years! It doesn’t prevent lifers, it gives them the possibility for a 2 year unpaid sabbatical! If they are truly excellent Councilors, however, they will likely get re-elected, after their term off the Council, for at least a possible chance at a second 12 years.
Sallee:
Do you take issue with that? I don’t.
I guess this isn’t my issue, but at 12 years I can’t say I oppose this. I guess it is possible that in 12 years a lot of folks will come off at once.
@Bryan: I wonder what mechanism the CC can recommend so that all Councilors would not have to vacate the Council after 12 years, if the CC’s recommendations are adopted. Would you say that, by lottery open to all Councilors elected in the first year of the adoption of a new Charter, 3 Councilors could serve six 2 year terms; 3 Councilors could serve five 2 year terms; 3 Councilors could serve four 2 year terms and 4 Councilors could serve three 2 year terms? Or would you put our currently longest serving Councilors (if re-elected) in the short six year max group; the next longest serving in the next shortest group, etc.
No Fig: I don’t oppose the 12 years on and a Sabbatical, then more…that’s fine with me. My question to Bryan is about how they will implement it.
Also…our biggest liability in the City is benefits and pensions. I think the Council has been, and should be, viewed as a volunteer commitment, not a career. Nonetheless, I believe that healthcare should be available to the Councilors DURING THEIR YEARS OF SERVICE. I do not think the tax burden of life-time healthcare for Councilors is anything the residents should have to bear. I hope the CC is careful to consider the long term tax liabilities of all of their decisions. I know there are some State mandated regulations regarding pensions and benefits and years of service. I would like to hear a discussion of what HAS to be paid if Councilors serve a certain number of years…I also don’t mind Rhanna’s argument that the value of healthcare is greater to those Councilors who use it, versus those who don’t, and her suggestion that those Councilors who don’t use it could be given a larger compensation package to make the job of equal value to all who are elected.
Term limits are a deal breaker for me. The voters should get to decide who they want to serve them. What I found most ironic was that none of the supporters have ever been aldermen/city councilors but had all sorts of opinions on why that was enough time to do what they got elected for. The lone member who served 12 years and then term-limited herself was against it. That speaks volumes.
Is it true that after a certain number of years of service for a Councilor, they become eligible for lifetime benefits? Is that consecutive years, or cumulative? What are the benefits?
Alicia-I went into the meeting believing quite firmly that a 4-year term for Councilors was in the best interest of the city and stated so at the beginning of the meeting. Anne Larner then spoke about the importance of maintaining a high degree of accountability to the voters, especially given the straw vote for a smaller Council. At the 4/13 meeting, I had stated that accountability was a high priority for me, so I began to think about the total picture – to the degree possible without the total picture in hand.
I also favor term limits in general. Bryan commented that if Councilors had a 4-year term and term limits, for the last 4 years, a person who reached the limit would have no accountability to the voters. That just seemed too long to go without answering to the voters, especially given that more than one Councilor may be in the same situation at the same time.
Fig – The straw vote was for 6 consecutive terms, so a Councilor can run again after a 2 year break. In fact, we have at least 4 people (in my memory) who have returned to the School Committee or the City Council after taking time off.
@Sallee: I had a couple thoughts about that while mulling it over since yesterday. Please note that these are only some preliminary musings, not sure any are fully baked yet.
One appealing option to me would be to just say that for anyone who is currently on the council at the time the new Charter takes effect, there is no term limit, period. This does seem a bit unfair, but does have the advantage of ensuring that they leave at a more natural pace rather than in a bunch.
Another way to do this which could be interesting would be to apply the term limit to only a set number of councilors per year. For example, the 6 longest serving councilors, if their length of term exceeds 12 years. That would prevent too much turnover not only now but into future generations. However, that becomes more complex for voters to understand.
Finally, I believe we could make a distinction in the transition article between at large and ward councilors, but there would be issues to work out there as well.
I want Councilors who may have their own visions but are open to other’s opinions and to work with residents and the other Councilors to make decisions that are best for the city rather than ones who are always running for the office they hold, which is in essence consistently making decisions based on the wishes of those who voted them in so they won’t vote them out. This applies particularly to those who ran on a slate of candidates supported by an interest group or on just a few issues. It seems to me that this predicament would be more likely to occur if terms are 2 years rather than 4 years.
It’s difficult to consider term limits and what they might be without knowing how many Councilors there would be and whether they are all at-large or some variation of ward and at-large. As Jane said, considering the total picture “without the total picture in hand.”
I don’t think an all at-large council has a decent probability of passing. I don’t look forward to trying to vet new Councilors every 2 years. I think 4 years allows time to get a read on how they are doing instead of deciding one wrong vote, you’re out. Term limits don’t solve many problems I can see. There will still be lifers. With term limits Councilors are totally not accountable to voters in their last term. Why create that problem?
Not sure what the rationale is for a term limit, but allowance back after a hiatus of one term. Seems almost pointless. If you give people the opportunity to vote someone back in two years later, why deny them the opportunity immediately?
Anyone have any data on school committee members who maxed out, and then ran again after two years? My recollection is , they invariably win, again. So what is the point of the two two year sitting out?
Neal has a point. There have been cases where a SC member maxes out. Someone runs, and only stays for one term (which almost never happens), and the old incumbent comes back. As bad as this seems, it is still an improvement over no limit whatsoever.
I applaud the Charter Commission for taking this seriously. I would love to buy everyone who voted for this a drink, but it is probably against some commonwealth law. Regardless, thank you CC. I look forward to experiencing contested elections.
Of course, I don’t expect life-long councilors to like this. Most of them got exactly the composition of the Charter Commission they advocated. How can they complain?
Please don’t do this. If a Councilor is getting stale, voters will vote them out. That’s democracy. Preventing the best candidate from getting elected to a position simply because people voted to keep them there for a while is not democratic in my opinion.
If we continue to have ward councilors (which I’m strongly in favor of), how would term limits work if a ward councilor switches to at-large? Would the clock restart or would it count the same as if they hadn’t switched?
The CC voted with the understanding (articulated by Chair Josh Krintzman) that the 6 two year consecutive terms were for any position on the Council, regardless of which kind of Council position the person was running for. So, you could be a Councilor for 12 years total. Then go off for two. Then be re-elected for up to six more 2 year terms, then off again. No switching between Ward at-large or At-large would reset the clock.
Neil-I mentioned the possibility that term limited School Committee may return, but in the 35 years that I’ve lived in Newton, only two have actually done so. More often, former School Committee members and Councilors remain involved in the community in another capacity and are often looked upon as informal leaders who provide invaluable service and insight to the community.
@Jane:
If the goal is for them not to return, then make the imposed hiatus longer or with no ability to return. I just don’t understand the rationale of an imposed two year absence. Are the voters supposed to come to their senses during that time, and realize they should never vote this person back in, something they wouldn’t have recognized had the individual run consecutively again?
The alternative is, the voters really want this person, vote them back in after two years absence- in which case, why deny the voters those two years?
If the goal is turn over of elected officials, (for which I do see a case), then I am not sure a two year imposed break is sufficient to accomplish the goal.
My biggest concern is lifetime benefits for alderman. I believe that during their term, they should have benefits, but not for life!
I am hoping we have one alderman per ward and some at large, but a smaller amount than what we currently have.
I still am questioning the 2 vs. 4. We have had a great deal of do nothing councilors now with them running every 2 years because they risk being voted out for making an unpopular decision (that may often be the best decision for the city). If terms were longer, residents would have a chance to see that often what they object to and would happily voted someone out of office for is better than they thought.
Dear Bryan:
As you say, we are designing a system to last for years if not for centuries. But why are you proposing to discard the provisions that have lasted for more than a century and two and a half decades in its latest form? Did I lapse into Vulcan or other language when I spoke to the Commission at least three times supporting the provisions of the current system that have existed at least since the Charter adopted 25 years ago. Most go back in their broad outlines to Newton’s start as a city city more than 100 years ago. In what way has the current Governmental Structure failed? How will the proposed changes be better? How do you know? The systemic changes proposed for “years, if not for centuries.” should be compared to the current system that has lasted for decades..
I’ve asked these and similar questions of the Charter Commision numerous times and gotten nothing back but vague basic feelings and descriptions of the Commission’s hard work and transparency. I am happily willing to concede the Commissions’ sterling records in those particulars. I’ m not ready to concede the substance of the matter. There are some things wrong with the current Charter and some bad decisions have been made under it, but I have seen nothing that persuades me that a Charter with the proposed changes would be better. My observations of Newton city government from the grassroots to the Wendell Bauckman Chamber leads me to the fear that the revised Charter would in fact be much worse.
City Councillor/ former Alderman Brian Yates
last Dean of the Board of Aldermen
former Chair Upper Falls Advisory Committee
Vice-President of the Friends of the Newton Free Library at the time the Libary was built
Foe of branch closings and sponsor of item to keep books in the Adubrundale and Waban Libaries
Graduate of Emerson Elemnntary School
Foe of closing of village center schools
I include these credentials to show that I’m not a Polyanna about the current Charter.
@ Brian:
I believe there is room for significant improvement and that the overwhelming majority of voters chose to have a Charter Commission because they believed they should get a chance to vote on another option.
Among those who are very active in city government, it seems to me from my conversations that the majority feel that city government is too cumbersome for residents to navigate and participate in, especially for those with full time jobs. Among those who are not active participants, it seems to me from my conversations that the overwhelming majority are baffled that our government requires so many more elected officials than other cities our size. This makes sense, given that the city has twice voted in favor of a reduced board by non-binding resolution.
I understand and appreciate that you have been active in the current system for quite some time and feel that it is working very well, at least in regard to the number and makeup of the council. We have heard you loud and clear. But while you are indeed a longtime councilor who has served with distinction in my opinion, you are also one of tens of thousands of voters in this city, and there is evidence to suggest that the majority of them disagree with your perspective on this particular question.
Please understand that we greatly value your participation in this process and your advice both in the past and as we move forward. I would just ask that you keep in mind that others, including many of your current and former colleagues, disagree with you on this issue.
Thankfully, we will have an opportunity at the end of this process to see if this is truly the will of the voters, and you will have an opportunity to make your case to them. I am grateful that this process is voter-driven and ultimately I will be satisfied, whether the Charter succeeds or fails, knowing that the people were the ones to make that decision.
Alicia, again I agree with your reasoning; 4 years gets you more value for your vote. You said it better and more succinctly than I did.
I also question term limits because in the the last term a councilor has no accountability to voters at all. Why create a possible problem where none exists now?
And in the way it is presented, the term limits do nothing to curb lifers, only makes them take a sabbatical, (I pilfered Sallee’s word) which is a concern of some voters.
@Bryan wrote to Councilor Yates, “many of your current and former colleagues, disagree with you on this issue” [re the changes proposed to date by the Charter Commission].
What is your evidence of that? That is not what I am finding, in speaking with current and former aldermen/councilors.
For example I attended the Charter Commission meeting the night there was a panel of former and current aldermen/councilors – not one recommended eliminating the ward councilors, not one recommended term limits.
Some expressed willingness to see the total number downsized, but keeping the Ward Councilors. In fact one sitting at-large councilor said it would be better to make it 2 ward councilors from each ward and eliminate the at-large, if the goal is downsizing.
Numerous Charter Commissioners asked why councilors were even providing constituent service, why wouldn’t people just call City Hall – which to me demonstrated a stunning lack of understanding of what elected officials actually do.
@Emily:
To be clear, I was referring to the fact that many current and former councilors believe that it would be beneficial to reduce the number of members on the council and have said so publicly.
What about term limiting the Mayor to 3 terms (12 years)?
NewtonMom, the vesting requirements for post-retirement benefits are the same for Councilors as for any other public employee and for elected officials who earn at least $5,000 a year or more, and are a matter of state law. I believe the vesting requirements are twenty years of service at age 55 or ten years of service at age 65. Under state law, School Committee members do not meet the threshold for minimum compensation in order to qualify to accrue years of service toward a pension or other retiree benefits (e.g., health benefits).
I should add that Councilors who elect to participate in health benefits pay the same premium share as other Newton employees, and contribute to the retirement system at the same rate.
@ Bryan
It would be helpful to hear the same perspective you gave on the proposed CC reduction for the topic of ward representation. In all of these conversations that you refer to– both people active in city government and those that aren’t– are you saying that they also gave you feedback to eliminate ward representatives?
I am not sure of the exact process, but I think it would be helpful to have a non binding referendum question, on this Nov. ballot, asking the voters if they would like to eliminate the position of ward alderman.
I believe the Charter commission is making what may be a fatal mistake, if they include that provision; as it largely will be a vote up or down for the entire package. I do think a majority of voters would cast a vote opposed to a change in the charter if that provision is included.
I don’t get the disparity between the councilors and school committee members on the compensation and benefits piece, certainly not in 2016. Should be equivalent. And higher than at current. I don’t want to see these as full time jobs but $9750 for CCs and $4875 for SC is embarrassing.
@Dan: I tend to agree with you. I stated publicly at our last meeting that I haven’t yet heard a reason why School Committee should be treated differently than the Council when it comes to benefits. I believe they work every bit as hard and as long.
It is probably related to how many official meetings they have. There are fewer School Committee meetings than City Council meetings (meaning full Council meetings and Committee meetings). Of course individual School Committee members and City Councilors spend varying amounts of actual time on their respective jobs.
Dan, the City Council sets compensation for the Mayor, City Council and School Committee. Over a decade ago a Blue Ribbon committee was formed to look at compensation for elected officials in Newton, which had not been increased for a long time, and propose recommendations. As I recall, the salary of the City Council and School Committee had always been based on a proportion of the Mayor’s salary (10% for BOA and 5% for SC). The Blue Ribbon committee came back with and increase in the Mayor’s salary from $97,500 to $125,000, and increases for the BOA to from $9,750 to $12,500 and from $4,875 to $6,250 for the SC. The BOA only passed a salary increase for the Mayor but not the Council or School Committee. Back then, there were public employees working without a union contract and the city’s finances were not in as good shape but the BOA still felt the Mayor’s salary should be comparable to other cities the same size. As it turned out, Mayor Cohen declined a salary increase at first for much the same reasons.
@Ted: Do you know if any reason was ever given for the 5% versus 10% discrepancy?
@Marti Bowen: I gladly lend you “sabbatical”. No need to pilfer. (No need to return it when you are done with it either! 😉 )
I caution the promoters of all At-Large representation that that change will promote the playbook of those who are well-organized and wish to impose their will regarding change on an unsuspecting and currently sleeping public. The argument that our City Government exhibits inertia and is difficult to foster change gets little sympathy from me. Change requires vigorous public debate and 24 Councilor voices, both Ward directly-elected and At-Large-elected , resonate with the details of each argument in the public chamber much more clearly than would thirteen all of whom are At-Large.
By the way, term limits, when the term lengths are 2 years, don’t foster much lame duckery! It would be far worse if the term lengths were 4 years. I am not a big fan of term limits. I am a big fan of contested elections. Also, contested elections in Newton under the Charter Commission’s proposed configuration of all At-Large Councilors would each cost in the $25,000 to $30,000 range. This would likely dissuade those of moderate means from running. I believe the usual cost of a Ward direct contested election is around $5000. (Please correct those figures, if you have better ones!)
Bryan said, “I believe there is room for significant improvement and that the overwhelming majority of voters chose to have a Charter Commission because they believed they should get a chance to vote on another option.”
What facts lead you to the conclusion that there is room for significant improvement? You persist in saying that there is no reason to examine how the current 24 Councilors’ function.
How is it possible for you to know why the “overwhelming majority of voters” chose to vote for a charter commision? Did you take a post election poll? I and many voters I know voted to have a charter commission to throughly study the current charter and investigate how the government functions now to decide if there are sufficient reasons and problems needing solutions to recommend charter revisions. If the investigation indeed exposed dysfunction, then would be the time to study what might be an improvement and recommend revisions with facts to back up why you decided on that revision. How it solves particular problems.
If you begin with the assumption that voters wanted a change in the charter, you start by making changes.
Bryan said “Among those who are very active in city government, it seems to me from my conversations that the majority feel that city government is too cumbersome for residents to navigate and participate in, especially for those with full time jobs. Among those who are not active participants, it seems to me from my conversations that the overwhelming majority are baffled that our government requires so many more elected officials than other cities our size.”
As for the first group, those active in city government, is it composed of elected representatives, staff, residents who are active, business owners or some combination, who find city government cumbersome for residents? Is there a particular problem stated – such as permitting small changes to their homes or the special permit process? Going with your current straw votes, how will a smaller council composed of only at-large Councilors with a limit of 6 – 2 year terms solve those problems? Particularly when leaving the balance of decisions of how to make it function successfully and efficiently is to be left up to the new smaller council to decide.
The second group, composed of those who are not active participants, is made up of whom? I would assume they are residents who are content to let local government take care of itself – unless a particular issue peeks their interest. Were they already baffled about the number of Newton’s City Councilors? Or was this a reaction to being told that 24 Councilors is “many more” than most other cities of Newton’s size? It makes a difference in the relevancy of the bafflement.
Bryan said to Brian Yates, “I understand and appreciate that you have been active in the current system for quite some time and feel that it is working very well, at least in regard to the number and makeup of the council. … But … there is evidence to suggest that the majority of them [the voters]disagree with your perspective on this particular question.”
What is the evidence that the majority of voters do not feel that the current system is working well and want to have no Ward representation but instead want 13 at-large city Councilors? Additionally, why is the commission not determining on its own whether the current system is not working well instead of relying on an assumption of what voters want? Wouldn’t it make more sense to determine what is not working well, try to discover the specific reasons why and set out to make changes that would solve those reasons and contribute to the city working better? That method would provide evidence based conclusions instead of speculation.
Marti-There have been two non-binding referendums asking the voters if they wanted the Board downsized and both resulted in a Yes vote by large margins.
Sallee – I will look up the available data on the cost of running for a Councilor seat on the OCPF website, but we all know that the one person who spent $30,000 was an outlier by a lot.
I’ve had experiences similar to Bryan in my conversations with current and former Councilors. I’ve heard a range of opinions in one-on-one conversations. Since the November election, of the 24 Councilors, one asked to speak to me, four spoke at the public hearings and two others were invited to participate on a panel (a third was on the panel but had spoken to us at 3 public hearings).
Jane, while an accurate statement, it has nothing to do with my point.
Marti – We are most definitely working hard at figuring out what’s working well and what’s not. This has been a very time intensive project and we’re doing exactly as you suggested.
Sallee-I spent some time on the OCPF website to find the data on how much candidates spent between the last date for filing papers for the November 2015 election to the January 20 date for filing election financial forms. The candidates in contested at-large races spent anywhere from $500 to $33,000. Those two amounts are clear outliers in the data set and what I’m quoting here is rough (and rounded) amounts.
Within each ward, the amounts spent on the election varied. Ward 8 at-large candidates spent the least ($500, $2263, $3300) and Ward 2 at-large candidates spent the most ($4100, $14,000, $18,000, $21,000, and $33,500), mostly from July onward. Ward 3 at-large candidates were quite reasonable ($3600, $4100, $5300), as were the Ward 5 at-large candidates, though they spent more ($5600, $7100, $8300), mostly from August onward.
For Ward candidates, 6 candidates spent less than $100, one candidate spent $1250, one spent around $3650, and one spent around $3500.
When I decided to run for the Charter Commission, I had a spending limit in my head. Then the lawn signs began to spring up and I definitely felt significant pressure to spend more and did go over my limit for no good reason (meaning that I had LOTS of palm cards left over).
I appreciate the gracious and respectful response from Mr. Barash and Ms. Kiddewell , but they still don’t answer my questions about the rationale for the proposed changes. Ms. Franze says that 7 of the 24 Councillors agreed with her position. That’s not a majority by a long shot, and claiming a majority, rightly or wrongly, doesn’t explain a position. Answering the questions that Marti Bowen has posed would be more productive;
I think the comment that the current system is too “cumbersome” is the core of the Charter Commission’s position. In what way is it too cumbersome? What issues have not been dealt with expeditiously because the system is too cumbersome, not because the issues involve difficult and complex balancing of legitimate interests or are inherently complex in science, law or other elements of human endeavour?
This is another way of asking the proponents of change on what basis they assert that the current system is broken and on what basis do they assert that the proposed changes will make the quality of life for Newton citizens better? What if they make it worse by exacerbating the trends that have afflicted the citizens who value grassroots institutions? What if they make the city even more friendly to the affluent and less friendly to low and moderate income people? What if they downgrade the villages further?
What recourse do citizens have for mistaken policies put forth in good faith, a transparent manner, and by hardworking, well meaning people who can’t explain their rationales in anything but the vaguest terms? What if the post-Charter change Newton is only the 400th best place to live in the country instead of the 4th best as it is now in the view of the Real Estate Market and Money Magazine? Where do you go to get a refund on a Charter that makes things worse instead of better.
To repeat one more time the words I’m sure the Commission are as sick of it seeing as I am others are of saying. “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” I’m sure it will be very cumbersome to
deal with the consequences of an improperly thought out Charter.
I will visit the web site of the National Civic League to see if there’s some insight to be gained there.
@Alderman Yates: Newton voters said two times that they want the board/council size reduced. While we don’t know the reasons for their preference, the fact is that the perception among voters is that the council is too large. Do you think the Charter Commissioners should be taking these votes into consideration?
Here’s one argument I could make for a small city council: Over the years, one of the reasons I’ve heard from people who reject the idea of running for the board is that they don’t want to be 1 of 24. Meetings last a long time because most councilors want to go on record with their justification behind voting for or against an item. Maybe more people would run for office if they believed they could have more impact as a member of a smaller group.
Jane, if what you say is true, where are the specifics, the evidence of what is not working. Where are the facts behind the decisions being made and how those changes will correct the problems?
I haven’t seen anything but theories, rhetoric, or speculation on what voters want. What is the problem that eliminating Ward representation will fix? It seems to be opposite of expanding the democratic proces. After years of study the LWVN states that:
* In Massachusetts, cities larger than 50,000 residents have an average of 11 city councilors. A typical 11-member council would be comprised of one representative from each ward and three “at-large” representatives who could live in any ward.
* In Massachusetts, there are no other cities or towns with more than one representative per district, while most have a mix of one representative per district and anywhere from 2 to 5 of “at-large” representatives who can live in any district.
While making a case for a smaller city council, they found no evidence of the merits of eliminating Ward representation.
And where is any evidence that term limits do what the council wants them to do? I certainly don’t see it in any of the commission’s statements. As an aside to those who are certain that the LWVN is controlling the commission, they do not support term limits for the City Council and additionally support eliminating term limits for the SC. Their reason: it takes rights away from the voters. In a councilor’s last term, there is no voter accountability regardless of its length.
And what about some evidence that 2 year terms, instead of 4, will provide a better framework for the city council. All I have seen is fear of not being able to vote out some group’s view of an ill performing councilor for 4 years, which relies on them finding a challenger who the majority of voters, not just that group, believes will cast him/her out and be a better performing councilor. On that point too the LWVN disagrees and points out that “elected office has a steep learning curve” and that 2 years is not long enough to see a “legislative initiative” through to the end.
I don’t question the hard work and transparency of the commision. In fact it seems we are able to see everything which allows voters to see the vague reasoning on the above 3 issues.
Brian-I did not say 7 Councilors agreed with the Commission. I said only 5 spoke to me and or the Commission. I did not say what opinion they expressed. My point was that there seemed to be a lack of concern about the issue.
In addition to continuing to press the Charter Commission for specifics in regard to how they support their decision re: eliminating Ward representation (which, in my opinion, should be incredibly easy to do given that the vote was unanimous), I’d like to raise another point that I haven’t yet seen raised.
On one hand, during the Austin Street debate, it was routinely argued that because more registered Newton voters did not turn out to unseat additional pro-density/developmentally oriented incumbents, all or most Newton voters must be happy with how our city government works.
On the other hand, as part of the current Charter Commission debate, it’s being argued that because a small percentage of registered Newton voters have voted in the past to reduce the size of the Board/Council, all or most Newton voters must be unhappy with how our city government works.
Which is it?
Marti-
I am not, nor I have ever been, a member of the LWV. I’ve never even read its report. Much to the dismay of many people over the years, I do not not take my marching orders from the LWV or any other group or individual. From your comments, it appears you are a member and ascribe to its conclusions. My study of the data and conversations with people in positions lead me to different conclusions than the LWV positions you point out.
No one on the Commission is relying on assumptions. No one. We’ve all studied mounds of data, read studies and charters from comparable cities from all over the country. As I often remind people, this is a blog so I hope you’re not getting your information here. I invite you to attend one of our meetings. I also urge you to contact me so that we can have an in depth conversation. I’ve had many conversations with residents and have a flexible schedule.
In truth, with the exception of about 5, the Councilors have shown only minor interest in our work. From that I assumed they may have had opinions but when the rubber hit the road, they didn’t feel that all that strongly about the issues with which we were grappling. The Councilors knew that in two referendums, voters – by large margins – had said that they wanted the Council downsized. They knew the date of the public hearing focused on the City Council. They knew what our schedule was and when we were going to deliberate these issues – all of this has been posted on the website since January. What can I say?
Term limits: We have capable people in the city who are willing to serve in the capacity of City Councilor. However, they’re not willing to fund and run a campaign against an incumbent who has all the advantages that incumbency bestows upon that person. Term limits provide an open seat. When there’s an open seat, the slate of candidates tends to draw in people from a more diverse population who add a valuable skill set to the Council (Ward 1, 2, and 3 are recent examples).
We are one city. We also have 13 villages, as well as significant sections of the city that aren’t really part of a village. If we are one city, voters should have the right to hold all elected officials accountable. In the present structure, ward Councilors vote on citywide issues and are not accountable to 87.5% of the city.
The two year term: there are no right or wrong answers on any of these issues, but if you have term limits, then term limited Councilors are accountable to 0% of the voters for 4 years. I find that unacceptable.
Most cities have not been through the charter commission process because the signature collection is such an onerous process. However, since November Harvard, Framingham, E. Longmeadow, and Fall River are either in the process of electing the Commission or are in the early stages of the review. Many charters, including ours, are so outdated that they’ve become irrelevant and I think that’s a unhealthy place for a community to be.
Tom-In two referendums, Newton voters overwhelming said that they wanted the Council downsized. One of the objectives Charter Commission is to increase voter engagement. In the 1990’s, Ruth Balser proposed downsizing the Board in each of her four terms. Verne Vance tried to do the same in 2006. Rick Lipof tried to propose a downsizing on two occasions. This is not a new issue
I encourage you to attend a Charter Commission meeting, and certainly hope that you’re not counting on this blog for your information about the work of the Commission.
In answer to your direct question, in my experience, most Newton residents aren’t interested in local government. That doesn’t mean that those that are shouldn’t make it the best it can be and accountable to all voters.
That’s it for tonight.
@Jane wrote “If we are one city, voters should have the right to hold all elected officials accountable. In the present structure, ward Councilors vote on citywide issues and are not accountable to 87.5% of the city.”
Do you think it’s reasonable that Ruth Balser, Kay Khan and Cynthia Creem are permitted to vote on statewide issues? They’re not “accountable” to the rest of Massachusetts.
It’s important to keep things in context. While there have been calls at various times to downsize the Board, there was never, to my knowledge, any call – or even discussion – whatsoever to eliminate ward representation.
Not by voters. Not by current/former elected officials. And certainly not by anyone running for the Charter Review Commission. It came totally out of left field, and a 9-0 vote practically screams “group-think”.
Meanwhile, if you truly believe in diversity and inclusion… I mean REALLY believe that people of different heritage, backgrounds and means deserve to have local and direct representation… then you would have to be in favor of strong direct Ward representation.
Otherwise your words are empty and people will notice that the Emperor has no clothes.
A little history. It is important to understand that any Charter amendment to reduce the size of a municipal legislative body, whether by a Charter Commission, a citizen initiative petition of 15% of voters, or by the legislative body itself, requires approval by a majority of voters in a citywide election. In 2004, after Newton voters had overwhelmingly supported a reduction in the size of the Board of Aldermen on two non-binding ballot questions, a small group of aldermen including Ald. Lipof, Ald. Harney and myself, docketed the following:
#431-04 ALD. LIPOF, HESS-MAHAN, HARNEY recommending the reduction of the size of the Board of Aldermen from 24 members to 16 members: 8 Ward Aldermen and 8 At-Large Aldermen.
After extended deliberations in committee, this item failed to pass because there was a lack of consensus as to whether to reduce the size of the board and, if so, whether the same proportion of at-large to ward representation should be maintained.
In the next term, a much broader coalition of ten aldermen docketed another amendment to reduce the size of the board of aldermen:
#108-06 ALDERMEN LIPOF, VANCE, HESS-MAHAN, LENNON, LAPPIN, SCHNIPPER, HARNEY, WEISBUCH, PARKER, AND SANGIOLO requesting that the Board of Aldermen and His Honor the Mayor submit a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature seeking approval by the Legislature of an amendment of the charter of the City of Newton reducing the number of aldermen by at least seven, the exact number and composition of the Board specified in such petition to be determined through discussion and vote by the members of the Board.
This docket item reflected the need for more discussion about the number as well as the respective roles and composition of board members. Ultimately, this item also failed to pass because there was no consensus around the number and composition of the board. By this point, we concluded that the question of downsizing the board should be undertaken by a Charter Commission which had the time and resources to thoroughly research and review the question and make recommendations. We all understood that once you open up the Charter review process, the Charter Commission can propose changes to any and all provisions of the Charter.
That is what has happened. It is instructive to follow the Charter Commission’s deliberations thus far, which have touched on many of the same issues and challenges that were discussed in the committee when the Board of Aldermen took up these questions. Thus far, I think the Charter Commission has conducted thorough research and, with the help of its consultants, has addressed many of the same issues that other communities have wrestled with in changing the size and form of their local government.
I really do wish that those who oppose the Commission’s straw vote on the size and composition of the City Council would not cast aspersions on their motives, integrity and process. They are doing what needs to be done, and at the end of the day, all Newton’s registered voters will have an opportunity to weigh in, up or down, on the changes the Charter Commission proposes. That is about as democratic (small “d”) as it gets.
@Jane
“If we are one city, voters should have the right to hold all elected officials accountable.”
Unless you have a reason why this same logic doesn’t apply at the state and country level, this is simply a poor rationale and insufficient to make a change in ward representation.
This world is full of governing bodies based on local representation rather than at-large.
No one from the Commission has presented any reason on why we should get rid of ward representatives other than an unclear “one city” vision that doesn’t make sense.
Newton is 18 square miles.
Massachusetts is 10,565 square miles.
The United States is 3.806 million square miles.
To answer Gail’s question above, Of course I feel that the Commission should take into consideration the two non-binding votes in off year elections on the topic of the the City government size and structure. But as someone who’s used or supported Advisory questions on other issues, I know that they are peripheral to the elections in which they fall. State and National elections focus attention on state and national issues, not on local issues that have not been discussed in any depth.
At most, these questions ask if the Representative from this district shall be directed to vote in favor of a bill that has some general characteristiscs. The bill doesn’t get automatic approval by a Legislative Committee or by either House of the General Court and certainly not automatic approval by the Governor. Other legislators can and should ask the details and likely results of the legislation. I think that ‘s all that skeptics on this blog and elsewhere have been asked.
I didn’t read any vituperation. I read frustration that a major changes in our form of government that could undo its virtues have not been explained in clear terms and evidence based discourse.
One recent explanation was that numbers of people (the numbers are never clearly defined) who participate in city government it difficult to do because of the large number of members. Someone who has this observation is hopelessly stuck in the past. Most Council meetings this year have been relatively brief. The only exvceptions were when complex issues that had been shorted out in some length in committee come to the floor for final resolution.
Since there are a lot of complex issues to be dealt with at all levels of government, we have a system of representative government. Candidates need to convince citizens that they are worthy of their votes, Citizens need to screen candidates’ qualificaions, character, and stands on specific issues of interest to them. If this standard is too tough some would-be voters, perhaps they should work to improve their own knowledge of local government and analysis of local issues before proposing or enacting a system that has served the city to the satisfaction of many for decades.
To repeat the tired but valid litany, it it;s not broken, don’t fix it. Specify in what way the Charter is broken and what you think will fix it. Explain your results .
I think there may be fatigue and exasperation on the part of some Commissioners on the repitition of these questions by myself and others who have served in office . Maybe it would clear up their thinking to not answer any commentators . now or previously in local public office . Instead read the posts of Marti Bown or Mike Ciolini.
I don’t know either of these commentators to the best of my knowldege, and I don’t think I’m met either one.But they’ve asked the questions that need to be answered by the Commission.
Transparent and hardworking are good things, but clear thinking and clear explaining would be better yet.
Jane, I did not intimate or suggest that you are a member of or affiliated with any organization such as the LWV? I reread my comment and there is no misrepresentation. I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. I asked for evidence to support the voting in the straw votes. Although it does trouble me that your mind seems to be closed to any possible change of a second vote meaning at least 1/9 commissioners considers these a done deal with many months to go.
I have no affiliation with the LWV in Newton or otherwise. Their conclusions are on their website. I brought them up, not for the reasons you state, but to illustrate to the many residents who believe the LWVN is somehow manipulating not only the commission but also debates and elections that the straw votes, except for reducing the size of the council, have gone against what the LWVN supports.
In addition, the LWVN has spent years studying the charter trying to determine what might create a better functioning government in Newton and did not draw the conclusions to eliminate Ward representation or establish term limits on the city council and instead found that voters would be better served by eliminating term limits from the SC. It also supports 4 year terms.
It wouldn’t be a bad idea for the commission to at least look at their research. The LWVN is not the boogeyman.
As for your view on the benefits of term limits, what is the evidence that creating openings on the council every 12 years will accomplish the goal of less expensive, more prevalent candidate races or convince more residents to run. These new candidates will only have two years to prove themselves, according to the straw vote, before the previous counselor can run again. In 2 years, the previous counselor will presumably still have better name recognition.
Why add term limits at all when the last term, 2 years or more, a councilor will have no voter accountability, creating a possible problem that doesn’t exist now? I think this council is headed in the wrong direction here as well as in having no Ward representatives.
@Marti: I do think there is significant evidence that term limits have been good for Newton. As I have stated here and elsewhere, I am not a fan of term limits at the state and federal level. But I think they have different implications at the local level, and according to most people I speak with have worked out extremely well for the school committee.
I continue to be shocked by the strong support for term limits among current and former members of the school committee as well as within the school community and PTO. Frankly, I am seriously reconsidering whether we should lower our recommendation from the current 12 years to 8 or 10, given the strength of support such a proposal seems to have.
I don’t understand the concern about elected officials being unaccountable in their last terms, if term limits are imposed. How does this scenario differ from the situation where an official chooses not to run for reelection? If Councilor X announces a year before the election that he isn’t running again, isn’t he just as unaccountable as if the decision were made for him because of term limits?
I lean toward term limits but I could be swayed the other way. I do think, however, that allowing officials to take two years off and then run again is just silly. Either have term limits or don’t.
@Greg: And so? Doesn’t that mean our State Reps/Sen. (and US Rep/Sen.) have even more outsized influence than they should, according to the Charter Commission’s logic?
Bryan, you are saying because folks like term limits in the SC. How is that significant evidence that term limits will work well in the city council? The school committee is personally involved in things that families with children need to work well. They know who they are. There have also been problems people have been concerned about with some members of the SC.
Do you have actual evidence that term limits will correct something not working well in the council? I don’t consider talking to people about the SC evidence. What is the problem term limits will solve in the functioning of the city council? How, evidence based conclusions, will term limits correct that situation?
I’m not just trying to harp on this question. I genuinely think there need to be facts as evidence presented as to WHY term limits will solve some problem. I keep asking because talking to people myself, not one of them understands the reasoning behind having term limits or why they are needed and without that, they will vote against it.
In addition, everyone I know or talk to will vote against a charter that has no Ward representation.
Marti, term limits promote contested elections. Period. That is all I need. Do you dispute that fact, or do you dispute that having more contested elections is valuable? Also, everyone I talk to (except Councilors) likes the idea to term limits.
Contested elections are important. It’s always best when voters have a choice. But I think that one of those choices should be to vote for an incumbent who’s done a great job. I don’t like seeing voters lose that choice over a rule like term limits.
Reducing the size of the City Council will by itself increase contested elections. So I’m not at all convinced term limits for Councilors are needed, or that they would be a good thing for Newton. Much in the same way I remain unconvinced that we should eliminate Ward representation.
Lisle Baker is a good example of why both those changes would be a bad thing. He’s served for more than three decades, and been a transcendent figure for Ward 7. I’m not buying the argument that I would be better represented by either limiting Councilor Baker’s time in office, or redefining the area he represents.
Mike, I agree with you about Lisle but it does not follow that term limits, on net, are bad. Term limits have costs and benefits. We agree, that the cost is that sometimes a great councilor like Lisle will retire early. The benefit of term limits is that entrenched, ineffective councilors also retire early, we have more contested elections, and a larger set of people with new ideas running for office. Just because we would rather have Lisle for an extra few years, does not imply that the net trade off is bad.
Grouch Marx said that: “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” Term limits can only guarantee turnover, not necessarily new ideas or different voices. And they could bring mediocrity if most or all of the City Council were forced to retire at the same time (as could happen if a Charter with mandatory term limits were approved). If the desired outcome is to ensure that there will always be members with new ideas and different voices on the City Council and School Committee, we should adopt proportional voting, which ensures that minority viewpoints are always represented.
Jeffrey, I agree with both Mike and Ted – and Groucho Marx.
I don’t think forced retirement necessarily promotes contested elections or a larger number of candidates. One candidate could run. I like the theory of contested elections but term limits are all about turn over not challenging democratically who is in office now. As Mike said, with the City Council smaller contested elections will happen naturally.
Term limits don’t make it cheaper to run. They don’t reduce the time needed to run for or hold the office. They don’t bring dedication. All they do is impose restrictions on vioters by not allowing them to vote for those who have done a great job for the city, in their opinion. Why would term limits necessarily bring new voices to the council? That’s a supposition. It could conversely lead to the same ideas, or worse, from different people.
Who makes the decision that certain Councilors are ineffective? I prefer to make my decision with my vote not by government mandates.
To me, it seems these decisions are not based on facts – except for having a smaller council – they are based on fear. Just read the reasons posted or listen to the meetings.
The term limits decision seem to be based on a fear that the city MIGHT be stuck with “ineffective” Councilors. (Different voters might have different opinions as to who is ineffective.) That fear is quelled by a government mandate, instead of democratically.
The 4 year terms decision, as it goes with term limits, seems to be based on a fear that an ineffective councilor MIGHT make bad decisions and have no accountability to voters for 4 years instead of 2 years. Deciding on a mandate instead of letting voters make the decision of who is making bad decisions.
The decision against Ward representation, seems to be based on the fear that by only representing the voices from one (or a combination) Ward they MIGHT not do what’s best for Newton has a whole. Don’t let the voters decide, just do away with the office.
A smaller council has been studied for years. These others are decisions made in the few months the Charter Commission has been in office. What is the reasoning other than fear for the changes? I think having the freedom to choose should win over fear everytime.
Switch 2 years for 4 in my post above.
Bryan Barash–What form has the support for term limits that you perceived taken?
I haven’t noticed it. The fear of Cabot Parents that their concerns about the conditions for their children will be ignored seems to contradict your impression. The concerns of parents from the expanded Zervas district about the safety of their children reaching the heavily bused and driven school seem to belie this as well. I don’t think that the parents from the closed village center schools like Emerson, Hyde, Hamilton, etc. who need to be bused or driven miles to distant schools across major highways feel the love for tern limits that you perceive.
As to term limits causing more contested elections, there were only two contested and one-sided elections last time in a continuation of trends. I’ve become increasingly convinced that term limits lead to short-sightedness on the part of the term limited officials. If the can only stay for eight years, Isome are only concerned about their eight years or what’s left of it.
Mr. Pontiff, another fan of term limits, sees them as an antidote to “ineffective, enntrenched ” officials, and the generator of new ideas. How do “ineffective” manage to become “entrenched.” New ideas are not necessarily better ideas. Maybe they’re not even really new. They could be ideas that were previously tried, failed , and discarded. Non term limited officials might recognize them from before and either correct their flaws or not even bother with ideas that have already failed.
One blogger states categorically that term limits promote contested elections.
There were only two contested elections in the last SC election. This is a contiuation of a long term trend since the last Charter Commission enacted term limits for the SC.
I’ll say it again. Terms limits promote contested elections.
I have collected data going back to 1977. I still cleaning the data, but things should be correct to the decimal point.
The Ward Councilor elections are contested 30.25% of the time.
Councilor at-large elections are contested 17.8% of the time (4 or more people running for 2 positions).
School Committee elections (where we have term limits) are contested 46.25% of the time.
Mayor Elections are contested 90.9% of the time.
Of course, you don’t need data to realize that when an incumbent does not run, on average, we usually have MORE than one contestant throw their hat in the ring–voters have more candidates to choose from.
What data are you collecting? The only term limited offices in Newton are School Committee and SC contested elections have declined steadily since the Charter was adopted 25 years ago.
There were only two contested SC races last year. There were at least four at large Council races,
@Brian: I think some context is valuable here though. Last year just happened to be a year in which there were 0 committeemen that were term limited out.
As a result, in your own words, “there were only two contested and one-sided elections last time”. I think that data point proves Jeffrey’s point more than it proves yours.
Jeffrey, your data may be correct, but you have failed to establish causation. That is, does the fact that there are fewer number of school committee members have a role in promoting contested elections? Have you looked at what proportion of contested elections relate to term limited retirements as opposed to other reasons, e.g., elective retirement or challenges to incumbents?
Brian. I have data on all municipal elections. SC term limits did not change during my sample. As Bryan said, the last SC election was unusual.
I really hope that you will attend a meeting. I will repeat – this is a blog and if you’re getting information about the work of the Charter Commission here, then you’re getting a smattering of information at best.
At each meeting, I refer to accountability to voters as a priority for me, not fear. Obviously when a councilor decides to retire, that person will not be accountable to the voters. But a lack of accountability is built in when you have a term limited Councilor so for that reason, I thinks it’s in the best interest of the community to maintain a 2-year term. In addition, the election cycle does tend to get the electeds out into the community, and I see that a positive outcome for the community.
Every organization benefits from new blood; people shouldn’t be afraid of that and there’s no reason to think new Councilors will be mediocre. We can’t make any assumptions about the quality of an unknown field. Term limits will provide the Council with new perspectives. As for contested races, term limits have provided the School Committee races with a robust dialogue between and among candidates for an open seat.
Frankly, I’m unable to engage my friends in a discussion on any issues related to municipal government because they’re too busy canvassing or calling for Hill or Feeling the Bern. I was at an event recently where a friend asked me something about the Selectmen. What can I say? No everyone is as attuned to or interested in local politics and government as we all are.
Dear Bryan and Jeffery.In what way was last year’s school committee election different from the long trend and how does only two contested seats prove that term limits produce contested elections? Term limits on the SC do not seem to produce contested elections to my Newton Public School educated brain.
Jane, there’s a simple explanation for the people who ask you about the Selectmen in Newton.
They’re the same people who comment in public about how things have changed in the “town”.
The fact that Newton is a city and has been one for for over a 125 years seems to have escaped their notice.
Some basic Civics Education would be in order in Newton. Lengthy studies of other countries should be cut back to allow for more basic knowledge of this one to be imparted to students.
How do children meaningfully study other countries until they know this one in some depth.
As Voltaire’s Candide put it, “first you have to tend your own garden.”