This week’s The Arguement feature in Globe West pits Charter Comission Chair Josh Krintzman and City Councilor Brian Yates on reducing the size of Newton’s City Council to 13 members.
Krintzman, Yates debate size of city council
by Greg Reibman | May 29, 2016 | Newton | 77 comments
As a proponent for reducing board size since 1992, this isn’t the direction I had hoped.
It defies logic and simple math, especially based on the proposed size of the crowd one person would be representing. And common sense would indicate that eliminating direct ward representation would lead to a greater diffusion of responsibility from council members and create even further diminished responsiveness from elected officials than exists now.
The CC straw vote of ‘at-large’ bias 13 councilors does have a silver lining, failing to recognize the overwhelming downside of the proposal will insure an easier effort in defeating the final product before the voters in 2017.
While I agree that the choice of all at-large representation with 8 of 13 having a residency requirement is most unfortunate, I suspect the defeat of the Charter as currently envisioned will not be an easy fight. The LWVN planned a full court press to get the Charter accepted, even before the ink on the signatutes to study it was dry.
The CC and League base their judgement to reduce Council size on the inability of the Voter to distinguish among a very long list of candidates and is therefore accommodating them by dumbing down (read shortening) the list of candidates from 24 to 13. I believe the Voter will notice the loss of real Ward representation. I think the Commission should have focused on voter education, not on moving the Council further from the residents and their needs and closer to a party driven bias to ignore those residents for their vision of a perfect society. Their vision of perfect may not be yours!
J.Krintzman argues for change for changes sake. Please answer Counselor Yates’ question, what issues are solved by this change? When your cellphone is updated, there are very specific repairs made. What are YOU fixing? Why dilute the voter’s power in EVERY position? Voters may be involved in a higher percentage of races, but their actual voting power is reduced and Newtonites will be bulldozed by the big rolodex powers that be (LWV et al).
Brian Yates and Josh Krintzman are two of the most trusted and respected public officials in Newton, so I’m pleased that the Globe knew enough about the political terrain here to seek them out.
That said, I’ve been following the LWV’s campaign to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen for at least the past 35 years and have seen almost nothing tangible as to how these changes would improve efficiency and bring more voters into the local political process here. On the other hand, I sense many positive attributes that derive from the current arrangement in terms of broad based representation and issue arrangements that would be lost forever.
I know every current member of the City Council, some more than others, but I have a great deal of respect for the specific issues, constituencies and diverse professional skills and expertise they each bring. There’s not a clunker among them. They make almost nothing in salary, so it’s a bargain all around. The arrangement we have here with a large City Council is a hybrid of sorts between a City Council and a Town Meeting. There’s no reason to scrap it just because other municipalities don’t have it.
@Bob: I understand your larger points but strongly believe that we should not be making any decisions about board size based on the current individuals who hold those seats. This is a long term decision that should outlast any current office holders.
And by same token, I’m not convinced that City Councilor Yates is the ideal person to be the face of the opposition to a reduction. No matter how informed or well-argued Yates’ points might be, it’s going to come across as someone fighting to keep his job. Again, I’m not passing judgement on his judgement, but these decisions need to be made outside of the realm of our current occupants.
@Bob: You are right on the money! The trick will be waking up the electorate with a voice as loud as the League to the fact that the voters will lose their direct Ward representation to an at-large “vision”.
Greg: City Councilor Yates is an at-large Councilor…one of the few whose City-wide base would likely re-elect him! He brings up the question that no one has yet answered…besides a deep belief in the ignorance of the electorate to choose among candidates for 24 seats, what is broken? And is the electorate really ignorant? I put my money on the belief that the electorate can and will learn what they would be losing!
@Sallee: I don’t want to get this thread too far off track but I’d bet you an ice cream that if there was a contest between City Councilors Crossley and Yates for one at-large Ward 5 seat, Yates would come in second.
The voters of Newton have gone to the ballot box twice, and both times voted to reduce the size of the Board. I don’t know how the voters could have possibly made their intent any clearer. Unfortunately, the voters had no legal means by which to implement a reduction, which is the primary reason the Charter Commission now exists. So let’s stop implying that the voters don’t want a smaller City Council, when it’s clear that they do. However, that does not necessarily mean voters want to lose their ward representation, and I think the Charter Commission should think long and hard whether they want to see the changes to the Charter go down in flames over the issue of ward representation. In my opinion, eliminating ward representation substantially reduces the likelihood of the Charter revisions passing.
As to what benefit we might find in a smaller City Council… give me a break. I have a lot of respect for the Councilors, but time management is not one of their stronger points. They’ve managed to waste untold hours banning consumer products and infringing on people’s rights. Their ban on medical marijuana dispensaries for example, has kept thousands of Newton residents from accessing medication prescribed to them by a doctor. In very recent times, the Council has banned things from plastic bags to smoking cessation devices. These follies seriously undermine the argument that we “need” 24 Councilors because there’s so much work to do. They should try focusing on Newton issues, and the city will be better off for it.
Mike hits the nail on the head.
I have not seen anything to indicate the commission is basing its decisions on an “ignorant electorate.” I’m sure they know, as everyone else does, that the voters in Newton are some of the most intelligent around. Most are also time restricted with careers, volunteering and families and it takes quite a bit of time and dedication to keep up with local issues and elections.
The commission is quite clearly stating that their reccommended changes are not based on the current city council being broken. They think that it could function better with 13 Councilors.
I am not totally convinced either way at this point but I agree with Greg that the Argument would have been more valid if the No side wasn’t a current councilor.
@Mike and Jeffrey: I just googled Cambridge MA City Coucil and learned that the 9 Councilors there have banned the same consumer products and delayed dispensaries as our 24 have done. At least we discuss a lot in depth before diving in.
I am in favor of a smaller City Council but adamantly against eliminating Ward councilors. I have seen no convincing arguments against keeping Ward representation – and, no, someone is not representing my Ward just because they happen to live here.
I am very disappointed that the Charter Commission is moving in this direction. There are changes to the City Charter that could be very useful, but I will have to vote against it if they insist on having only at-large Councilors.
Greg and Marti: I, too, initially thought that Councilor Yates or any incumbent should not have been the spokesperson for keeping the Council at its current size; but the more I think about it, the more I’ve become convinced that he’s the perfect one to represent the no side because he’s had a long time to work within this system and to see how well it works at fashioning legislation and resolving differences.
Sorry for multiple posts, but my computer’s been freezing up on me.
The point that both Brian and me are making is that we have seen no convincing evidence that reducing the Council to 13 at-large members will do anything measurable to improve efficiency, productivity or increased public involvement in our city’s municipal politics and government. We see several wonderful and unique attributes that stand to be lost.
Greg. I no longer make bets on elections at any level of government. I backed Bernie Sanders but never in my wildest imagination thought he would galvanize so many people and be competing so strongly for California and other end of the primary states. I’ve been making telephone calls for the Bern there and the level of excitement is palpable. In politics you really never know how things will turn out whether it’s national or here in Newton.
@Bob Burke – You may not think that there’s any advantage in shrinking the size of the board but as Mike Striar pointed out it is the clearly expressed (twice) will of the electorate.
As for eliminating the ward seats, that’s another whole matter. I suspect the voters won’t be too enthusiastic about that idea.
For 43 years, Newton has had a School Committee composed of one representative from each ward, elected at-large. When we interviewed SC members for Article 4, they unanimously said that it was important to be accountable to the city as a whole and that they would not want to be elected only by the ward. Any reason this works well for the SC and not for the City Council?
When interviewing current and former city councilors / aldermen (both from Newton and from other cities), they also unanimously said that the job should not look any different whether one is elected by the ward only or city-wide. They felt that councilors must put the city first and represent the needs of the ward in the context of the whole city. So under the proposed model, each ward gets a voice, but that voice is also accountable to the city.
Newton has no experience with a true ward representation model. We have only 1/3 of the council as ward councilors. If we move to having only 1 representative per ward (which would make us consistent with every other city and town in Mass., and probably in the whole country…more than 1 per ward automatically leads to redundancy and inefficiency), the next decision is how those reps from the ward should be elected.
The Model City Charter warns that representatives elected only by the ward can lead to parochialism and vote trading…for a ward-based decision, all the ward councilors go along with the preference of the ward councilor from the affected ward, so that they can get the same courtesy for decision in their own ward, thus keeping their voters happy. Our interviews confirmed that this does sometimes happen. This puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of one person who only answers to 1/8 of the voters.
Peter Harrington mentioned on Charlie Shapiro’s NewTV show that the last charter commission decided not to propose a council of 16, 8 ward and 8 at-large from the wards, because they felt like 50% ward councilors would not be a good mix for the city…that a 50/50 mix would place too much power in the hands of a group who “tend to think alike”. If we make our 8 ward representatives elected only by the ward, they would make up 62% of the council.
All those folks who’ve been saying they haven’t heard a good argument for this proposal only need to read Rhanna’s comment. You may not agree, but you can no longer say you haven’t seen it spelled out.
@Rhanna and other CC members:
Do you see it as a problem if a ward representative is elected at-large, but loses his/her own ward over multiple successive election cycles? Would you consider that ward to have adequate representation?
All governance structures have pros and cons, the key is adequately addressing the weaknesses of the chosen model. How do you propose to mitigate the above scenario, if at all?
Rhanna/Greg,
So the argument is that- there can/could/possibly/ it occasionally happens-that there might be vote trading among Ward Councelors. While the majority of counselors are At-large. but we must be fearful.
G*d forbid a minority of voters has a say…
More justification for defending the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
Rhanna suggests that it “works well” for the School Committee to be elected at-large. I strongly disagree. I think the school committee is elitist, detached from reality, and unaccountable to anyone. Not a good model for the City Council.
Rhanna – no one’s arguing for a City Council that only has ward representatives; you’re arguing a straw man. The argument is to preserve having a mix of at-large and ward representation.
Comparing School Committee and City Council is apples and oranges, because the School Committee is much smaller and doesn’t have any at-large members. And it’s not like people are currently enamored by the School Committee. Of course I expect my ward councilor to vote for the best good of the city as s/he sees it. But I want one of the council members to be chosen by people in my ward.
In the legislature, no representatives are elected at large. Our senator is chosen by all MA residents – not by everyone in the US deciding which MA person they want in the Senate. Similarly, my representative in the House of Representatives is elected by people in my district, not everyone in MA deciding which person who lives in my district should be in the House.
For City Council, I want there to be at-large members and ward members, and I want the ward members to be chosen by the people in their wards. If the Charter Commission wants a smaller City Council, it’s fine to combine wards for the local representatives. But don’t take away local representation.
@Paul, It’s a valid concern. However, Newton has lots of experience with this model of electing representatives at-large-by-ward. We’ve been electing 24 officials per cycle (16 CC and 8 SC) this way since 1973, and we’ve been electing City Councilors this way since 1897 (the exact number has varied as the number of wards increased). The current institutional knowledge probably goes back 30-40 years, and I have only heard of one instance where the scenario you describe played out, and for one term, not for successive terms. (I’ll try to find time this week to review elections history from recent years to be more definitive.)
I think local officials tend to be elected more due to personal characteristics such as integrity and leadership and less because of positions on local issues…those characteristics tend to be perceived the same way from one ward to the next.
@Rhanna
Thanks for the response.
Susan Albright beat LeBlanc by four votes in Ward 2 for Ward 2 at-large in the last election, almost finishing third out of four candidates. Across the city, Albright placed first with a much stronger showing, getting 50% more votes than LeBlanc. A striking difference.
So while she didn’t lose in her ward, it was razor thin, and her support across the city isn’t reflected in her own neighborhood.
Depending on how Cabot plays out this week, we very well could see Albright lose her ward while winning across the city in the next election.
I look forward to learning more about the historical results. I’d be surprised if I just happened to know the only example which is that close to the example in question.
Rhanna,
What is the benefit of having ward alderman electected at-large? The benefit of having them elected in-ward is clear to me–they receive and seek more intensive scrutiny. In-ward votes are more informed about the candidate than out-of-ward votes. I don’t see the counter example where having someone elected city-wide is better.
Another benefit of only having ward-alderman is that the population only has to focus on their own ward. This seems like a huge benefit.
If the number 13 is the right number, have them elected from the 13 villages that constitute Newton. Eliminate the wards.it would create an atmosphere of compromise in order to advance the interests of Newton.
… and let’s not forget that 14th village.
@Jack Leader– It’s a great idea that would preserve and support Newton’s unique village structure. I have been told in the past though that it might not pass constitutional muster, as it would establish an imbalanced representation. But I’m with you. I wish we could do exactly that.
@Jerry– I think the next Mayor of Newton should be elected by Village 14. Some of us spend enough time on this blog to meet any residency requirement.
Were the sitting altruistic charter commissioners promise to not run for the newly founded positions they create, then my confidence in their honesty and integrity would perhaps rise beyond the very leagues by which they come. Til such time, I remain a skeptic of motive.
Paul, I see a completely different dynamic than you concerning the Ward 2 representation. You are arguing that we need to keep, or have only, Ward representation but Emily Norton is that representative not Susan Albright, who is at large and you may want to replace her depending on certain circumstances. Susan, in her at large position, is working with Emily Norton on the Cabot School new, last minute proposal. So if you don’t like what happens with the new design, by your own logic, its Emily who you should want to be replaced since this is an argument over Ward Representation not at large. In addition, you are making a case that shows an at large Ward councilor is just as involved in her Ward as the Ward Rep.
It seems to me that two of them either have their own ideas supported by a certain percentage of Ward voters or pay more attention to a small group of residents instead of the larger picture.
Many residents of Ward 2 were in favor of Austin Street, including some who live in Newtonville, and I don’t know which group was in the minority but because Emily wanted the outcome supported by the group you are in (minority or majority), she is said to have heard the voices of her Ward.
In the Cabot School renovation it definitely seems both of them are paying more attention to a tiny minority of stakeholders and ignoring the wishes of the majority. In this case, you and I are on the same side as members of the majority but you think that Emily will continue to vote against development and are disappointed with Susan for voting for ASP so you want to keep Emily as the Ward 2 rep, but hope that Susan will be replaced by an anti development candidate. You want Susan’s head for doing the same thing as Emily in the Cabot School renovation.
In this case, it’s not about grassroots representation, it’s about having a Ward rep who agrees with whatever position a particular voter supports and for some reps its 1 strike you’re out. Your choice for a Ward 2 at large rep is someone who agrees with Emily’s and your position on development. That isn’t grassroots, that is stacking the deck for no developments which again isn’t necessarily the minority or majority position.
We have a strong mayor system. We have a school committee that is elected entirely at-large. If we convert the city council to all at-large, then 51% of the voters can control 100% of the seats in city government. No matter what we might glean from talking to current officials or examining past election results, as a matter of ideology I don’t like a system of government that could completely shut out minority views.
@Marti
I really was just sharing the facts, rather than getting into Ward 2 politics on this thread.
My concern is having a situation where a Ward representative is elected at-large, but is continually losing in his/her ward itself. Its a potential flaw of this system. My follow-up was just pointing out that we’re almost in that situation right now with Susan Albright.
Without getting into the specifics of ASP and Cabot on this thread, I feel much more empowered with Emily’s position, because Ward 2 can replace her if she isn’t adequately representing Ward 2. Its a lot harder to do the same with Susan as the election data shows.
PS You tend to be a thoughtful poster– but you put a lot of words in my mouth. I didn’t argue only for Ward representation (I see value in both FWIW), you’re claiming I want to keep Emily and not Susan (Cabot is a big factor for me on both of them at this point) and that I’m “no development” (I never have been, but feel we should limit it to 3 stories in Newtonville, and that growth should be spread across the city, i.e. let’s stop unequal treatment of different parts of the city).
Jeffrey, I don’t see having residents only focusing on their Ward as a benefit; rather I see it as a huge detriment. We may live in a Ward but it’s a Ward of a City not individual Wards, even though they may be different. I think that type of concentration should be reserved for the Area Councils.
Rhanna, while agreeing with a lot of your post, I disagree that in Newton voters don’t vote for candidates based on their position on issues and that there is any valid comparison of the SC and the City Council.
As has been said, voters want a smaller city council. I am beginning to see the merits of not having Ward Reps only elected by their Ward. I particularly don’t like Ward Reps holding top positions on the Council or its committees giving the final vote on issues affecting the entire city to Councilors elected by a small number of voters. I also see no reason for there to be 3 reps of any type from one Ward.
I see the different types of charm among the villages as a positive but I am seeing Newton become more divisive in a negative way. Such as: The north side thinks it is being slighted by the South side. Newtonville is getting a new development so Waban should too – even larger. I don’t like Ward residents acting out of spite toward those in another Ward, but I’m seeing it more often. I think having all at large Councilors who see the city as a whole might be effective in reducing that division. If not that then condensing the Wards into 4 with 1 rep from each might help.
No intent to put words in Paul’s mouth or MArti’s mouth, but I do blame BOTH Susan and Emily for the mess that is currently Cabot School renovation. A little communication would have gone a long way.
Anyway, I have lots to say about this topic, but I’m focusing on Cabot this week.
Paul, I apologize for putting words in your mouth or misrepresenting any positions you might have. It seemed to me that you wanted the no development candidate but can see that you were just pointing out the slim margin of the winner, at least in Ward 2. Still in the case of Cabot you are illustrating an involved at large Ward councilor which supports the commission’s position. In addition, I think the system worked well in keeping a one issue, at large councilor from being in our city council. I think that a portion of the voters in Ward 2 were swayed by that one issue.
You say you feel more empowered with Emily because Ward 2 can replace her if she is not adequately representing Ward 2 but my counter is that she is representing only a portion of her Ward adequately but because of one issue she is golden, but even in her Ward rep position she is supposed to vote for the best thing for the city. Just to be clear, I am not saying that Emily is not a great councilor and would more than likely win an at large position, just using her position to make a point.
You say you want growth to be spread across the city. I would like that too but not because I think we are being singled out – I think it would be good for the city to have mixed use developments in many of its village centers. I also know we have no power over who buys property, or where they buy it, to develop. I agree that 3 stories is best for Newtonville but would support 4 or even 5 under the right circumstances.
Marti. I am not saying voters focusing only on their ward is a benefit.
I am saying that having voters within a ward focus on a ward elected councilor is a benefit. If I only vote for a handful of positions, my information about each candidate is better than if I vote for 24 positions. If I am voting for my ward councilor it is much more likely I have met him or her than someone who lives in a different ward then me. This produces a tight link between voters and the elected official.
Let me add that the ubiquitous “vote for these people” email is most effective when voters don’t know the candidates. This is a big problem with at-large elections–docile voters effectively abdicate decision making to insiders.
Rhanna. I am still eager to learn about the benefit of at-large representation.
The Straw Man that is bandied about concerning the leadership of the City Council is that a directly elected by Ward Councilor could become President or VP of the Council, having been elected to office by only 500 or so voters. This Straw Man is easily debunked by restricting the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the Council to at-large Councilors as candidates for those positions but elected only by the Ward direct Councilors!
The tide being difficult to restrain, I could be persuaded that 24 Councilors is too high a number to satisfy the spoken “will of the people”. I could live with 16. Eight directly elected by Ward with Ward residency; eight elected at-large, but with Ward residency. That reduces the total number, but keeps the representation from being concentrated in one or two Wards. I like the Council’s vision to be like the Varilux lenses in my glasses…able to read a Ward’s needs closely, when necessary, yet still able to oversee a City’s Grand Vision, without allowing that Citywide Vision to bully a community into submission.
Certainly, change is inevitable, but, as it occurs, it should never be easy, but be debated openly, carefully evaluated, and carried out with sensible restraint. An all at-large City Council could be the gorilla in the Chamber who could sit wherever he wants!
Jeffrey, I thought I answered that in my first post. The benefit of ward councilors being elected at-large is that they are accountable to the whole city, thus we can avoid parochialism and vote trading.
Ward councilors are usually elected by fewer than 1,000 votes, often with a margin of only a few hundred votes. With those numbers in mind, ward councilors are under tremendous pressure to keep a small number of voters happy–they would only have to anger a couple of hundred people in order to be ousted. This creates a lot of pressure to vote what the ward wants rather than what is best for the city. (I’m not aiming this comment at any specific people–I can think of ward councilors who have made tough decisions and put the interests of the city first.) When only about 1400 voters per ward show up on Election Day, this is the dynamic that results.
Jeffrey – The benefit that I see in having some Councilors at-large is that they’ll be in a position to see issues through a citywide lens rather than ward specific lens. The majority of the Council will still maintain a ward specific lens, so you don’t lose ward representation.
Kathy – At this point, 0% of the voters can cast a ballot for 7 seats on the Council in each election. That’s not a highly unlikely “what if…” scenario; it’s a “what is” situation.
Sallee, not a straw man at all, nor is it being bandied about as a reason not to have Ward Reps, I was thinking out loud about things I am seeing differently. I did not say not having Ward reps in certain positions was a reason to get rid of Ward reps. In fact I haven’t decided but am looking at possibilities, including not having 3 Ward reps in each Ward and condensing wards to have fewer Ward reps. I am looking at the arguments with an open mind.
Greg like other commentators dismisses any observations about the merits of me or any other past or present councilors or aldermen. I would respectfully suggest that this is ignoring a wealth of actual data about how the current Charter works in attracting and supporting office holders. The unique combination of citywide and village perspectives that both ward and at large councilors bring to their work may be a significant part of the quality of life in the city. To blithely discount its relevance is to run the risk that something that makes the city special would be lost if the number and method of election of Councilors were to be significantly change. Both Councilor Laredo and I have suggested based on our differing experiences that four year staggered terms for Councilors at Large might achieve some of the objectives of Charter change without risking change to the body politic. It would be at the price of immediate accountability. I would hope the Commission would consider this lesser change as a substitute for any sort of Council cut.
I was pleased to see that Mr. Krintzman laid out clearly the goals of the Commission. However, neither he nor his colleagues offers any proof that the Council cut they propose would in fact icnrease citizen turnout or the number of competitive elections, The School Committee track record would argue the contrary. The other communities in the state with smaller boards do not have better numbers in either category. Is there some unreleased data that would show more contests for the thirteen member councils or greater citizen contests in their races Thus far the faith in the changes sought by the Commission changes seem based on wishful thinking rather than hard data.
By the way, is the Commission aware that the Waltham Council that they seem to find a suitable role model for Newton cannot even staff its NINE committees according to a front page story in the News Tribune last week.?
I would change my summary of the Charter Council cut issue from “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”
to “don’t try to fix it; you might break it.”
Councilor Yates. I fear you may not have read my comments as intended. Bob wrote praising the Globe’s choice to invite you to be the voice opposed to this change. I responded:
As you see, I was not challenging your wisdom or experience, I was suggesting that the mere fact that you are an incumbent in danger of losing your job is going to be perceived differently from someone who was as brilliant as you, but not an incumbent.
Face it, over the decades/centuries we’ve seen many instances in politics globally where incumbents favor rules that allow them to stay in power and/or oppose those that threaten the same.
Again, my main point is, this decision is best made if we remove all thoughts of current office holders from our decision-making process because our charter should be designed to outlive us all.
@Marti: I wasn’t referring to you when I spoke of the Straw Man argument. Actually, I heard that argument at one of the Charter Review Commission Meetings and spoke out against it at the following meeting!
Greg, I understood and understand your point. However, I continue to believe that a proper evaluation of the current Charter by being cognizant of the kind of people elected under it and the possibility that those who see merit in any of us past or present should consider that the current Charter provisions might have contributed to our service and that maintaining the current number and structure might lead to similar citizen satisfaction with our distant successors.
@Jane: You answered Kathy with the fact that : “At this point, 0% of the voters can cast a ballot for 7 seats on the Council in each election. That’s not a highly unlikely “what if…” scenario; it’s a “what is” situation.”
By that same calculation, however, every voter can cast a ballot for 17/24 seats on the Council in each election. That’s 70.83% of the seats on the Council to be voted on by each voter! Impressive!
There is no single “right” answer to the composition of Newton’s city council though there are countless possibilities, each with benefits and negatives. The role of the charter commission is to evaluate possibilities and make a recommendation which we believe, in the aggregate, is the best. Remember, there will, of course, be arguments against any recommendation just as there are arguments against the status quo. No single argument is the “winning” argument leading to the correct solution.
While I don’t want to speak for the commission as a whole – I can explain my reasoning a little bit.
The research we conducted, the data that I saw, the articles I read and conversations that I had led me to believe two things: 1) a lot of people in Newton would like to have a smaller city council; and 2) it is possible, in fact almost certain, that a city council of fewer than 24 can serve effectively as the legislative branch in this city. [Again, I know that this doesn’t mean that everyone in Newton wants a smaller city council, but I think the evidence I saw leaned overwhelmingly towards the commission at least putting forward a proposed city council with fewer members.)
I heard consistently that the job description for ward councilor is exactly the same as the job description for at-large councilor. I also heard form councilors and residents alike that all city councilors should be acting in the best interests of the city. I agree. I believe that the city council should represent the whole city and should act in the city’s best interest. Citywide accountability makes the most sense for councilors who should be acting in the best interests of the city.
Regarding the geographic composition of the council: knowing that past and present school committee members and many residents expressed satisfaction and approval with the method by which we elect our school committee I had no problem looking to the school committee format for guidance. It’s quite unique, but then again, so is Newton. The at-large-by-ward configuration is a very good starting point which preserves geographic diversity and citywide accountability.
However, the city council will be shifting from 24 to some other number/composition must figure out how to function with a smaller membership. Adding in 5 members, elected at-large, seems like a good way to have a decent sized body, attract high quality candidates and ensure city-wide accountability for all members.
Some people have spoken about ward councilors being more responsive to the ward. Responsiveness is a function of how some councilors choose to do the job. Accountability, however, ought to align with those in whose interest the elected official is acting. Under a 13-person city council, I expect that some councilors will continue to be more responsive than others. But they should all be accountable to the people of Newton.
Many problems have been raised and solutions presented. Here are some issues that I believe will be helped by the charter commission’s proposal:
• Voters feel overwhelmed by the size of the city council and number of offices on the ballot every two years.
• Geographic restrictions on all city council and school committee seats, have limited candidates from running for office, especially against entrenched incumbents.
• The smaller the candidate pool, the less likely the city is to attract high-quality challengers.
• Incumbency advantage is extremely difficult to overcome.
• Elected officials responsible for the welfare of the city are not always accountable to the entire city.
Very early on, the Charter Commission established strategic goals for our work. We wanted to increase public participation in government through voter turnout and contested elections; increase civic understanding of our government, in part through ballot clarity and simplicity; and create a more effective and responsive government. I believe that the commission’s proposal on the city council helps accomplish those goals. However, I also look forward to learning (at our public hearing and future commission meetings) how we can improve upon this proposal.
In my opinion 100% of the voters should be able to cast a ballot in 100% of the races in the city.
‘Citywide’ elected councilors success is fulfilled by the ‘machine’ group speak which entrenches incumbency advantage even further. This CC is brain-washed, logic & reason not apparent in many statements. To those paying attention, the League’s apparent line is there, subliminal arrogance unwilling to negotiate for a successful final product before the voter. Where’s Dukakis in a tank when you need him..
@Harry: I believe you can disagree with our charter commissioners without disparaging them personally. I also think you are assigning way too much power to the League, who are, need I remind you, also entitled to having opinions. Let’s stick to the issues.
I missed Josh’s comment. I agree with his post, as well as Rhanna’s. I don’t have time to compose my thoughts at the moment, but these two posts sum up most of my thinking.
Thanks Rhanna, Jane, and Josh for answering the question, “What is the benefit of having ward councilors elected at-large?” I might be missing a nuance, but all three of you seemed to give a similar answer that councilors should be accountable to all voters in the city.
No one is saying there is a upswell of people crying to get rid of ward councilors. In light of this, let me ask a variation of a question that I asked at the charter debate. Is there a specific bad outcome that Newton could have avoided in the past if Ward councilors were voted at-large? If we can’t point to specific problems that this would have fixed, then my feeling is “if it ain’t broken don’t fix it.”
A clarifying question. What is the current plan for the how the at-large elections will be carried out? The current procedure is that the top two highest vote getters win. This really does not hold someone responsible, since a challenger is unable to run against a specific “bad” incumbent. Many potential challengers might avoid running if it means they might unseat a “good” incumbent.
@Josh: “Voters feel overwhelmed by the size of the city council and number of offices on the ballot every two years.
• Geographic restrictions on all city council and school committee seats, have limited candidates from running for office, especially against entrenched incumbents.
• The smaller the candidate pool, the less likely the city is to attract high-quality challengers.
• Incumbency advantage is extremely difficult to overcome.
• Elected officials responsible for the welfare of the city are not always accountable to the entire city.
Could you provide evidence backing these statements up? I went on the charter commission website and was disappointed to see that the voluminous comments and emails the commission must have received are not posted. Would love to see what feedback you have received to come to these conclusions.
Thanks!
Amy, does the City Council post emails from constituents on controversial matters, say Austin Street? I know email is a part of the public record but I would still be surprised to see an email I wrote to the City Council published on the website. That said, all of the comments we have received at public hearings and meetings are available both in the audio recordings and minutes found our website.
Not all of the things on your list were matters of public comment. The length of the ballot and size of the City Council have been the subject of many comments and emails, as you can imagine. We have looked at data on contested elections the percentage of incumbents who are ousted (if it’s not on the website yet, it will be soon.) And that some elected officials (ward councilors) are not accountable to the entire city is just a fact.
@Paul, I looked at 22 years of Newton elections data for Councilor-at-Large seats (going back to 1993). I found 8 instances where someone who finished in the top 2 spots in the ward for which he / she was running did not finish in the top 2 for that ward in the city-wide voting.
Amy – “Incumbency advantage is extremely difficult to overcome.”
There’s data that’s being compiled at this moment that points to the power of incumbency.
“Elected officials responsible for the welfare of the city are not always accountable to the entire city.”
Ward councilors are accountable to 1/8 of the city’s voters – at most – but vote on all citywide issues.
I receive feedback in many forms – email, phone calls, at community meetings, in many conversations with people I meet around the city. As for publishing emails on a website, that’s not something either the City Council or the School Committee does so it’s unclear why you’d expect to the Charter Commission to do what the no other group has ever done.
The art of negotiation is recognized by certain givens such as the momentum of voters desiring to downsize the council. That factor appears to be in play in leveraging the ousting of ward specific representation. Call it what you may, but the apparent power play exists. Naive are those who are not suspicious by blindly trusting in machine politics.
Socio-economic ward specific diversity exist, all pulling from the same general fund. Demands need to be represented by an accountable ward only representative.
This factor stands to torpedo the entire charter package should the CC not negotiate a fairer strategy.
@Jane and Rhanna: The City Council does post correspondence on various issues before the Board. http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/aldermen/committees/programs/default.asp
So I’m not asking for anything we don’t also supply. I just want to see the materials you guys have relied on to come to your conclusions and votes and I suspect many others in the community would like to see these materials/correspondence/emails as well.
Amy -First of all, your link shows the word “Correspondence” listed about ten times, but none of them link to anything.
Secondly and more importantly, emails are just one form of communication we receive. I talk with people about charter issues all the time at this point in my life – these conversations are invaluable and too numerous to count.
Jane: Looks like when the City “upgraded” it’s website something happened to the link. That is being checked as we speak. I need to review those correspondence files anyway – since the Council will soon take up the Proposed Leaf Blower Ordinance. But your comment was that the City Council doesn’t post so why should the Charter Commission. Well – the City Council does post, so I am asking you guys to do the same. I suspect we won’t capture all of the communication – but at least the ones that either come through the official chartercommission email accounts could be captured.
If you’re going to be influenced by 10 emails on an issue that’s generated a lot of talk in a city with 52,000 registered voters, that’s a serious source of concern. I assume you’ve spoken to way more people than that and those conversations aren’t reflected in your correspondence, but should be given the same value as an email to my way of thinking. For the Charter Commission, the email contact has not been a major source of feedback either.
@Jane: First, the barrage of emails we have received on the Leaf Blower Ban is not the only source of information I will rely on. Like you, I am informed by the vast number of people I communicate with – either by phone, snail mail, in person conversations, blogs, etc. But unlike you, I don’t have a problem being transparent with the information I am using to base my decisions on. If you have only received a handful of emails – through the email server set up by the City for you – then post them. If you have received snail mail – through the Charter Commission mailing address listed on the emails you send out to the public and post on the Charter Commission webpage – then post them. What’s the big deal?
Hi Amy – I have a policy of not getting into these back-and-forth conversations on the blog. I’m happy to speak with you about any issues related to the charter commission. You have my email. Let’s have coffee.
@Jane,
I would very much like to see the information Amy is looking for. We keep hearing about what the people want, yet when I attended a charter commission meeting a few weeks ago on 40A legislation I was surprised to see very few members of the public. The majority of people attending were elected officials. If Newton Residents were not interested in attending that meeting, I get the feeling they have no interest in the charter commission itself either!
Interestingly until CC complies with Amy’s request, the Charter Commission is not operating in the open.
Additionally, could you again list which members of the CC are current or former members of the LWV?
Jim -The audio of our meetings are uploaded within an hour of the end of every meeting. The email issue was just not something anyone raised before, but I don’t have problem with uploading the letters from residents to us. My initial reaction came as a result of remembering a letter I sent to you that contained information about my family in an effort to personalize an issue. I wouldn’t want to have that letter uploaded on a website. I’m aware that emails are in the public domain, but it never crossed my mind it would end up on a website.
@Jane,
If emails, letters Etc are not stored centrally at the moment, how does the charter commission go about digesting this information?
I copy and paste each letter onto a Word document and place it in a folder specifically for input on each article. It makes it very easy to read letters related to a particular issue. I’m not sure how others do it, but this is a method that works for me on the Commission and in my work life.
Sorry Jane,
Perhaps I should have been a little more specific. I was wondering how this information gets shared with your fellow committee members, and how they share alike.
Simon – this is specifically about emails, which is only one way of collecting input: when you email the Charter Commission, a copy is sent to each person. This is a system that’s identical to the City Council and the School Committee email distribution. I’m not sure what you mean by “how they share alike”. We don’t discuss the emails, if that’s what you’re talking about.
Councilor Cote, I dispute your assertion that we are “not operating in the open” by not posting constituent emails on our website. As you know, they are part of the public record and anyone can have access to them who requests them (as Councilor Sangiolo has done). Posting them on the website creates another administrative and maintenance task with minimal value. And constituents were not informed before writing us that their email would be publicly posted. The City Council has posted some emails on leaf blowers, but they do not routinely post constituent emails.
No one on the charter commission is making any decisions based on the email tally. The emails have value because they offer insights into reasoning behind various positions. If the tally were overwhelming in one direction, that would be useful information, but it is not.
That said, I’ve done a very rough tally (in the interest of transparency) for anyone who is interested.
We’ve received approximately 71 emails from 54 unique constituents. Some letters address more than one topic and some have written more than once on the same topic.
The rough tally:
Reduce the Council: 18
Keep 24 Coucilors: 13
Keep Ward Reps regardless of size: 5
For term limits: 7
Against term limits: 1
Concerning School Comm term limits only: 4
Favor Recall: 3
Favor Strong Mayor: 3
Favor City Manager: 1
Favor 4-year terms: 2
Keep special permits with Council: 4
Remove special permits from Council: 1
Misc.: 25
Other forms of public input include public hearings and meetings, letters and other opinion pieces in the Tab, and posts on this blog. At the time of our votes on Article 2 I did a rough tally of emails and public comments and the sentiment to downsize the Council was running at about 56%. The total number of people giving input was fewer than 50.
To make decisions, the charter commission considers research, best practices (e.g. the Model City Charter), testimony from current and former elected officials and other professionals (from Newton and other cities), input from the consultants at the Collins Center, and constituent thoughts.
Thanks for the tallies Rhanna. I am looking forward to receiving the emails I requested yesterday. In addition, I would like to request the names of the School Committee members – past and present who were interviewed as part of the research conducted for the Article 4 discussion. I have found a discussion guide and a summary chart of the responses but not the names of those that were interviewed.
I must say that the report from Anne Larner regarding School Committee Election data ((http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/75784)) was extremely well-done!!!
Amy,
We are getting your request for all the charter commission emails into the queue with the IT department, hopefully they will be able to begin working on it soon.
Please make any information requests in writing directly to the charter commission. (In this case, I can tell you that the information you seek is in the minutes of the 3/1 and 3/2 meetings with School Committee current and former members–audio also available.)
http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/chartercommission/agendas_n_minutes/2016.asp
Anne Larner is working on comparable analysis for the City Council which will be available shortly.
Amy – Thanks for your interest in the charter commission and I hope you’ll begin to attend our regularly scheduled meetings. Right now, I’m about to run out for a jam-packed day and won’t be home until late this evening, but I can send you the information tomorrow. In the meantime, our meetings are audio recorded and uploaded ASAP (the audio from last night’s hearing is already on the CC page) and you can get most of the information you want on the SC interviews there. The data from the interviews with SC members over a 30-year period (1986-2016) was very consistent.
Thanks Rhanna and Jane! Appreciate the direction and info!