Charter Commission chair Josh Krintzman tells the TAB’s Jonathan Dame that it is unlikely the commission will recommend changes to the special permitting process.
Meanwhile the commission will hold a public hearing Wednesday, June 1, 7 p.m. at City Hall Council Chambers, beginning at 7 p.m. to gather public input related to Article 2 (the Legislative Branch), Article 3 (the Executive Branch), and Article 4 (School Committee) of the City Charter, and the Commission’s work-to-date on these articles. Here’s a summary of the major proposed changes from these three articles.
Proposed Revisions to Article 2 (Legislative):
* There shall be a city council of 13 members.
* Eight councilors will be known as councilors-by-ward, 1 from each of the city’s 8 wards, elected by voters city-wide.
* Five councilors will be known as councilors at-large. They can live anywhere in the city and will be elected by voters city-wide.
* A candidate for the office of councilor-by-ward shall be a resident of the ward from which the candidate seeks election as of July 1 (prior to an election).
* A candidate for the office of councilor at-large shall be a resident of the city as of July 1 (prior to an election).
* Councilors may serve for 6 consecutive terms (term limit of twelve consecutive years).
Proposed Revisions to Article 3 (Executive):
* The mayor shall appoint a chief administrative officer to coordinate and direct the operations of the various departments and functions of municipal government.
* City employees may serve on advisory boards and commissions, so long as they do not comprise more than 1/3 of the full membership of the board or commission.
* If a vacancy in the office of the mayor occurs during the last 9 months of the term for which the mayor was elected, the president of the city council shall serve as the acting mayor until the next election for mayor is held.
Proposed Revisions to Article 4 (School Committee):
* A candidate for the School Committee shall be a resident of the ward from which the candidate seeks election as of July 1 (prior to an election).
* An up-to-date record of policies adopted by the school committee shall be made electronically available to the public.
* School Committee members may serve for 6 consecutive terms (term limit of twelve consecutive years).
“The mayor shall appoint a chief administrative officer to coordinate and direct the operations of the various departments and functions of municipal government.”
Why? This makes no sense to me. It duplicates what is now the mayor’s responsibility. It’s not cost effective. And it puts an unelected individual in the second most powerful position in city government.
@Mike: I think it is appropriate to have a person with management experience and even better municipal management expertise running the day to day while the elected mayor sets the agenda and direction and is available to meet and interact with a wide array of stakeholders. Running a city is a big complex job, it can’t be done alone.
I agree, Greg. I think it’s appropriate too. Depending of course on the management style of a particular mayor.
But what’s really bothering me is the inclusion of the word “direct.” “Coordinate” is the much better term. “Direct” implies authority. As written, this new position would have the authority to “…direct the operations of the various departments and functions of municipal government.”
So the Charter Commission is essentially creating an entirely new position, and empowering that unelected person with almost the same authority as the elected mayor. In my opinion, this is crossing into some dangerous territory that will inevitably create an entirely new power structure within city government. I think it’s very ill conceived.
@Mike,
I would have to imagine that the power structure you’re concerned about most likely exists already. If the Mayor himself makes every decision, every day, for every little thing, I would be very concerned about the decision making structure as it stands. What happens when the Mayor takes a vacation, is out medical reasons, or has family matters to attend to? I really hope the executive decisions don’t come to a grinding halt when the Mayor is not available. I would assume that critical decisions that can wait for the Mayor’s input, wait for the Mayor’s input. For the day to day grind decisions, I would expect that his team could steer the ship.
I also don’t think that this would be unique to Newton. I would expect any Mayor or Town Manager in the country, to empower his/her team to make simple decisions in his/her absence.
First, the Charter Commission should eliminate the office of Mayor and go with a professional City Manager. Second, the Charter Commission should have Ward Councillors directly elected by the Ward and not City wide. This keeps local representation.
A City Manager would be a huge mistake for Newton. The person who runs this city should be fully accountable to the voters. And that’s my concern about what the Charter Commission is proposing by creating this new position of an unelected, unaccountable, Chief Administrative Officer, and giving that person the power to “direct” all the functions of the city.
The lack of accountability in city government is already ridiculous. When was the last time someone in Newton’s government apologized for a mistake they made? I want a mayor who is fully accountable. Not a City Manager or Chief Administrative officer who never has to face a ballot box.
Ted Mann was and will always be the gold standard of mayorship for this city. Anyone who lived here during his 22 years as Mayor understands the wisdom of our “strong mayor” system of governance. This city desperately needs more accountability, not less. In fact, I see that as the primary reason to reduce the size of the City Council. Reducing the Council, but adding [in effect] a second, unelected mayor, makes absolutely no sense to me. It creates an entirely new power structure in our government, and in my opinion, it’s the single worst idea the Charter Commission has proposed.
Mike-This was just a listing of the proposed changes in short form. The actual drafts outline much more clearly each of the items. The CAO would not have the power you describe. Each mayor hires staff and one of those people usually acts as the day to day manager. Given that there’s a person who runs the daily operations, in my opinion, it is in the best interest of the city to outline the basic qualifications for such a person. The draft language reads as follows: “The chief administrative officer shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor and be appointed on the basis of having strong administrative and executive qualifications and shall be especially fitted by education, training and experience to perform the duties of the office.”
In other words, the CAO reports to the mayor and must be qualified to do the job. I hope that helps.
I don’t believe the “chief administrative officer” should be specified in the charter. How the mayor organizes those positions under him in the Executive Branch doesn’t seem like something the charter should be concerning itself with.
Different mayors at different times with different staff members should have the latitude to organize their department as they see fit. Since the start of Setti Warren’s administration that has evolved.
Early on Bob Rooney was the Chief Executive Officer. When he left, responsibilities were shuffled around and Dori Seleznik was appointed as Chief Administrative Officer with a somewhat different though similar job description.
I think that type of defining of roles of the staff belongs in the hands of the mayor rather than in the charter.
@Jane Frantz – Our comments above overlapped.
Given the fuller language it seems even clearer that it doesn’t belong in charter. It doesn’t seem like its the charters job to instruct the mayor to hire qualified people, nor tell him/her how to organize their department.
Jane– Thanks. It helps a lot! I would still be more comfortable with the word “direct” removed from the description, as it implies an authority that should be reserved for the Mayor. There should be no question that the CAO’s authority stems from the Mayor. The language should reflect that fact, as it does with the word “coordinate,” or would with a word such as “implement.” Speaking only for myself, I don’t want anyone having the autonomous authority to “direct” the “functions of municipal government.” or all of its “various departments.” But you have certainly alleviated my concern, and I really appreciate your responding.
I see your point. I’ll bring it up at a meeting.
Mike and Jerry -How well you have outlined the dilemma of the Charter Commission in your back to back posts! Such is my life right now. :)
Jane– I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again… I think the Charter Commission is doing a tremendous job of reaching out to the public for input. And I continue to be impressed by a level of transparency that all our local governing bodies should emulate. I sincerely appreciate the effort each and every member of the Commission is putting into this extremely important process.
Having said that… I completely agree with Jerry’s point above. My initial response was the same as his. You, Jerry and I, have been around Newton long enough to see mayors with different management styles. Personally, I’d like to give any mayor maximum flexibility in how they structure their management team. So I don’t love this idea of including a CAO in the Charter. But I very much appreciate your willingness to engage in conversation about this and other Charter related topics.
Thanks, Mike. Please remember that we’re at the point where we’ve pulled apart the current charter with straw votes. The hard work will begin as we put the pieces back together and assess whether it holds together as an integrated whole.
I’ve worked with every Mayor since Ted Mann. All had Chief Administrative Officers. I believe that the title was Administrative Assistant under their predecessors. This change would seem to make little difference except to the current Administration where there is both a Chief Administrative Officer and a Chief of Staff/Chief Financial Officer. Neither the Mayor nor any one else I know of is dissatisfied with this arrangement. To make it comply with the proposed Charter change would require at least a title change for one of the two office holders. Why bother? The arguments above make a good case for leaving this provision out of the Charter. Was the Commission even aware of the current situation and if so, why did they propose a change?