The Charter Commission met last night to begin a discussion about the current proposal to revamp the city council. The proposal as supported by a unanimous straw voted earlier this year included:
- 8 members elected by the entire population but residing in each of the 8 wards,and
- 5 members elected at large that would run in a pool, with the top 5 vote getters being elected.
Two tweaks to that proposal were suggested and discussed last night. First, the Commission discussed the relative advantages and disadvantages of a 12 member City Council as opposed to 13. Second, the Commission discussed whether the “pool” method for selecting the 4-5 additional councillors should be changed to a “district” model. These district councillors would still but elected at large, but would each have to reside in a subset of the city that would include multiple wards.
To be clear, under both of the scenarios I am describing, all councillors would be elected at large, only the selection method would be different.
Personally, I am undecided on the question, as it seems were several of the other Commissioners. Your feedback would be helpful to me and my fellow Commissioners as we debate these 2 concerns. I’ve also included a poll on “district” vs. “pool” councillors below.
[polldaddy poll=9505856]
Can you elaborate what you refer by a pool?
If I am a Newton voter, I should be able to vote for any number (to a max) of at-large councilors. Is that what you mean?
Correct, all voters would be able to vote for up to 5, and the top 5 vote getters would be elected.
Okayyyy so this district model is not at-large? There would be ward councilors and district councilors but no one representing EVERY voter?
I support the true at-large model, of the two. It’s both democratic and representative.
The question is confusing. I think what is being asked is “Do you prefer if 4 (or 5) of 13 (or 14) councilor who are elected in a pool or elected by district.”
Elected by district is better. Voters deserve elections where distinctions can be made between the incumbent’s platform and the challenger’s platform. Let’s talk about issues, not resumes.
Why don’t you include a choice of the current configuration of the City Council 8 by ward, and 16 at-large two from each ward?
It’s served the City well for over 100 years
Hi Jeffrey,
So I’m clear on what you support, I live in Nonantum. If someone is running for council from a different village and that village is not part of “my district,” even though that person is not running for a ward seat, I will not be able to vote for the person? How’s that different from the status quo?
@Brian, that option is certainly going to be an option for voters next November, but it isn’t a likely proposal by the Charter Commission. My hope is that we can get a feel for which of the two options we’re currently considering people would prefer.
@Bryan:
How would the districts be decided? Would you combine wards? If so, how would you come up with a fifth councilor elected by district?
Thanks.
Being relatively new to Newton politics and government. I concur with @Brian Yates. I cannot imagine anyone voting for “less” representation when there has been no reason given to do so? There sure seems to be a large number of Representatives in the House of Representatives so possibly we could roll all of New England and New York into one district and eliminate about 35 of these folks? Who would do that?
The City of Los Angeles has 15 councilors. Granted they get paid more than Newton’s councilors, but the principle remains. Why should Newton with some 85,000 people have more councilors than LA with some 4 million people?
The logic is lost on me.
Change for change’s sake is bad change. Change to improve something is good change. This proposal by the Charter Commission is good change.
To clear up some confusion about how the Charter Commission operates:
1. We take straw votes on major issues/articles. A straw vote assumes that at some point, a final vote will be taken.
2. It has been our intent to collect as much input as possible from Newton voters after the straw votes. It was my intent to use that input to inform my perspective and opinions on issues.
3. The proposal voted on in April has a City Council of 8 representatives with ward residence but voted at-large. In addition, the proposal includes 5 at-large Councilors with no residency requirement, with the 5 top vote getters winning the election. In the intervening months this group has often been referred to as a “pool”. This is known as Scenario D.
4. At the April meeting, we discussed 5 scenarios and 2 stood out as attractive possibilities: Scenario D and E. Scenario E has 8 Councilors with a ward residency requirement and 4 District Councilors. The District Councilors would represent 2 wards and be a resident of one of two wards.
5. Since that time, we’ve all had numerous conversations seeking feedback. I can say with some assurance that we’ve done our best to have thorough conversations with people who represent the full spectrum of opinions (Jeffrey and I spoke for an hour and a half via Skype while he was in England and I was in Maine).
5. At the April meeting, we discussed the composition of the Council for an hour and a half. This is probably the most important proposal we will make. I always assumed that we’d spend much more time in discussions about the compositions of the Council once we heard from from people.
6. It became clear to me after my many conversations (and I speak only for myself) that we should at the very least offer a variation of Scenario E in which the District Councilors are elected at-large.
In addition, the issue of the number of Councilors arose as a concern to some because so many important and controversial issues require a 2/3 majority vote of the full Council. 2/3 of 13 is 8.58 which needs to be rounded to either 8 or 9. With 12 Councilors, 2/3 of 12 is clear to anyone who has passed 4th grade math.
I hope this offers some clarification to the process over the last 6 months. Please note that according to the open meeting law, only 4 members of the Charter Commission can comment on a blog thread. Over time, Bryan, Rhanna and I have been regular contributors so I think we’re fine, but we’ll be keeping an eye on it.
@Gail: Specific to your concern, the “district” model has mostly arisen in the context of a 12 member council with each district representing 2 wards. There could also be 5 districts and they could be drawn separately from ward lines, as happens in Boston and other cities around MA and the US.
You can read a really interesting blerb about the process Boston went through to develop their district lines here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Council#History
(and one that makes you think twice about drawing your own lines)
I think the wording of the poll is misleading (I think unintentionally so, based on Bryan’s statement in his post about “all councillors would be elected at large”). When I read in the poll: “8 at large councillors elected by ward,” I naturally think that each of the 8 councillors would be elected by his/her ward. Not mere residency in the ward, but elected by the voters in that ward.
In general, I’m opposed to removing the local representation that our current Ward Councilors provide. Mere residency in a ward is insufficient. And residency is subject to a bit of interpretation, as yo may recall.
I would not want the entire country voting on who from MA-CD 4 should represent me in Congress. The same principle holds at the ward level.
@Bryan – I have no objection to making the CC smaller but absolutely object to getting rid of ward councilors (elected by their wards). I would like to know why that isn’t being considered as an option.
I’m not loving the pool option because it would make efforts to unseat any one or more specific councilors even more difficult than it is now when there are two at-large candidates.
For example, if City Councilors Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee, Tommy and Sting were all incumbents seeking reelection and you really thought Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee, Tommy were awesome but could not stand Sting, the possible unintended consequences could discourage challengers and/or support for those challengers.
But I don’t especially love the district model either — say Wards 1 and 2 together, 3 and 4 together etc. — because I think it would confuse the average voter.
I know it wasn’t an option but I favor: 16 at large, two per ward, four-year staggered terms.
However Bryan that doesn’t mean I “wouldn’t support either” it’s just not my preference.
@Greg – Thanks for the info, but more importantly: Was that an excellently placed Ramones reference? And why are they hanging out with Sting?
That’s my point! They don’t want to hang out with Sting. And more importantly I don’t want to turn on NewTV every other Monday and listen to Sting if I could listen to Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and Tommy instead.
Why do all the options only offer city-wide voting? What is wrong with only ward elected councilors?
We could have just 8 councilors, and raise their pay to compensate for the increased workload. (We could more than triple it, because of the reduced health care expenses).
The mayor is voted for city-wide, it seems to me, the mayor could be/should be a counter balance to parochial ward interests.
Lucia’s question is crucial. The Charter vote outcome may very well hinge on the population’s stomach for a purely city-elected council.. Right now, I don’t see it happening. Whatever the final proposal is, someone is going to have to present a clear-succinct explanation and convince enough voters that it is a good idea. Designing what is marketable, might very well trump marketing what you design.
@Jeffrey: For better or worse, I think many voters will be persuaded by reducing the council or not — and endorsements from people who they trust — not the nuances that we’re all focused on here. That will likely decide the outcome.
Lucia is right. But the Charter Commission is going as far away from that as logistically possible.
I personally believe it’s an effort which will (either accidentally or on purpose) consolidate power, marginalize the village individuality paradigm, and reduce ward voter input.
Pool: A pool, of course, would make it extremely easy to create a slate. A slate was successful in the Charter Commission election, so it would make perfect sense that a similar proposal would be supported by the Commissioners for the city as a whole.
Districts? Uhm, we have them. They’re called Wards. Just combine 2 wards, if that’s the direction you want to go. At least it would be better than gutting the Ward system which has served the city extremely well for as long as anyone can remember.
Why create another layer of unnecessary complexity?
It was? I recall lots of folks endorsing groups of candidates, but they didn’t always agree. I don’t recall any organized slates.
Sounds a little like sour grapes to me.
I see several benefits of the councilors elected at-large with no residency requirement, also known as the at-large pool.
You get the best people from across the city elected to the council. In seats elected by ward, you often get two great people facing off against each other in Ward A, while the no-so-great councilor from Ward B runs unopposed.
The at-large pool allows people to run for city council without having to challenge the well-loved councilor from their ward, or without having to wait until that person steps down.
The councilors in the at-large pool are likely to be challenged at every election. They answer to the whole city and they will have to campaign every two years, which will likely make them more accountable and more responsive.
We need to structure a government where all of our neighborhoods have representation and responsiveness to their needs. One councilor from each ward will insure each neighborhood has a representative, but there is never a guarantee that all councilors are equally attuned or responsive. The at-large pool, composed of 4-5 people who have to run every two years and who answer to the whole city, provides added insurance that everyone will get responsive representation.
The district model just adds one more of what each ward will already have. A councilor elected from a limited geography who may never get an opponent.
@Rhanna: I’m trying to get my head around this, and what you wrote makes sense to me. But I’m still concerned that a group from one pocket of the city — or with one shared interest — could end up with a disproportionate amount of power.
In truth, neither model (or any model for that matter) guarantees that we’ll have “real” openings in an election. Excellent candidates often forego running against a well known incumbent in a one-on-one model that currently exists and that’s surely an issue with the District model. However, there’s no stopping 5 incumbents with the highest name recognition in the city from joining the “pool” and winning easily. It’s a concern that current councilors have about the model.
Both models have advantages and disadvantages but having the discussion is perhaps the most important part. The people on this blog have expressed a clear opinion, emails provide a distinctly different perspective, and my conversations with many residents over the last year have provided a more nuanced perspective.
Also remember in April we took a straw vote which, by definition, is meant to solicit public opinion on a decision. I’ve repeated that concept about 100 times in the last 9 months.
@Jane: The people on this blog have actually expressed many opinions. I hope you aren’t reading Village 14 as one voice.
This is exactly why I believe we should have only ward voting: “You get the best people from across the city elected to the council. In seats elected by ward, you often get two great people facing off against each other in Ward A, while the no-so-great councilor from Ward B runs unopposed.”
Some wards are more politically active than others and some wards have wealthier residents with more time and money to run a campaign.
I think Charlie is right, with only city-wide voting we’ll end up with an exclusive pool from which all our councilors emerge, which I do not believe will represent all of Newton well.
Even though I frequently disagree with my representatives, like Charlie or Emily or Jim, I think it is very important to have diverse voices in our government for people to feel connected to their government. Diversity is limited by making it more difficult to run.
With only citywide elections, I think we’ll lose diversity because of the costs and time required to run a campaign and candidates feeling they shouldn’t run because they don’t have the ‘right stuff’ to win (education, connections, family history in Newton, etc.)
Citywide voting suppresses representation of minority opinions. Minority: “a racial, ethnic, religious, or social subdivision of a society that is subordinate to the dominant group in political, financial, or social power without regard to the size of these groups” Dictionary.com
@Greg: I ultimately agree with you, that the proposal will rise or fall on whether voters want to reduce the size. Unfortunately, for too many that’s the level of detail they’ll have when they go in to vote, although we’ll be doing everything in our power to educate the voters both now and leading up to the election.
Which is why I think it is so important for us to get this right and to solicit feedback from those who are active and engaged.
@Greg-zero sour grapes – more of a sigh of relief and a statement of truth.
Please address the primary context of the post?
@Jane- I find that when its necessary to repeat something 100 times, it’s not always the receiver of the information with which the problem exists.
@Gail-Great point! “…a disproportionate amount of power…” The current system guards against that. Big time.
Adding a second tranche of residency requirements to a 100% at-large council complicates things without any meaningful benefit. I am less concerned with where representatives live than with who elects them. As between the two choices listed above, I’d rather not impose a residency requirement on the 5 councilors.
If we are going to have a council where 100% of the councilors are elected at-large (which I do not favor), I would rather have 5 representatives elected by a proportional voting system with no residency requirement. A proportional system naturally promotes geographic dispersion of representatives in a city like ours, and it would allow minority viewpoints to have fair representation. Such a system might not let voters target specific individuals they would like to see unseated or defeated (which is clearly something some voters want), but that’s the point. A system that allows 51% of the voters to choose 100% of the seats can be used to suppress minority representation.
National politics this year have taught us to expect the unexpected. Hopefully this charter will be in place for decades. It doesn’t matter how many different residency requirements you layer in, 100% at-large without any proportional voting makes me nervous.
“@Jane- I find that when its necessary to repeat something 100 times, it’s not always the receiver of the information with which the problem exists.” Charlie – I’ve explained our current City Council composition to people many 100 times over the years and people still don’t get it. Including my very well informed about national politics husband! You grew up here, so it’s very familiar to you, but confusing for many others.
Gail – The last time there was a thread about this topic, I counted those who opposed changed versus those who wanted to see some kind of change, and most posters on V14 expressed a certain point of view. Other places where I’ve sought out feedback have had distinctly different POV’s. Certainly it was a small sample and may not be representative, but it was the source of my comment. It was not intended as a negative at all. Every resident should have some way of expressing an opinion. It’s why I’m pleased that Brian posted this thread.
Kathy’s suggestion of Citywide proportional voting is great. Best solution I’ve heard.
@Gail, there is always the possibility that several of the at-large pool councilors could come from the same ward. But they are elected by the whole city and they will likely have to run every 2 years, so it seems unlikely that they would focus on their own neighborhood to the exclusion of the rest of the city—they would have to answer for that at the ballot box.
The at-large pool is a very popular structure for city government, and it’s the top best practices recommendation of the model city charter. There are 54 cities in Massachusetts, and 52 of them have an at-large pool (only Newton and Barnstable don’t). 10 of the cities have only the at-large pool. In our discussions with city councilors from other cities, the concentration of power in one neighborhood did not seem to be an issue.
@Lucia
“Some wards are more politically active than others and some wards have wealthier residents with more time and money to run a campaign.”
Currently every ward has 2 people who had to run a city-wide campaign for City Council. One city-wide mailing, 100 yard signs, a year of website hosting, and quality printed collateral can be all done for around $3,000. Someone with more money to spend could do more mailings, but fundraising $5-7,000 does not present a huge hurdle to running for office.
Newton has always had dynamic elected officials coming out of every ward. Mayoral candidates and leaders on the city council (as measured by council presidents, vice presidents and committee chairs) come from every ward. The charter commission, an at-large pool, was elected from 6 of 8 wards. Some wards have higher voter turnout, but they don’t necessarily produce more dynamic leaders, and I tend to think that Newton voters focus on the substance of the candidate…hard to imagine that a majority of voters would vote the at-large pool based on residency over substance, especially since the pool answers to the city as a whole and can’t easily favor the local neighborhood.
I agree with Rhanna 500 percent. Took the words out of my mouth.
To Gail’s concerns that there could be unbalanced representation, you could make the same illogical argument about any election on any governmental stage.
Several opinions have been expressed in the comments on this thread alone and many have been made on others. There is no consensus on this blog which causes me to wonder if there is truly one joint opinion in the emails. That is hard to imagine.
There are clearly councilors who are more resident centric, getting involved in varied concerns – not just in their wards. These councilors are from several different wards not dependent on areas that wealthier or not. It is the councilors themselves, not the wards they live in, that decide what issues and concerns they concentrate on. Councilors elected at-large will continue to determine their version of being a city councilor.
Rhanna’s last post was a good description of the “pool” election process. I really would like the option of candidates being able to challenge a particular counselor, the Sting example but see the merit in what Rhanna says.
I would argue with this: “but fundraising $5-7,000 does not present a huge hurdle to running for office.”
According to the Federal Reserve “Forty-six percent of adults say they either could not cover an emergency expense costing $400, or would cover it by selling something or borrowing money.”
If we want Newton to be economically diverse, I think we need to keep this in mind.
To Marti’s point, I’ve heard what seems like every configuration for the City Council under the sun at this point, so trying to identify a “consensus” opinion is a futile exercise. Everyone has their favorite, but the Commission’s responsibility is to evaluate all the possibilities and propose one that fits Newton as we move into the future.
Through this process, I’ve become partial to two concepts: equal representation for all residents and accountability of all councilors to the entire electorate. To my way of thinking that’s “little d” democracy. A Councilor takes a position on an issue or issues over time, and I as a voter – in a small way – am able to hold that Councilor accountable.
The strength of proportional representation like Cambridge (“single transferable vote (SVT)” with all seats as part of the pool) has is that there are enough seats to give many interests a voice if voters with those interests focus on one (or a small number) of candidates.
If you like one person? Vote for him or her. Like candidates because they live near you, or they look like you, or because you think they care about you? Vote for them.
The current system has an intended ward bias (basically, geography). That’s just one way people vote. In a purely proportional system, a strong ward affiliation by voters will lead to councillors from each ward, through the natural process, because you only need to get 1/(number of councillors +1) + 1 votes to get a seat. If voters self-identify differently than by ward, you’ll get a different composition on the council.
Creating a proportional representation system as proposed with a small “pool” means restricted flexibility to meet specific, perhaps traditionally underrepresented needs: fewer candidates mean more votes required per candidate, exceeding the threshold of less represented needs. Yes, maybe it’s better than a non-proportional “at-large” pool, but it may not be better than the broader alternatives like pure SVT.
As a newer Newton resident, I wonder whether ward representation matters as much to the average person on the street than it did in days past (as opposed to the current voting pool). Think people’s choice of who they want to represent them is much richer and more complex than that in today’s world of village14 and email.
Sure geographic representation is important. But is it that much more important to be strongly favored over all the other reasons people might choose a candidate?
For background, the STV system is described here. It seems complicated to implement, but for voters it is easy: rank your candidates, as many as you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
To Ari’s point above, Newton has plenty of experience with slates of candidates who have banded together due to a shared interest, both on the School Committee and the City Council, neither of which has an at-large pool.
Slates don’t tend to fare well in Newton. With an at-large pool, in most elections there would be some incumbents running for the 5 seats. Those are people with a track record and name recognition. Hard to imagine them joining a slate, given the history. They would likely do better alone.
Kathy – In one-on-one contests, 51% of the vote elects one councilor if only two people are running. In no election in Newton’s history has the total council been elected by anywhere close to 51% of the voters. I can only recall one case in the last 15 years when it was anywhere near that close. It doesn’t make sense to develop a system to avoid circumstances that have never occurred and aren’t likely to in the future. If the problem should arise in the future, the proposed charter includes a 10-year charter review process and it could be taken care of at that time.
13 villages, 13 councilors. This way we can see who actually lives in thompsonville, and if no one really lives there, it can’t be a village.
Get 13 people in a room and let them work for the betterment of Newton. Let them look for common interests and shared values.
Jane, I take your point. I am simply articulating a worst case scenario when I say 51% of the voters can control 100% of the seats. It doesn’t make me feel better to know that 70% would control 100% of the seats. I want significant minority blocks to have a say. Not control, just a seat at the table.
The comment on slates is interesting particularly since many if not all of the current Charter Commissioners were all on the same slate.
Actually, Amy, that’s not accurate. There were a ton of slates sent from many groups in the city for the charter commission, including a mailer from a relative of a City Councilor the day before the election. One slate included the names of the people to vote for, as well as a warning that under NO circumstances should anyone vote for Jane Frantz. And it was sent to me!
However, your larger point about the role of slates is well taken. Typically slates have not been well received in Newton, but the CC election definitely had more of them running around the city. On the other hand, there was a level of camaraderie among the 22 of us that is missing from a head to head competition.
@Jane: I guess the one that I received multiple times in mailings had the entire current membership on it, including you.
It’s one of those things – when you’re on the hot seat, you notice more. I didn’t get the dog park endorsement. Being a cat lover just didn’t cut it!
I worked very hard during that campaign and left no stone unturned.
Jake Auchincloss had to spend ~$30K to run a competitive citywide race. Not sure where the $5-7K comes from. I suppose if one didn’t care about winning one could spend that little.
Even though Jake’s ~$30K is an outlier, he unseated a well known incumbent on his first run for office. Generally new candidates, particularly those unknown in political circles, will have to run more than once to win a seat, even one that is vacant. That doubles the $5-7K every time. Kathy and Lucia make good points about diverse representation.
To the slates – I was quite surprised and disappointed that a prevalent slate was elected in its entirety to the Charter Commission – since slates, as has been repeated several times, “don’t work well in Newton.” I was hoping for some diversity of ideas and opinions but right out of the gate there were unanimous straw votes.
@Bryan and/or participating Charter Commissioners:
1. At voting time will you have a developed plan for how to execute your proposal, ie if the vote is passed, how the city would transition to a smaller council. Specifically what would the time commitment and compensation of the council look like. Do you expect city jobs to be created to handle either the transition in the short term or excess work in the long term? If so what do those positions look like and who has the responsibility for recruiting, retaining and managing that position(s)?
2. Based on your experience running for and working on a 9 person commission, how many additional issues do you think you personally and your overall commission could tackle at this time? Granted you have personal lives, jobs and a large mandate but that is essentially the nature of the city council. Imagine that this was a 2 + year process and you had to run for re-election. Would you actually see yourself wanting that sort of challenge for yourself?
To get to the original question, I have the same reservations regarding representation and voter bandwidth for this level of change. I also honestly don’t see the benefit of adding a residential requirement; specifically how making things smaller but more complicated increases voter representation, engagement and turn out. Will voters still have the traditional ward system for the school committee? So in the voting booth you’ll have to vote for your ward in one race, your district and at large in another? I honestly don’t know. And in terms of districts – who would have the job of carving those out.
There are many potentially good ideas in theory but it’s the details – who and how things are expected to get done – that concern me as it’s always the execution that makes or break any idea, regardless of how good and well thought out.
@Kathy- Great points.
@Emily-Ditto. $5-7k isn’t even enough for one city-wide mailing.
Part of the reason the Ward system of reps has worked so well over time is because it inherently insures a certain amount of diversity representation. Clearly, there are socioeconomic differences between the villages, and in several Wards there is a large amount of racial and ethnic diversity as well.
To move to a predominantly at large system in Newton will absolutely and systematically reduce the voting power of minorities and those of more modest income in Newton. If nothing else, the idea should be rejected on that basis alone.
It is, literally by actual definition, classism.
http://www.classism.org/about-class/what-is-classism/
@Marti. What you note is one of many problems I have with eliminating the ward councilors. I see the distinct possibility of a powerful slate of like minded candidates sweeping a huge majority seats in a reconstituted Council of 13 at-large members. And I see the distinct possibility that this slate could win with a concentrated plurality of votes.
The beauty of our current system is that it makes it virtually impossible for any powerful slate or heavily funded faction within the City to control the election of ward city councilors. I’m not that familiar with every ward councilor, but I’ve had the pleasure of working closely with John Rice, Dick Blazer, Emily Norton, Lyle Baker and Jay Harney on various political campaigns or with issues associated with my activities as a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council. I’ve been impressed by how in focus they are with the issues and with what people in their receptive wards are concerned about; but this doesn’t seem to hamper their ability to see things from a citywide perspective. It doesn’t take much cash or outside support to win these ward specific seats, but it does involve a lot of personal campaigning, deep interaction with residents and strong constituency services in the best sense of the word. I personally think this
helps to make for a very healthy political system in Newton.
Ward representation does not counter classism.
Classism is built into the fabric of Newton and other highly educated and wealthy areas. Ward reps still need the time to run and serve, still need the money, etc. Lower income residents generally have neither.
Classism case in point: the city is testing municipal water fountains and other faucets for lead content and even though more unacceptable lead content continues to be found, the city has not tested its public housing water although asked to do so many times.
Joyce – The goal of the Charter Commission is to set up a structure for the city government within a 16 month period and we’re on track to complete the task. The Councilors we’ve heard from have asked the Commission allow the Council work out how it would function if the proposed charter passes. As to your second question, we have two articles left to review: Article 9 (Area Councils) and 10 (Initiatives, Referendums). We’ve been working on both articles this summer and will deliberate on them in the next two months. The remainder of the time will be spent writing reports.
I’ve never at any point in my life had any interest in running for an elected office so it’s impossible for me to answer your question. Under no circumstances would I be interested in a position that was longer than 2 years. However, I’ve been very involved in electing excellent candidates, thinking that excellent Councilors would make for a more effective local government. I’ve been disappointed that, despite the high quality of the people involved, the City Council is not as effective as I think it could be and believe that the issue is not the people but the structure and that’s how I became interested in this position. That it was a two year commitment was an additional plus.
Our first task in December was to set out a work plan for the entire process and we’ve been very conscientious about following that plan. It can be found on the Documents page of the Commission website which is on the city website.
Sometimes people forget that the staff at city hall and the NPS do the work of the city. The major roles of the City Council is to develop policy, oversee the finances of the city, approve capital projects, and deal with zoning and land use issues.
.
11 months to complete the new charter and 5 months to write reports is not how I thought the 16 months would be broken down. Final decisions will be made within the next 2 months. Good to know.
To Joyce’s questions – I have similar concerns.
I understand that the city councilors would like to determine how the new smaller council will work with city hall. Which city council? The question is about transitioning from the old charter to the new, including from one council of 24 to a smaller one with 13 and compensation. Surely those decisions and how it is to be accomplished lies within the purview of the charter commission.
Her next question pertains to the difficulties that will be faced by councilors on a smaller council who will be managing the same issues that exist today and their lives while, with 2 year terms, they will have to run for their office every 2 years. Before many council decisions the meetings and other duties required easily run over two years, new development proposals, schools, etc. The overall question is how will that work effectively and efficiently? Comparing it to the charter commission of 9 members and how time consuming their present task is, the question becomes in addition to their present duties would they be able to tackle other city issues effectively or campaign again during this time? It’s not a personal question pertaining to what one member would do in their lives. It is a valid consideration when making decisions for others.
How will this all work in the voting process? Adding districts makes no sense. We vote now for both ward and at-large so that seems like an easy change.
Bob, I feel the same about several at-large representatives. The residency requirement takes care of that. It doesn’t mean equal representation of everyone either way. I feel certain that the councilors you like to work with have similar opinions as yours. I may like to work with others for the same reason.
@Marti. I agree with your comments about the impact of “Classism ” in election turnout and results, but this is a nationwide problem with a number of disturbing roots. The problem is that most people in Newton and virtually every other place in America know nothing or next to nothing about their local government. This is true not just among low income citizens, but among much of the professional class here that is so consumed by work and family that they have neither the time or the inclination to dig into what’s really going on here unless something serious impacts them personally.
I know almost all of the current Charter Commission members They are as committed to increasing public awareness and involvement here as the folks on this side of the ward representation issue are. We just have a different take on this particular issue.
@Marti-
It is not easy, but it’s muuuuuch more likely that a Ward Councillor can be successfully challenged with very little money.
You can “walk the Ward’ and do a small, manageable, low cost mailing, as evidenced by Dick Blazar in Ward 6 who defeated 30 year Alderman George Mansfield. That was the epitome of grass roots face to face democracy.
The Ward Councillor is a voter’s most accountable city representative.
The ward councilor is that ward’s voters most accountable city representative. There I corrected it for you.
A ward councilor is not accountable to anyone except for the voters who reside in said ward.
Bob, surely you didn’t mean to conflate the issues of class representation with those of young professionals who either choose to ignore or are too busy to keep up with local politics.
I’m pretty sure that I have never implied that I thought the charter commission was not promoting public awareness and involvement.
@Marti-
Thank you. Yes, that’s exactly correct. Currently, each and every voter across the city has one of those highly accountable reps.
The proposal is to take away each voter’s most directly elected and highly accountable representative.
Give votes on past referenda, Newton voters would like a smaller City Council. There has never been a referendum on eliminating ward representation voted on by solely the ward residents – my guess is that it would be resoundingly defeated. As was said above, the ward reps tend to be the members of city government who are most responsive and responsible to their communities.
For me, getting rid of ward representation voted on by wards would be a deal-breaker for the entire proposed charter. I expect I’m not the only one. Just as I’d oppose having Ruth Balser having to campaign to all of MA for her state legislature seat, or our Senators having to run national races.
Joyce, if I understand the spirit of your questions…our research has led me to believe that our city councilors spend the same or more hours doing their job than councilors in comparably sized cities with smaller councils. One big difference is committee structure. Other cities have smaller committees (3-5 people) that meet less frequently and have shorter meetings. And our full Council meetings last longer with more people participating.
We have looked at a peer group of the 20 largest cities in Mass. (excluding Boston). The average city council size of that group is 11. Only one of those cities structures the city councilor job as full time with full-time compensation (Cambridge). Our city council compensation is low relative to the rest of the peer group, but that reflects the history of raises and not a smaller work load.
The proposed charter will specify high level transition details, but the charter commission is not the place to work out the details of restructuring the city council. That level of detail can’t be specified in the charter. That work would have to fall to the city council itself, should voters approve the charter.
We are not inventing the wheel…municipalities do occasionally change their form of government. In 2011 the city of Everett adopted a new charter and downsized the city council from 25 to 11 members.
Marti – I should clarify my comment. If the proposed charter is approved, the role of the City Council will change in some ways that make the job more (or less) appealing to various individuals. For instance, I’ve heard many people say that they’d like to be on a Council that dealt with policy and aren’t interested in the current job description. The School Committee deals with policy and that job description suits some people and not others.
The charter commission process is laid out in state law (GLM 43). In fact, by law the Commission does not have a role in the transition process. According to state law, the commission is disbanded 30 days after the election.
The ward Councilor is accountable to just 1/8 of the voters in the city but votes on all citywide issues. That means s/he is not accountable to 87% of the voters.
Charlie, uh… No that is your interpretation of what I said. I think ward councilors should not just be accountable to that ward’s voter’s because they do work that affects the entire city. Your ward councilor may not make decisions that residents in other wards agree with but that councilor is currently not accountable to the rest of the city’s residents.
I think the residency requirement of 8 at-large councilors with one per ward will be able to represent that ward’s interests as well as the city’s while being held accountable to all voters in an election. I find the at-large councilors who are resident centric to work hard on their ward’s concerns.
I hope I have been clear enough this time.
Rhanna, thanks for the explanation.
Jane, maybe it’s me, but I don’t understand how many of your answers apply to the questions asked. It seems as if you just repeat the commission’s process and the law.
“The ward Councilor is accountable to just 1/8 of the voters in the city but votes on all citywide issues. That means s/he is not accountable to 87% of the voters.”
Why is this a concern? To get anything done, ward councilors will have to work together. If we look at our Congress and Senate, how they are elected (at large or by district) doesn’t seem to greatly affect their abilities to operate one way or the other.
Do other communities of a similar size have all their representatives elected at large?
Why didn’t the charter commission support a proportional voting system? I believe such systems are working well in California.
@Marti. No, I wasn’t trying to conflate the issues of class representation with young professionals who opt out of participating in local government, but the fact is that both participate far less in civic life than long time residents or old codgers like me and our political and civic life and values suffer as a result.
I wasn’t referring to you or anyone else on this blog when I stated that I thought that Charter Commission members were doing their best to promote public involvement and awareness in the Charter Commission review process. I wanted simply to record the fact that I, too, thought they were doing a good job at reaching out as best they could to promote community involvement and awareness. I only wanted to make clear I wasn’t questioning their integrity or attention to details because I was coming down pretty strongly on the other side of their recommendation for the future of the ward councilors.
Commissioners Jane Frantz and Chris Steele came before our Newton Highlands Area Council a few months back and bent over backwards to brief us on everything the Commission had come up with. They also listened carefully to what we had to say. I can’t ask for more in terms of credibility or process by the Charter Commission, but I can still state as emphatically as I can that I disagree with what they have decided to recommend.
From the April 2016 Commonwealth magazine: “Why whites control Lowell city government” (emphasis added):
In a city that is fast approaching majority-minority status — Lowell is about 40 percent minority, according to the 2010 Census — there isn’t a single non-white municipal elected official on the nine-member city council or the six-member school committee.
Why has Lowell city government remained so white? A big part of the reason is its unusual electoral system, which only three other cities in Massachusetts share. Lowell has a Plan E form of government, which, as defined by the Commonwealth’s city charter statute, has the central characteristics of a strong city manager and a city council made up entirely of at-large councilors. Unlike most cities, there are no ward-based seats; the winning candidates for council and school committee are, respectively, the top nine and six voter-getters, regardless of where they live in the city. The mayor, who has limited powers, is elected by the council.
So neighborhoods that have high turnout tend to have their pick of the litter.
@Councilor Norton:
Huh?
I’m pretty certain that all eight of Newton’s current ward councilors identify themselves as white. And I’m having trouble thinking of one in recent history who wasn’t.
Meanwhile Newton’s only non-white City Councilor (Councilor Sangiolo, who is Asian American) was elected elected city wide. Not along ago we had a second Asian American on the then Board of Aldermen, also elected city-wide. And we’ve twice elected an African American mayor city wide.
So explain your point please?
Chelsea, which just elected a diverse city council last year, has 3 at large and 8 district (ie ward) councilors.
@Jane Franz
Huh?? Aren’t you on the Charter Commission? Isn’t that an elected office?
@Jerry, don’t confuse the issue with facts 🙂
Jerry – I should have been clearer. I have never been, and am not, interested in running for the City Council or School Committee. I enjoy working on campaigns for candidates I believe will make good councilors or school committee members but have come to believe that the problem is structural, so when the possibility of being on a time limited commission to work on that issue, the opportunity was appealing to me.
The second question I was attempting to answer was whether the charter commission would help with the transition. My answer was that by law the charter commission will no longer exist at that point so it cannot be part of the transition.
Thank you, Bob, for vouching for the integrity of the people on the Commission. It is greatly appreciated.
@Jane- If possible, would you take a few moments and lay out what “the problem” that is structural is that requires what many (including me) believe is drastic action?
I am still unclear after all this time about the specific problem(s) is that we’re trying to solve.
Bullet point format would be appreciated. ie: Because of _____, it makes it hard to ______. Or: If we ______it would make it easier to _________
Thanks!
La machine is attempting a ‘double down’ on the bet that a vast majority of voters want a reduction in Council size, enough so that any of the other details are meaningless.
Of the 54 statewide city charters none come close to the geocentricity of 13 villages. How clever or convenient is the pro-charterteers to use ’13 villages – 13 councilors’ as a campaign slogan.
“13 Villages. All marginalized.” is more accurate.
Unfortunately, its not a particularly catchy slogan 🙂
Let’s think this one out rationally. The voters by referendum stated that they wanted a smaller Council… ostensibly because they didn’t know who the candidates running for office were, and fewer offices would mean fewer candidates among whom to choose. Voters also wanted to vote in (or out) specific Citywide Councilors and not lose good ones by having to choose the best two out of four candidates. The signature collection by LWVN emphasized that the Charter Review would enable our City to function with a smaller Council and the voters would find it easier to vote.
The status quo, before any Charter Commission suggestions, is that every Newton voter can vote for 16 citywide Council candidates (with 2 having residency in each Ward) and one Ward Councilor from his/her own Ward. That’s 17 choices for each voter to elect the City Council.
The proposal now being promoted by the Charter Commission is that every Newton voter can vote for 8 Citywide Councilors who have to reside in each Ward and for 4 Citywide District Councilors who have to live in four of the eight Wards. That’s 12 choices for each voter for City Council.
If the Charter Commission instead eliminated 8 of the present Citywide Councilors, retaining the other 8 of them and keeping the directly elected Ward Councilor, the Newton voter would have 9 choices for City Council. There would be many fewer choices for the electorate to make on Election Day, but the voters would be able to retain their own directly elected Ward Councilor and still have plenty of muscle on Citywide issues.
If the CC really believes that the voters gave them a mandate to reduce the Council size, then the most honest recommendation would be to reduce the Citywide Councilors by half. That would retain the unique Ward voice while easing the study hall for the harried voter before the election. Unlike the earlier proposals (above), there is no Devil in the details with this choice! I hope the nine Commissioners rethink what makes Newton unique among the Cities in Massachusetts and also, ultimately makes it better.
In addition, Councilor Norton, your highlighting left out the “top vote getters regardless of where they live in the city.” Pretty sure that means there is no residency requirement.
How has our current system with Ward Councilors countered the problem you reference?
Charlie – I’m having some difficulty with my V14 connection so I’ll have to compose my response to your question and paste it onto a message tomorrow. I’ll do so in a format of my choosing.
I believe Emily was referring to other types of diversity, such as economic diversity. Even though Ward voting does not eliminate economic advantages, it reduces them, lowering the barriers for entry into our political system.
I don’t believe many people have $5,000+ that they can easily spare. If you are not associated with/supported by one of the main political parties, coming up with money for a race is a major barrier. But, as several recent councilors have shown, you can win a ward, by walking the ward.
It seems to me, making running for office easy and accessible, should be as important as making voting easy and accessible (ie early voting, multi-lingual ballots, registration at DMV, etc.).
@Greg:I understood Amy’s point, and it was an important one.
There are vast differences between people in various parts of this city, to suggest otherwise is just ignoring reality.
I agree with Sallee’s points. I think she is spot on.
I also believe the commission is really running a strong risk of this entire project going down in flames. Which would be a shame,given how long and hard people worked to give the citizens an opportunity to fix some fundamental problems with an outdated Charter. In my opinion, fighting over getting rid of ward representation is a losing argument, which will defeat the entire package.(and was not one of the fundamental problems- size of Council does not equate with get rid of ward representation)
@Charlie — A few comments back you said we would be “moving to a predominantly at large system”. Which I found interesting given that as you well know, the current system which you served in is 2/3 at large.
@Neal — In my mind, the issue is that a smaller council has to be divided up differently, and I think it makes sense to continue our longstanding tradition of a preference for elected officials elected by the entire city. That’s how we currently elect our mayor, 2/3 of our councillors, our school committee, and that’s how we elected the Charter Commission. I think most people have been pretty happy with at large representation.
@Bryan – you say “I think most people have been pretty happy with at large representation.” Has the commission tried polling people? I think you’d find that a larger proportion than you realize value having our ward representatives who are elected by the wards.
As to longstanding traditions – I think it makes sense to continue our longstanding tradition of having a mix of city-wide and ward-chosen elected officials. I have yet to see a good reason for completely eliminating the only way for wards to choose their own representatives, while there are plenty of good reasons to keep them.
I agree with the points made by Neal, Lucia, and Sallee. And while I’d be willing to vote for a new charter that had some points I disagree with, this is one that’s make or break for me. And my guess is that I’m not alone in this.
mgwa wrote:
That may be true but it also may be true that an even larger proportion doesn’t know the difference. I don’t believe that this will be a make or break issue for most voters.
I can’t make up my mind how I feel about this issue. The problem I have with the pro-ward councilors argument is that I believe the School Committee works fine with at-large members with a residency requirement. Can somebody explain to me why, if it works for the SC, it can’t work for the City Council?
After months of thinking that we should have ward councilors, I’m beginning to change my opinion. For now, at least, I’m inclined to like the at-large approach better. The question, in my mind, is: Is Newton one city or is it a city of eight wards? The least political answer I can come up with is that Newton is one city. The world is a lot smaller than it was when wards were established.
As media coverage dwindles, elected officials are going to become less and less accountable. Voters are going to have to step up. I’d rather have a say in what all the councilors are doing than have a say in what one councilor is doing.
Gail raises an important point that I had not previously considered. A ward councilor can really fall under the radar when it comes to media scrutiny — and thus, accountability.
And please spare me the argument that goes something like “why should we have U.S. Congressmen represent districts instead of electing them nationwide?” The geography is so much larger is why. By and large our at-large councilors do any excellent job providing constituent services and representing their wards.
Does anyone else see Bryan Barash’s reasoning? He argues that because Newton has long elected our council 2/3 at large and 1/3 ward, we should therefore cut our council nearly in half and completely eliminate the 1/3 ward representation that has helped Newton evolve into one of the best cities in the United States of America. His reasoning? He feels like most voters are happy with at large representation.
Now do we not only have zero reasoning given as to how this change would improve Newton’s governance, but we have on the written record that at least Bryan Barash’s reasoning is based on a “feel test.”
Quite frankly, this should concern anyone who is paying close attention to all of these moving pieces.
“I’d rather have a say in what all the councilors are doing than have a say in what one councilor is doing.”
@Gail: With 16 Councilors (8 Citywide and 8 Direct-Elected by Ward) you and every other voter in the City would have a say in what the 8 Citywide Councilors and the 1 Direct-Elected Ward Councilor in your Ward are doing! You get to vote for all nine of them!That’s 9 out of 16. And the other voters would have the same 9/16 interest, with their own Ward rep substituted for yours!
Ward direct-elected representation provides a voice for the local village or community to be heard. It is a legitimate minority voice representing whoever lives in that 1/8 of the City. It cannot tyrannize the rest of the City. It can only provide a lever for parity and attention from the City. If you expect the voters to take notice of City government the Ward Councilor is their dearest form of interaction and intervention.
@Sallee, A couple of points:
1. I don’t think we really know that residents think of ward councilors as their “dearest form of interaction and intervention.” That’s an assumption made by people who are in favor of keeping ward councilors. If people have a problem, I submit that they will go to the elected official in their ward who they know best, or they’ve heard of, or lives closest to them, or is recommended by a neighbor or friend.
2. To my knowledge, a council made up of 16 members isn’t on the table. Even if it were I would not support a 50/50 split. It gives too much power to people who are elected with not that many votes. The council should be able to form a majority with people who are elected at-large.
I agree with Gail and Greg.
An 8/8 split of ward and at large councilors is a terrible idea.
Dear members of elected and appointed office:
As a 4-month resident of Newton, I’m ignorant who’s who in political circles. It’s a lot of names to memorize.
Is it asking too much to include a one-line signature with your comments so I (and maybe others) can identify you clearer? Thanks.
@Ari: And excellent suggestion. Even better, folks who have a web site or their own blog or page on the city’s website can hyperlink their name to it. Others may choose to use their Linked-In profile. That way you only need to so once. (This is done in the website field when you submit your comment.)
Yes others choose to be anonymous, which is allowed here as well.
@Greg-
I hardly think that Norton, Baker, or Rice have avoided being in the media.
@Gail-
The reason why the SC works being at large, is because the overall mission is always to shoot for educational equality throughout the city.
Whereas the City Council has a more broad based overarching mission of style and composition of an area, plus the type of constituent service and all of that varies greatly from village to village.
It’s not about avoiding the media when elected its about the amount of coverage their contested election gets locally as opposed to contested at large races. For example, I’m sure Councilors Leary, Blazer and Brousal-Glaser would attest to that.
Does the school committee really work “fine?” What is the counter example? I think the SC would be much better if elected by ward. Many school committee members have previous PTA experience and are well-known within their respective schools. The voters in a ward have valuable knowledge that outsiders just don’t have.
Also, groupthink emails touting candidates are less impactful in ward elections. If the voter knows the candidates, the value of the plug is decreased.
I think a School Committee comprising eight people who are focused on getting re-elected by 2% of the electorate would be horrible for our school system.
@Gail – School committee members elected by ward might or might not be good for the city. However, I do not agree with your statement “the School Committee works fine with at-large members with a residency requirement.” I’m not at all sure the School Committee works fine.
Also, one of the arguments for a smaller City Council is that there are too many candidates in each election for people to vet them all – many (most?) voters get overwhelmed and just don’t vote, or just vote for the names they recognize. If we keep ward councilors, then people in each ward only need to decide among a smaller number of at-large candidates plus the couple running in their ward.
A couple other things deserve mention. The School Committee has term limits, while ward councilors do not. Term limits make the school committee better than it would have been otherwise. We need to keep this in mind.
Some threads have gone back and forth with arguments about whether at-large elections are more expensive than by-ward elections. Let’s compare School Committee race with no incumbent with by-ward councilor elections with no incumbent. This helps control for term limits. Going back to 1970, my data tells me that the average SC at-large race attracts 1.8 candidates, while the by-ward race attracts 2.0 candidates. To my eyes, having more interest in a race is good. This is consistent with the story that candidates think ward elections are less expensive.
Jeffrey – Anne Larner’s data on City Council races dating back to 1951 shows a distinct drop in turnover of seats, especially in the last 25 years. Twenty five years ago, about 30% of Council seats turned over in any given election – now it’s about 15%. Anne’s data indicates that name recognition appears to be a major factor in who wins an election.
There are a number of paths to gaining name recognition that don’t involve money. For example, 15 of the current 24 Councilors grew up in Newton and went through the NPS. They have greater name recognition right off the bat. Three current Councilors are former School Committee members. Three others come from families that have a long history of public service in Newton. Twenty one of the current Councilors had a long history of involvement in the city and two of three who were less well known won in very low turnout special elections. The third (Jake Auchincloss) spent more money than any race in the past and was willing and able to canvass the city and grew up in Newton.
So my take is that a deeper study of the data is warranted. Deep roots in the community and a history of civic involvement are important elements in a successful campaign.
In the Charter Commission election, the candidate who received the largest number of votes spent the least amount of money (Brooke Lipsitt: 0$). However, Brook has been involved in the civic life of the city for decades.
Hi all-
I’m tied up on a business project but checking back every day or two because this is such an important discussion and topic.
I originally had asked the following a few posts above:
=============
@Jane- If possible, would you take a few moments and lay out what “the problem” that is structural is that requires what many (including me) believe is drastic action?
I am still unclear after all this time about the specific problem(s) is that we’re trying to solve.
Bullet point format would be appreciated. ie:
Because of _____, it makes it hard to ______. Or: If we ______it would make it easier to _________
====================
I hope Jane will still respond (in any format she chooses) which includes a tangible example or two as referenced in the post. I’m also hoping that others who support the Charter Commissions desire to eliminate the Ward-elected Councillors will also chime in. It’s hard to find any such publically stated specifics examples, but if there are some, I’d like to see them. Thanks.
@Charlie: The arguments in favor of a smaller city council (i.e. the problem that is trying to be solved) have been part of the public discourse in Newton — and even ballot questions — for decades, so I’m wondering why you keeping saying you don’t know them.
The arguments for eliminating ward councilors is a matter of deciding the best way to allocate seats if you choose to try to solve “the problem” i.e. desire for a smaller board.
I respect that you would allocate them differently than the commission has in its straw vote or maybe you prefer to keep a 24 seat council.
But I’m puzzled why you keep asking what the problem is, when really you just disagree with the solution?
“There are a number of paths to gaining name recognition that don’t involve money. For example, 15 of the current 24 Councilors grew up in Newton and went through the NPS. They have greater name recognition right off the bat. Three current Councilors are former School Committee members. Three others come from families that have a long history of public service in Newton. ”
To me, this seems like a list in support of Ward elected candidates. None of the reasons listed above in and of themselves make someone a better councilor or school committee member.
I agree with MGWA – what metrics are being used to say we have the optimum arrangement for School Council elections? Feelings?
Why is there a fear of Ward based elections? Where does the 2% number come from? Current voter turnout divided by number of wards? That doesn’t mean only 2% of voters would vote in future elections. If voters felt their vote mattered more, more might show up – or not. What evidence is backing up this 2% future voter turnout estimate?
I am very disappointed in the make up of the school committee with only 8 members. Seldom do we see contested elections in each of the wards. Power is centralized with 3 people making all the crucial decisions. Often those decisions do not serve the public good.
Presently, the city council has a better setup for problem solving during dramatically changing times. I believe that a more centralized government is not the best structure for solving our future population problems. We need the traditional form of government to ensure a broader method and a slower process in order to solve the problems more comprehensively.
Jane. I think Lucia said this, but I will say it my way. I don’ t see how your statement relates to my point. For whatever reason, at-large elections (where no incumbent runs) attract FEWER candidates than ward-elected elections. It could due to money or due to the time required to knock on more doors. Sure, name recognition may help (as does a nice personality) but I don’t see why that would explain the documented difference. It should help in both races.
A couple of points:
First, clearly 24 City Councilors provide more services and benefits than any lesser number. Therefore if you reduce the number of CC’s, then residents will not have an improved government. A small number of carefully elected CC’s will, however, have more control over majority agendas to the detriment of the residents in the minority.
There are many instances wherein 1 CC in a Ward was able to sway enough votes to overcome 2 members of a Ward working the other side of an issue within their Ward.
Second, no one has yet to solve voter turnout issues in the US, and any thought that the City Charter recommendations will solve citywide voter turnout is misplaced.
Not sure if this below group is right/left, but here is their take on voter turnout:
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/4d.asp
@Greg, if (as you say and as the voters have made clear) the “problem that is trying to be solved” is that the city council is too large, then a solution that eliminates Ward-elected Councilors is only one of several possible solutions to that problem. It may be the solution that is proposed by the Charter Commission’s straw vote, but it’s not the only solution to the problem.
I think that Charlie is asking why that solution is favored by the Charter Commission over others. He’s asking for examples/reasons that illustrate why Ward-elected Councilors should be eliminated (presumably instead of at-large ones).
Yes, as you say, it’s “a matter of deciding the best way to allocate seats if you [seek] a smaller board.” I think that Charlie’s asking why eliminating Ward-elected Councilors is the best way. If he’s not asking that, then I am. 😉 I see more benefits to keeping Ward-elected Councilors than eliminating them.
@Bruce: I did read Charlie’s comment (actually comments since he and others have been asking this same question for months) differently. Perhaps he will clarify.
Wow. Maybe this says as much about me as Jane Frantz but I just blinked when she wrote, “Deep roots in the community and a history of civic involvement are important elements in a successful campaign.”
I disagree. Nativity only matters if other voters are natives. Some of the most successful local campaigns in this state come from people who are newcomers, who in most situations, vastly outspent their rivals and received more votes than the name that “everyone knows.” Fresh blood, change, call it what you will.
As to James Cote’s claim (he’s a city councilor, yes?) that “[more] city councilors provide more services and benefits than any lesser number,” I respectfully disagree. Size is irrelevant to services. Accountability and responsiveness are more important (to me and my friends) than the number of electeds. Quality trumps quantity.
My 2 cents.
Ari – I totally agree with you that it doesn’t matter, but the fact remains that the majority of city councilors have a long history in the community. I didn’t realize it myself until studying the council closely while on the charter commission. For whatever reason, it’s less of an issue on the school committee. Only one of the eight current SC members grew up here.
I bring this up because there’s so much focus on money in politics these days. Other factors play into a successful campaign. If you look at Anne Larner’s data, name recognition appears to be one of them.
Jeffrey – Any contested race is better than none, but contested races with 2 well established candidates are few and far between in Newton.
Like Ari, I blinked when I read the same comment. The thing is that newcomers are moving to Newton daily. Several of them comment here, including me since I have only lived here 9 years. We won’t just vote for name recognition or longevity in Newton. So even though that analysis goes back many years, the rapid growth in Newton may change the traditional outcome of elections in the future. I and many other newer residents are looking for councilors who will do the best job for the city. We don’t know the old names, don’t go by how long they have served in Newton and we don’t give a hoot if they have lived here for generations. In fact, those might be detriments to those of us who have come here from other places.
Jane. I would ask you this via email, but others might be interested. I looked at the CC but I can’t find anything in the Larner data that measures how long candidates have been in the community. Would you mind pointing me to it? Presumably, to see if differences in the number at-large and ward-elected candidates are driven by community-connections, we need this measure for all elected officials since the last Charter.
Thank you Bruce. Yes… you are correct that’s what I’m asking.
Or is the charter commission cleverly infusing ‘at-large’ v. ‘ward’ representation in an effort to gain media and voter exposure? Remember Anne Larner’s NNHS buried asbestos distraction. http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2007/11/29/were-people-aware-of-the-existence-of-ledge-and-asbestos/
In answer to Charlie and Bruce, I will repeat what I posted here back in May:
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 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 happen. This puts a tremendous amount of power in the hands of one person who only answers to 1/8 of the voters.
When interviewing current and former city councilors / aldermen (both from Newton and from other cities), they 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.
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.
Thank you, Rhanna, for providing your clear explanation again.
Thank you Emily for posting that article about Lowell. I happened to be covering a candidate forum for the 18th Middlesex District (a Lowell state rep) last night. In a Yes/No portion where the candidates and audience were simultaneously asked to hold up green/Yes or red/No cards (before seeing how the others were going to vote), I’d say the audience was split about 50-50 on a question on whether the city of Lowell should have district city councilors instead of at-large.
And by the way, the incumbent state rep, Rady Mom, and two of the three challengers (including the one Republican) are Southeast Asian. I don’t think that would be the case if state reps were not elected by district.
The Model City Charter promotes the council-manager form of the government. That is the premise from which all provisions of the Model Charter flow. There is no alternative in the Model Charter for a mayor-council form of government.
In the council-manager format articulated in the Model Charter, all powers of the city are vested in the City Council. Thus, the need to avoid parochialism on the City Council is heightened. By contrast Newton has adopted the mayor-council form of government, and under our charter (both current and what the Charter Commission has thus far proposed) the executive and administrative powers of the city are vested solely in the Mayor, who is elected by city-wide vote. I can certainly see how the language and theories expressed in the Model Charter are instructive, but given the vast difference between the two systems of government, I do not see why we should give primacy to the Model Charter’s preferences for city council composition.
There is an obvious trade-off between protecting against parochialism and ensuring minority representation (both in terms of minority socio-economic representation, and representation of minority viewpoints). Where the executive and administrative functions are vested in a mayor chosen by the electorate at large, there is an opportunity to achieve some balance and promote proportional minority representation through a mix of district and at-large city council representatives, or through a proportional voting system.
And also, anyone who thinks raising $5,000-7,000 is no big deal is living in a different world. And as pointed out by Charlie, I think, citywide mailings, even to just regular voters, plus signs, cost a lot more than the total suggested.
I would bet there are few if any city councils, boards of selectmen or other municipal legislative body where some level of horsetrading doesn’t go on among the membership. I would welcome specific instances including the names of individual Councilors where our existing ward system has led to “parochialism” and vote trading. If so, I would also want evidence that it was the ward aldermen that did the vote trading. Then I would like evidence that horsetrading doesn’t take place in all of the other cities and towns in the Commonwealth with council systems that past muster with the Model City Charter folks.
I suppose that the late and sadly missed Ward 3 Councilor Sal Salvucci could have been viewed as somewhat “parochial” because of his knowledge of and attention to the needs of residents there. Sal knew where every pothole in his ward was located and he made it a point to see they were fixed. But he was also gifted with tremendous common sense and a keen mind that could grasp everything that was going on citywide and I know he was able to think in terms of citywide interests. I think the same can be said of every ward councilor I have had the pleasure of working with in recent years. I just don’t see this as a serious issue.
Some here see a conflict between councilors whose focus is “services and benefits” and those that believe “accountability and responsiveness” are the paramount virtues of an effective councilor. I do not see that being a serious conflict, at all. The great ones I know score high marks in all four categories because, in fact, they are intrinsically intertwined in the relationship between a councilor and those he or she serves.
We’re about to throw a lot of wisdom, common sense and professional diversity to the wind in the name of an undefined and unproven efficiency, particularly when we are dealing with 13 rather distinct villages and for a city of 90,000, the remarkable fact that there is no downtown or central business district here. Yes, Newton’s council system is different and it can be a bit difficult for most citizens here to know the names of more than one or two councilors. I don’t think the public’s lack of knowledge about municipal government is restricted to Newton. Hardly.
Julie — Campaigning for office costs money; but it’s illegal to use public funds to pay for it. Taxpayer money can be used to mail a postcard to all voters about recycling or similar government-sponsored programs. Taxpayer money cannot be used for reimbursing a candidate for yard signs and coffee.
I’m unclear why you and others are writing about the cost of campaigning as a reason why council salaries should increase. It’s moot.
Rhanna. Horse trading may occur whenever any councilors have different beliefs. Has the CC seen any empirical evidence from Newton or elsewhere that horse trading is more prevalent among ward-elected councilors versus at-large councilors?
If we have councilor voting data it not be difficult to estimate. If you are correct, a regression of voting would find that ward-elected councilor votes have a slope coefficient with other ward-elected councilors that is larger than the slope using at-large councilors. If someone has the data, I would be happy to estimate this.
Ari – I think it’s safe to say that in many cases, local candidates end up spending a decent amount of their own money on campaign expenses. (Not everyone is comfortable with – or good at – aggressive political fund raising.) I think the argument is that a higher salary would ease that burden for those who don’t have a lot of extra personal money to throw at a campaign.
Most Newton voters want a smaller city council so if the number continues to be 12/13 then having 8 councilors elected only by ward, means there would be 4/5 more councilors elected by a few voters than elected by the city which is unacceptable.
16 councilors would mean a 50/50 split which would also be untenable.
In order to offset the purpose of parochialism, if there were 8 ward councilors, there would need to be at least 9 city wide elected councilors bringing the minimum to 17 councilors. I would be fine with those numbers but not the others.
Kathy, good points.
@Greg: So sorry for the delay in my response, I was traveling. I am sorry you did not understand my point when posting that Commonwealth magazine article. My point was that Newton has wide disparities of wealth and making 5 councilors be elected with no residency requirement would, in my opinion, likely result in all 5 coming from wealthier and more politically powerful areas of the City, further disempowering those who are already at a disadvantage. If people without money and power had more say, I believe we would have full day kindergarten for example. But parents who are single parents, working parents, parents who do not speak english, do not have time/capacity to attend School Committee meetings or otherwise advocate for this issue, and in my observation wealthier families either do not care about it or are more likely to actively oppose it. That is just one example. Another example is the prohibition on overnight street parking in the winter, even when there is no snow on the ground. Those with long driveways, often because they have bigger houses, are not affected by this policy. Those who are lower income and thus lack long driveways or often any off street parking options at all, are very negatively affected – but their voices are not heard.
@Greg – In other words, my point was about power & wealth, not race. If you still do not understand why I posted the article, please let me know and I will do my best to keep explaining it.
One might ask the question of how many of the at-large v. ward councilors cowtail to the League’s dictum. That answer provides a reflection on the subliminal power play politics inherent with ‘pay-to-play’ wealthy enclave residence. This is Newton reality of wealthy sections i.e. Chestnut Hill, Waban, West Newton Hill, etc. The ward councilor is relied upon to not only be the focused ward-based fair- minded judge, but also a more intimate resource for knowledge. Call it ‘parochialism’, we call it tailored specific need in representation.
Is there a Julie, or was Ari referring to me? I said nothing about raising salaries of city councilors and don’t really have an opinion on the salary issue. I suspect the salary level does not have that much impact on how many people decide to run.
And in any case, it’s not ‘illegally’ spending public money if a candidate spends their own money to finance a campaign. Money is fungible; current councilors aren’t spending ‘public money’ on their reelection campaigns — once they collect their stipend, it’s their money.
Emily, I agree with yours, and others, points about income diversity including the two scenarios you bring up – and have said so on other threads. I don’t agree that posting an article about race diversity in Salem applies to those points.
Since Kathy Winters has opened my eyes to the different form of government used in the Model Charter (not Newton’s) that has been quoted by Rhanna (and I think others) throughout this process and has presented a different perspective, as I hoped she would do when I voted for her to be on the charter commission,
I have now looked through the Model Charter. I should have done it before just as I do on most other posts quoting studies. I now wonder why this Model Charter was used as a reference. Are there others for a strong mayor city charter?
Years ago major elections used public funds with a cap so candidates all had the same amount to run on. Since particularly the Citizens United case, money can come from virtually anywhere. In local elections that is just as troublesome because there is no level playing field. I see the point that since it costs more time and money, in general, to run for and win at-large seats, running for a Ward counselor seat may make becoming a city counselor more likely for a diverse and newer Newton population.
@Marti-My point was that with 5 at-large councilors with no residency requirement, I believe they will all end up coming from the more powerful wards, rather than reflect the actual diversity in our City–economic diversity–just as in Lowell, with no residency requirements, elected officials did not end up reflecting the racial diversity there. If voters are ok with that, then so be it, but I have a sense they will not be ok with it.
As the thread suggests, the Charter Commission discussed an alternative to an at-large pool with no residency requirement. Please see Bryan’s explanation above.