I just received an email from the Newtonville Area Council saying “The Charter Commission appears inclined to eliminate Area Councils from the revised Newton Charter.“.
I know that the Charter Commission’s mission is to review the entire charter, and Area Councils are part of that. What I don’t know is if the Commission is indeed “inclined to eliminate” them.
I know a few Commission members are V14 regulars so maybe you can pitch in with more information. Has the commission taken a straw vote yet regarding Area Councils? Is there indeed a substantial likelihood that the commission may recommend eliminating the Area Councils?
If so, I’d find that a bit alarming. I live in Upper Falls where we have an Area Council. In my eyes the council has been nothing but a positive force in our neighborhood. The councils have no true legal authority or power but they serve as an important forum for the neighborhood residents on a whole range of issues. In our neighborhood the Upper Falls Area Council was a prime force in helping get the Upper Falls Greenway built, in organizing the annual Village Day, and in sorting out all manners of minor but annoying issues for local residents (parking, construction, crosswalks, etc). It’s the only forum in the city for a regular resident to be able to show up at a regularly scheduled meeting and raise any local issue to the city government – that’s a big deal.
Ironically, it was the city’s Area Councils that hosted the only candidate forum for the Charter Commission candidates in their recent election.
In part because the Area Council’s have no statutory legal power, I would find it extremely disturbing if the commission were considering eliminating them. Their only role is to provide a local voice to local residents to the city government. The only reason I can think of to eliminate them is for the city to be able to ignore those local voices – definitely not a healthy goal.
I’ve also heard (3rd hand) that at a recent Commission meeting on the topic, a representative of the City’s Election Commission spoke about how difficult it was administratively to oversee the Area Council’s election. I sincerely hope that the Commission would not in any way take that commentary into account when making decisions about the existence of Area Councils. The job of the Election Commission is to oversee the city’s elections. I’m sure all elections are difficult to oversee but that’s not pertinent to whether we hold them or not.
If the Commission is indeed “inclined to eliminate” Area Councils and we already know they are “inclined to eliminate” Ward Councilors from their earlier straw vote, I’d take those two together as a concerted effort to centralize decision making and stifle local voices – something I’d be be dead set against.
My apologies in advance if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here, and have any facts wrong. I’m posting this based on just a bit of fragmentary knowledge and have not attended any of the Commission meetings. If I’m way off base on any of this please feel free to correct me and I’ll be happy to eat some crow – I’m pretty good at it after many years of experience 😉
Jerry, you make an excellent assessment of this issue regarding Newton’s area councils. Presently, Setti Warren and others have a dramatically different vision of how to reshape Newton’s housing stock. For those who want a say in this future growth area councils are very important. Thank you for outlining the need to keep and strengthen this critical political group which is so crucial to good government.
If the Charter Commission votes to eliminate area councils, it will be just the latest in their attempts to reduce local representation and accountability. My 3 minute take here.
Jerry,
There appears to be a misunderstanding about what happened at the October 9th Charter Commission meeting, as well as how the Commission functions. Unfortunately, we have just a small following at out meetings, so the method for the review of each article is not clearly understood if you attend one or two meetings. However, the process is clearly laid out in the “Work Plan” section of the Charter Commission webpage on the City of Newton website. But it’s worth providing a brief description of our process. So here goes!
This is how we approach every article review:
Two/three leaders are assigned to an article and are tasked with collecting data about the issues in that article from other communities in Massachusetts, charters from around the country, from residents/staff/elected officials in Newton, and from the consultant (the Collins Center). In addition, we’ve also had public hearings and panel discussions focused on 3 articles (Executive Branch, Planning, and Area Councils) as well as 2 additional public hearings for general input. Typically, the documentation is posted on the website the weekend before the meeting when we will discuss, deliberate, and perhaps take a straw vote on issues within the article.
The documentation and data collection for Article 9 (Area Councils) was much more difficult than it has been for other articles because only one other community in Mass. has neighborhood representation in its charter (Worcester). Around the country, only very large cities (Los Angeles, Seattle for example) have much information about neighborhood representation, so we really had to dig for relevant information. The collection period took most of the summer and into the fall. I’m using the term “neighborhood representation” here because I could not find a community that uses the term “area councils”.
Once the data and documentation has been gathered, the leaders develop all possible scenarios that either emerge from the data collection or that residents have brought to our attention. We do this for EVERY article.
Early in the charter review process, we left out one possible option for the article review because so few people had suggested it in a positive light and the feedback on it had been very negative. However, after our deliberations of the article, we received feedback that people objected to our omitting the option without discussion or documentation, so we had to redo the review of the article. We’re smart people – we learned from that experience that residents want us to vet all options and give each option its due in discussion (even options they don’t want considered), and that’s how we’ve proceeded since that time.
So onto Article 9. After reviewing the data and documentation and listening to many residents views on what to do with it, we developed 3 scenarios or options that reflected the range of opinions we heard: 1.) retain the article as it is written, 2.) remove the article from the charter, 3.) retain the article in the charter with revisions and updating. As it turns out, if the article is revised, a number of issues needed to be addressed. While we spent the October 9th meeting presenting all three options, we spent about 75% of the time discussing how to revise the article. NO straw votes were taken that evening.
A number of people who had not attended other charter commission meetings were alarmed that the option of removing the area councils was part of the discussion, when in fact, this is how we have approached every article – reviewing all possible options. At this point, the charter commission has refined all the documentation and continues to listen to feedback from residents. It’s important to note that the people who have weighed in on this issue either want the area councils in the charter with revisions or want the article removed from the charter.
As for the issue of the Elections Department, David Olsen provided valuable input into the current process for area council elections. There are a number of ways for elections to take place so that they do not result in a need for additional staff, and we are looking carefully into those options. When we increase staffing in one part of the budget, it means taking from another.
My only objection to this thread is that the author encourages the Commission to dismiss the input of a trusted department head who is known for going out of his way to help every resident in the city, who does an excellent job of running city elections, and does so with the utmost respect for every individual he encounters.
@Jane – Thanks for filling us in with a lot more information.
Just to be clear, I did not suggest that “the Commission dismiss the input of a trusted department head”. What I said was “I sincerely hope that the Commission would not in any way take that commentary into account when making decisions about the existence of Area Councils. I stand by that comment.
Consulting a department head about how to make the elections smoother and more efficient is a fine idea. Considering the administrative burden when deciding whether to hold an election is not. After all I’m certain that electing the mayor, the City Council, and the School Committee also impose an administrative burden.
Thanks for your detailed description of the commission’s process. I’m heartened that no decision or straw vote has been taken yet. I sincerely and strongly hope that the Commission retains the Area Councils in any updated Charter.
Sorry for the somewhat alarmist post. For shooting from the hip with only the sketchiest information I think I’ll have just a small bite of that crow – mmmm
It’s really quite simple – divide and conquer. Divvy up the balance of power, compact under one ‘at large’ council, allowing the moralistic culture to prevail.
It is clear from the most recent meeting minutes that area councils are not all the same or even share the same goals. Some residents feel the area councils are representing only non-development, non-affordable housing interests – not including everyone’s opinion but acting as if they are. Two from Waban spoke at the meeting.
The review of area councils is much more nuanced and complicated than keep them or do away with them. Not all residents are represented by an area council. The charter includes the land areas they cover, who they represent, how their elections are handled, their powers and functions and their goals.
They have and seek different powers and functions. The WAC and NHAC would like to take over some decision making for the city council, if it’s members are reduced, and have more than advisory powers, etc.
The article cannot be kept with no amendments but the other two options have to be considered.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/77912
Thank you, Marti, for providing the link to the minutes for the panel discussion and public hearing related to Article 9 (Area Councils). Karen Manning produces incredibly thorough and accurate minutes.
Jerry – Let me give this another try. A problem was identified. Given creative thinking and an assumption of good intentions, problems have solutions. The leaders of the article are seeking a solution. Several possibilities that solve the problem have been put forth at this point.
That being said, I have no idea what other people on the Commission think about the various options as a whole, but I very much doubt the issues surrounding elections will be a factor in anyone’s vote.
As I’ve mentioned repeatedly over the last year, I’m available to talk, listen, discuss with anyone, or point anyone in the direction of accurate information. So if you hear yourself say, “I got this information 3rd hand,” that should be a red flag. I think the world of Jerry Reilly and he knows it, but today my question to him is “Do you like you crow fried or roasted?” 😉
Hmm. The post is mostly my personal opinions. The few facts that were mention appear to be correct.
So no, no more crow for me – though whenever I do have to eat it, definitely fried
As one of the review leaders for Article 9, I encourage all of you to please refer to the Article 9 documentation posted on newtonma.gov/charter. In addition to the panel/hearing minutes, you’ll find area council elections data, a memo that outlines unique ways area council elections differ from Newton’s other elections, and profile information about area councils (or variations thereof) within other municipalities. All of this provides context for our deliberations, as do the many thoughtful comments and insights that people have provided
us over the past weeks. Jane has described our responsibility to be as systematic and thorough as possible during our article reviews/deliberations~ this is intended to prevent gaps and misunderstandings, as she pointed out. Thank you all so much!
Jerry:
“What I don’t know is if the Commission is indeed ‘inclined to eliminate’ them.”
“…If the Commission is indeed ‘inclined to eliminate’ Area Councils ”
“If so, I’d find that a bit alarming.”
“Has the commission taken a straw vote yet regarding Area Councils?” Jerry, you have my personal email address and could have easily verified this information.
“I know a few Commission members are V14 regulars so maybe you can pitch in with more information…. Is there indeed a substantial likelihood that the commission may recommend eliminating the Area Councils?” The Charter Commission follows the Open Meeting Law to a T. I have no idea how others will vote.
“My apologies in advance if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here, and have any facts wrong. I’m posting this based on just a bit of fragmentary knowledge and have not attended any of the Commission meetings.” Jerry – you have my personal email address and you could have written to the Charter Commission on the Newtonma.gov.
Jerry – I say this as the highest compliment. I would have expected you to find out the information you ask for before posting this thread. If you’d posted about why you think it’s important to keep area councils in the charter, I’d say good for you.
The Charter Commission is working hard to be transparent, thorough, and fair to all perspectives presented to us. In a city like Newton, with a plethora of opinions, it’s not easy. That being said, I do thank you because it’s allowed Karen and I to outline the process of how the Charter Commission reviews every article.
Just to clarify why I included the first two quotes in my post: in this thread, someone is quoted as using the phrase “inclined to eliminate”, yet the person quoted is never named.
@Jane – It says it in the first line of my post. That quote came from an email I received from the Newtonville Area Council.
Here’s another quote from an email from the Waban Area Council “It has come to our attention that the Charter Review Commission is seriously considering eliminating neighborhood area councils from the Newton City Charter”.
I’m still not sure what your beef is with my post. The only thing that I was sloppy on was that I asked the readers if a straw vote had already been taken rather than finding out for myself.
As for whether the Commission is inclined to eliminate Area Councils – as you point out, and I already surmised, that’s not a factual matter that I could verify with you or any other commission member. That’s a matter of opinion. Clearly a number of people who’ve attended the meetings (folks from the Waban and Newtonville Area Councils) have come to that conclusion. Nobody will know for sure until a straw vote is cast.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Somehow you seem to be taking this as a criticism of the Commission or misunderstanding of their process. I think it’s neither.
This week the commission will take up whether or not to keep the Area Councils in our charter. It’s an important issue that I was calling attention to, and offering my own personal opinions on.
Jerry says, “The few facts mentioned appear to be correct.”
The problem lies not in the facts you mentioned but in the emails sent from the Newtonville Area Council making incorrect statements such as in the one you received. These are not unusual practices of the NAC, which publishes no minutes from its meetings as other area councils do. The charter commission, on the other hand, publishes all pertinent information.
Here’s the email from NAC:
Newtonville Area Council
The Charter Commission appears inclined to eliminate Area Councils from the revised Newton Charter. If you value what the Newtonville Area Council does, please express your appreciation to the Charter Commission at [email protected]. As a reminder, the Newtonville Area Council consists of volunteers elected every two years by residents of Newtonville. We strive to improve Newtonville and to facilitate communication between the residents, the City, and other major players, such as potential developers. In this role we have sponsored the following activities:
• Public forums to share information between developers and the community;
• Critiques of proposed developments by outside architects and designers;
• Identifying and advocating for public benefits from proposed developments;
• Question and answer sessions with Ward 2 candidates for City Council;
• On-line survey of community’s goals for the Austin St. development;
• Sponsoring and organizing Newtonville Village Day to bring the community together with activities and entertainment;
• Meeting with state and national representatives to advocate for improved public transportation in Newtonville;
• Advocating for improved sidewalks and sidewalk amenities in Newtonville Village;
If you value these activities please write to [email protected]
@Marti, Jane – Hmm – I feel like we’re talking past each other here. The only line in the Newtonville Area Council email pertaining to the Commission is “The Charter Commission appears inclined to eliminate Area Councils from the revised Newton Charter. ”
That’s not correct or incorrect. It’s a matter of opinion. It’s a conclusion someone came to after sitting through meetings and reading the minutes. At this point the commissioners may be inclined to keep Area Councils, they be inclined to eliminate Area Councils, they may be inclined to modify Area Councils. We won’t know until there is a straw vote. In the meantime I think its perfectly reasonable for the Area Councils to try to mobilize their supporters to be heard before the vote – particularly if they sense (rightly or wrongly) that there’s a real chance that the Commission may vote against the continued existence of the Area Councils.
ps. BTW, Full disclosure … I’m a first man of the Area Council, or maybe a councillor-in-law. My wife is an Upper Falls Area Councillor
@Jerry-
“…for the city to be able to ignore those local voices – definitely not a healthy goal.”
I agree 100% with you. Unfortunately this is, in fact, what is happening. Just imagine how annoying those community groups can be to people with an agenda. They’re like a Ward Councilor…only there’s even more of them!.
Saving the Ward Councilors should be the #1 over-arching goal of anyone who believe in responsive and grass roots government. Area Councils, too.
What the NAC is doing is no different than the SC lobbying for the ‘NO’ on question 2. Preventive action whether based on fact or not will always gain momentum toward the ballot box.
Jerry, while I disagree with your interpretation of “The Charter Commission APPEARS INCLINED to eliminate Area Councils from the revised Newton Charter. ” as being neither incorrect or correct, I certainly see the value of area councils and unelected neighborhood associations as in Nonantum. They have accomplished great things for their areas. There are still problems that need to be solved. I agree that area councils and their members should vigorously defend their position as ward councilors are doing.
Words matter.
The email quote above, saying the commission “appears inclined to” implies some knowledge of the subject that follows. It doesn’t say that the commission “is discussing,” or “is considering” which could have been used to promote awareness and lead to action. The statement in the email is incorrect and misleading prompting misguided assumptions and misinformed actions instead of clear understanding.
If the commission itself has formed no opinion or publicly discussed how they are “inclined,” then indicating that area councils know of deliberations happening outside the public view, a clear violation of the OML, fosters mistrust in the commission. These tactics are no different than those used by some other organizations, NVA comes to mind, who choose their wording carefully to imply they know things the public does not – like intentions or inclinations.
@Marti Bowen – I see your point.
Reading the minutes of the meeting, I think the Area Councils are wise to be wary, and well advised to alert their supporters to be heard. Until these emails it never occurred to me that Charter reform might potentially recommend abandoning the Area Councils. The minutes make clear that there are a significant number of folks advocating for that outcome – i.e. members of the public, not necessarily the commissioners themselves.
So yes given that, “Charter Commission appears to be inclined …” is a bit misleading and probably should have been something more like “Area Councils up for grabs in Charter Commission” or “voices pushing Charter Commission to abandon Area Councils”.
All that being said the whole thing has certainly taken me by surprise. It just never occurred to me that the Area Councils were at all a contentious issue or that there was any significant constituency that would like to eliminate them. Perhaps that’s because I live in Upper Falls rather than Waban or Newtonville. Those two councils have both been involved in recent Affordable Housing vs Stop Development fights. Those fights constantly suck all the oxygen out of the room when it comes to all things Newton.
I truly hope that the good that the Area Councils do on a whole range of broad issues doesn’t get undermined by that one “third rail” issue.
The WAC notice was written by one of our WAC Councilors and approved by me, as WAC President, before being distributed. It begins: “It has come to our attention that the Charter Review Commission is seriously considering eliminating neighborhood area councils from the Newton City Charter.” I personally observed the Charter Commission meeting on September 28 as I have observed most of the deliberations of the Charter Commission in person. It is my OPINION that the body language and the words (which do matter, Marti) both spoken and unspoken at that meeting, specifically the lack of strong language from the Commissioners in support of retaining the Area Councils in the Charter, that I felt alarming. In addition, the constant chant to compare Area Councils with Neighborhood Associations as being interchangeable and EQUIVALENT organizations underlined in my thinking a striking lack of understanding of their fundamental differences by the Commission. The conversation about this Article spoke about stating the indisputable value of neighborhood associations in a preamble to the Article. Do we speak of valuing PTO’s in the Charter? Do we speak of valuing our beloved Gardening Groups in the Charter? Do we speak of valuing Bicycle Newton? Friends of Hemlock Gorge? Friends of the Greenway? Friends of the Quinobequin? Friends of the Chestnut Hill Reservoir? The Crystal Lake Conservancy, etc.? NO…they are not called out in the Charter because they are NOT DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED bodies representing a communication link for a constituency in an environment that is rigorously open and transparent. All the afore-mentioned types of organizations, including neighborhood associations, are most definitely basic and necessary to the cultural fabric of a community. They are to be highly valued and never demeaned. They are NOT, however, mandated to be open, transparent and subject, if derelict, to being thrown out by a dissatisfied electorate! Area Councils, laboring under the strictures of the OML, are different. They must belong in the Charter. Their Election also belongs in the Charter and SHOULD REMAIN UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE CITY’S ELECTION DEPARTMENT. And, although it may not be politically incorrect to say this, I believe that the election of Area Councils should be on the same day as the biennial Municipal elections. Why? The Charter Commission has argued that their mission is to increase citizen participation in City Government. If that is truly their goal, then they must recognize that voting for Area Councilors will get MUCH higher voter participation if done at the same time as the election of City Councilors. Is this a burden on the Election Department? Definitely! We must, then, find a solution for that burden through funding or mending Area Council borders or some other mechanism. We must not, however, throw the baby out with the bath water!
Sorry: “It may not be politically correct” was what I meant to say above.
As to Jerry’s depiction of housing proposals in Waban as being a third rail, we have checks and balances from federal to local levels of our government, not just on housing policy. No matter how devoted a person is to an issue, the rights of individuals affected by that issue are also important. Area Councils have the obligation to bring light to the “remedies”: the regulated times and the relevant content for community input to have a voice in what is proposed. That does not make Area Councils a third rail. That makes a proposal a better proposal.
Please Note: I won’t be responding to any more V14 statements until Thursday or Friday, because of observance of Yom Kippur and preparations for the next WAC meeting on Thursday (to which you are all cordially invited).
I can’t sit by on this issue…(everytime I think I’m out, they suck me right back in)..
I don’t understand why anyone would oppose Area Councils. They volunteer their time and they do work that is overburdening our elected officials. Who are you suppose to go to if your councilor doesn’t return phone calls?? You need to go to your Area Council.
If the commission does end up taking away ward councilors, the Area Council should be given expanded duties. They should have more power to resolve issues, so the Board doesn’t have to. Every ward should have an area council. If possible, it should be easier to create an area council (less signatures, etc.).
I appreciate the detailed information that Jane Frantz has provided about the processes of the Charter Commission. However, in a subsequent post, she says in reference to the Area Councils that “a problem was identified.” What was the problem? Where was it identified? This goes to a fundamental defect in the Commission process. It has not identified in most cases any significant problems in the current Charter.; the most common comment appears to be that the Newton Charter differs from the Model Charter that they are using. That is not an identification of a problem that is relevant to Newton and to its twenty-five plus years with the Charter and the 100 plus years of the Charter before it. It leads again to the observation of many interested citizens that “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”
Another poster says that the existing Article 9 cann;t be left alone. Why not”
As I said at the first public hearing before the Charter Commission, I think that the Councils should be give explicit eligibility to apply for Community Preservation Act funding since the CPA was established after the Charter and provides funding for many of the functions assigned to Councils. However, I would n’t support revisions to the Charter on the ballot just for this limited pupose. That’s what Home Rule Petitions are for. Don’t tamper with parts of the Charter for no urgent reason. Perhaps some major revisions are needed. I just haven’t seen any yet.
Brian Yates
Woosh. I’ve been having trouble logging onto Village 14 today and am just working my way through this. Without commenting on the merits of the Area Councils today (although I did serve on one for one term and found it very fulfilling) it does seem that there’s a lot of speculation here based partly on, uh, “body language”?
To me, this reinforces the value of community journalism in general and journalists in particular. This is not a knock on Andy Levin or Jonathan Dame, we know how busy they are, or a knock on Jerry or Sallee either. But in a different era there would have been a trained reporter covering all of the Charter Commission meetings so we would have a lot more specifics beyond body language or interpretations of an email from the very entity that’s perhaps or perhaps not being “eliminated” ?
Anyway carry on. I’m off to repent for all times I’ve sarcastically responded to Charlie, Colleen, Tom and others here over the past year. Be nice to each other. See you Thursday.
Brian, I said the article cannot be left alone because it’s clear from the minutes linked and other discussions that members and officers of Area Councils would like to see changes in the Charter. Some parts put unwanted limits on functions and others address their different goals. Some Area Councils want broader powers and for election rules to be specified in the article, particularly wanting the elections to be held during the normal biennial election cycle. Some representatives would like the charter to define areas and have Area Councils to cover the entirety of Newton.
It is the Area Councils themselves that are identifying problems and looking for the Charter Article concerning them to be amended. The Charter Commission is not leaning anyway at this point – they are trying to address problems others are presenting.
The supporters of area council have learned from watching how the Charter Commission handled the issue of ward councilors. It was premature to draw any conclusions about how the commission members felt, until suddenly, a straw vote had been taken. The time lapsed between the two seemed imperceptible to most.
I think the process the Charter commission is following is deeply flawed and quite disappointing. There should always be an announcement of an impending straw vote on all issues at least two weeks before it takes place, giving the public time to weigh in what is being voted on.
Jerry wrote ” It just never occurred to me that the Area Councils were at all a contentious issue or that there was any significant constituency that would like to eliminate them.”
That’s how I feel about Ward Councilors. I was a big supporter of having a Charter Commission, but now I’ve almost completely checked out because I will vote against any proposal that eliminates Ward Councilors.
Reliable sources shared notes on personal conversations they had with Charter Commission members in which was revealed their preferences for eliminating Neighborhood Area Councils. These CC members are a majority and are from the ranks of the LEAGUE. – doesn’t take much to interpret..
Really?
I’d like to emphasize (or re-emphasize) that the Article 9 review leaders and Commission as a whole have discovered a very high level of complexity with regard to Article 9.
The value, efficacy, significance, etc. of area councils has been discussed as part of the review~ but mostly by those providing feedback to the Commission via public comment, through emails, or of course via Village 14. Over the course of the review, we have heard from staunch supporters of area councils and those opposed.
The Commission genuinely appreciates and values the viewpoints. However, Article 9 deliberations incorporate more than weighing in for or against area councils. Our challenge is honing in on the direction and content of the article. The objective is to assess what is appropriate for the charter and what should be designated by ordinance and/or within area council bylaws, and to strike a balance between best practices and what fits for Newton.
Research is always a factor as part of a review. Jane mentioned above that among MA municipalities, only Worcester includes enabling language for area councils within its charter. In looking nation-wide, it appears that typically much larger cities (i.e 294,000 for St. Paul or 3,884,000 for Los Angeles) formally enable neighborhood councils, and St. Paul’s “enabling location” is via city council ordinance. (An important point is that formation of area councils is often undertaken via ordinance vs. charter.)
Also factoring into the Commission’s discussion are the many possibilities for area council operating guidelines. A range of configurations are possible with regard to boundaries/formation, role, budget, membership, elections, appointments, by-laws, etc. This is the first opportunity in decades to examine how the framework is working, to Marti’s point.
On that note (and again), it is difficult to assess what belongs “enshrined” in the charter. I believe the Commissioners all see risks in overstepping/being over-prescriptive and/or not providing parameters where they could be helpful. It is impossible to gauge where members of the group stand as they try to process the many possibilities and configurations in play for Article 9. We are grateful for the comments and insights so many people have provided and hope to see many of you as we continue our discussion on Oct. 19th, 7p.m., City Hall, Room 222.
Correction: The Oct. 19th Charter Commission meeting will be held in the City Council Chambers, not Room 222.