It’s been over four months since Village 14 reached 80 comments when discussing Marjorie Arons-Barron’s views on the possibility of the Charter Commission recommending the elimination of Ward Councilors. We’ve had some time to rest and think, so perhaps we are ready to offer comments on this video of Ward Councilor Emily Norton’s thoughts on why she opposes the Charter Commission straw vote to eliminate ward councilors.
Councilor Norton Comments on Newton Charter Review from NewTV on Vimeo.
perhaps its time for a regenderfication of the corner office..
Emily has shouldered the task of preserving ward councilors alone. Why is that? We need other ward councilors to speak out about this senseless attack on grass roots representative government. Who are the real losers? Newton residents are the losers and strong central government with autocratic leaders will be the result.
I don’t really think that’s the case Colleen, many folks have spoken out about this issue.
Why do you think it’s the ward councilors job to lead this effort? I’ve always found it a little icky when politicians lead the effort to save their own jobs.
I think if a ward councilor isn’t going to make a case for their job, then who should? They certainly have no problem explaining why they are the best choice for the job when they run, so now make the case your job is important enough to keep.
I think Emily’s video is brilliant, except for the part of effectiveness. Not sure how many she thinks will watch this, or be swayed by only her voice. But, hey give her credit for trying.
The Charter commission has the option to present to the community more than one option to vote on. I think the commission should think long and hard about this, as I do think one or two controversial issues such as the ward councilors, may sink the entire project. ( it would serve them right for the manner in which they did this,quite arrogant in their approach, with this unannounced straw vote on an issue; but this chance isn’t likely to come along again- and we would benefit from some changes.)
I can understand why people disagree with the ward councilor straw vote.
But the vitriol directed at the commissioners is uncalled for.
The Newton citizens who volunteered to serve on this commission care about our community at least as much and, I’d argue, likely more than the folks hurling personal attacks and espousing conspiracy theories from the sidelines.
As Brian has outlined, everything the commission has done has been done in the open, with agendas and announcements of their time tables presented in advance.
And for heaven’s sake, the benefits of a staw vote is that it allows for the public to weigh in on a decision before it is final.
It’s time to stop winning and trying to discredit the process and our commissioners and let’s just debate the issue before us.
@Neal: I’m troubled by your comment regarding our approach. We have announced every meeting in advance and spent the first several meetings outlining when and how we would review each article. Interested citizens had months of advance notice as to when we would be debating the city council structure. We also have an email list that we publicized widely which announces each meeting a few days before they happen. They’re also posted in city hall in accordance with open meeting law. We also held a roundtable discussion in advance of our meeting (See here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/75066)
Our project plan has been public for almost a year at this point, and is readily available on our website, see here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/73214
Emily’s video is darn persuasive. Great job.
When the Charter Committee was formed, I anticipated that I would enthusiastically support a change. Eliminating ward-elected councilors has thrown a wet blanket on my enthusiasm. My current positions on the charter change is “undecided.”
If the charter fails, does anyone think there might be a follow-up movement to collect signatures for a second commission? Is there a mandatory waiting period in between charter commissions? Given how long the signature collection process took the first time, a waiting period may not be binding.
@Jeffrey, if the Charter Commission’s recommendations fail to pass in an up or down vote next November, the City Council could still adopt less expansive, all-encompassing reforms, subject to voter approval. This could include the size and makeup of the Council as well as election reforms, term limits, updating the Comprehensive plan, and other aspects of the City Charter. I believe that the Charter Commission has done a commendable job studying the entire Charter, comparing other city charters and best practices, and exploring a multitude of alternatives, which would provide a good foundation for considering and adopting amendments that would update and improve the existing Charter without making changes for which there is not sufficient public support.
Just my two cents.
@Bryan:
Your project plan/meeting schedule doesn’t list any of the dates of straw votes, until 10/26. I think, based on the comments by many, it took many by surprise that there was going to be straw votes at the time of the reviews and discussions. I think that was arrogant on the commissions part, particularly once they started hearing backlash from it. I believe there should be advance announcements about a straw vote on a particular aspect, and it should not take place on the same day as the discussion.
I have read members of the commission being dismissive of comments made on this blog, as not being representative of the views of the citizens. I think that is arrogant.
This isn’t vitriol, just in case, by some chance Greg’s comment was directed at me. It is my honest opinion, based on conversations I had prior to the commission, with various candidates, and watching the progress since.
I think a straw vote is a potentially powerful indicator, and at times can make it difficult for some to change course,once they have announced their position.
Greg your comments regarding members who volunteer as being more caring of the community, is as much vitriol as any.
Ted, it will be interesting to see how things play out. Given what I know now, I would set the under/over at barely passing at 50.5%. I reserve the right to update before the election. The thing that I am most interested in is how many councilors will send out emails that advise people to vote for it or against it. It sounds like, as of now, you will send out a pro-email and Emily will certain send out an against email.
Neal – Every meeting is posted on the city website and Bryan has posted a number of meetings on Village 14.
I haven’t heard any member speak disparagingly about people on the blog, though I’ve often said about many issues that I don’t take into account anonymous postings.
People can write to us about any issue at any time. The work plan and calendar have been on the city website since late December or early January.
@Jane: Perhaps I wasn’t clear the way I wrote it. I know the meetings are posted, but other than listing a straw vote on Oct 26, none of the other straw vote dates are listed on the plan/meeting schedule. ( the link Bryan gives). So there would be no reason for a casual observer to have any idea you were about to take any kind of vote on a matter, on any given day.
@Neal: I’m sorry if you haven’t had a chance to follow these proceedings as closely as you might have liked, however I must insist that this information has been readily available since December / January of last year. Any reasonable person who had read our documentation or attended any meeting should have known that they could expect straw votes at the end of each section. That was a decision made at our first meeting, and is reflected in both our work plan and framework (See here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70731) and with specific dates identified for votes in our draft work plan from January (See Pg. 8 here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/73220)
Additionally, we have public comment at the beginning of our meetings, and early on solicited feedback on our proposed process. If concerns were raised as to the timing of votes, that could’ve been addressed, but I am not aware of anyone who raised concerns at that time.
Bryan, do you still have my copy of Amy Vanderbilt?
@Greg: “Icky”, really? Guess this election season is getting to everyone.
Greg is right as always. This is icky! Just the way it was icky for Goodridges to fight for same-sex marriage, because they could benefit personally. Or for Susan B Anthony to organize for woman’s suffrage, because she could gain the right to vote. I now realize how selfish, or ” icky” these people were.
I hope I dont hear from you about this again Councillor Norton! NOT 🙂
I look at the Ward Councilor issue as a piece of a much larger question, and one that I understand has come up with the Charter Commission. That is: is Newton a single city or 13 villages? (the 14th village doesn’t get a ward councilor).
If we are one city, then the residency of councilors matters less. If we are 13 villages, each with its own need, then the residency matters more. Councilor Norton’s statement “do folks in Newtonville really know what’s going on in the Highlands? Probably not” is a valid point.
But, how does the city grow best in the future? If everyone is protecting their own turf, does it help the greater good? I’m not sure I have the answer.
She also raises some good points about consolidation of power with those who have the money to get a city-wide vote.
How do other cities deal with these issues?
On one hand we should stick to debating the issues, on the other hand Emily is ‘icky.’ Let’s elevate the level of political discourse rather than level Trump-esque attacks.
I’m not sure anyone meant that Emily is “icky.” The sentiment, as I understood it, is that it’s better for the argument if others debated the need for ward councilors, since the councilors themselves have a vested interest in saving their jobs.
My comment was:
I apologize to Councilor Norton or anyone else who felt I was criticizing her specifically.
That wasn’t my intention. It’s also not what I wrote.
I was responding to Colleen’s statement (“We need other ward councilors to speak out about this…”) and explaining why some ward councilors might be reluctant “to speak out.” I wasn’t trying to pick on Councilor Norton, I was defending her colleagues.
I am still conflicted on this issue. I am paying more attention to information I glean from residents, at-large city councilors and city employees than to a ward councilor or most who comment on the Newtonville Listserv. Anyone who has the nerve to post anything but support for Emily Norton’s opinions (or support her for mayor) is quickly shunned or insulted. (Of course I mean residents not Councilor Norton in case anyone is confused.)
@Marti – That might be overstating it SLIGHTLY… go back and reread the responses to my posts about Question 2 – there was much vigorous disagreement!
“Do folks in Newtonville really know what’s going on in the Highlands?” Really? I live in Newton Centre, but I can walk to the village centers of both Newton Highlands and Newtonville from my house. I frequent them both, and I am directly affected by issues in both, including success of the businesses, pedestrian safety, parking, public transit, or housing. I think it’s absurd to imply that residents of one Village have no concern with others– Newton Highlands and Newtonville are only 2 miles apart. No village has its own funding source, so my tax payments are used to pay for improvements to any village. And development (that drives increased tax revenue or affects traffic, housing, businesses) in any village affects me.
Not a lot of folks from Newtonville weighed in on Kessler woods. Not a lot of folks from the Highlands weighed in on Austin St. People in Auburndale had a lot to say about Rowe Street, other villages did not. (At least judging from the emails I received.) I am guessing Barbara Brousal-Glaser received a lot more complaints about Burr School water quality than I did. It’s a big city with localized villages & neighborhoods with localized issues. Do we want to have someone who is structurally incentivized to care about those local issues?
If you subscribe to this logic (and I don’t) then Ward Councilors should only be allowed to vote on matters that directly impact their ward. Councilor Norton, I presume you didn’t recuse yourself from votes on Kessler Woods, Rowe Street or the modulars at South. But why not given that you’re not “structurally incentivized to care about those local issues”?
Emily – My recollection of the recent debate on Question 2 on the Newtonville listserv was Newtonville listserv world against me. It was hardly what one would call a “lively” debate. I also wonder if most people on the Newtonville listserv receive frequent emails letting them know they can unsubscribe at any time.
Emily – Believe it or not, yes I want and expect every City Councilor to care about the issues you raised. That’s the job description of a City Councilor – to care about the whole city.
This is what concerns me about your post: I hear from City Councilors that unless the Councilors from the ward in which a building project is situated support it, Councilors from other wards will not vote for that project, despite the overall understanding that it’s in the best interest of the city as a whole.
The Cabot School building approval process is just the latest example. Councilors from other parts of the city said they would not vote for the Cabot School Building Committee/DRC approved proposal unless the Councilors from Ward 2 gave it to go-ahead. This, despite the fact that a No vote on the part of the City Council would have resulted in the continued neglect of educational facilities throughout the northside of the city.
@Jane: This appears at the bottom of every Newtonville listserve post, making it easy for people to adjust their setting, including unsubscribing:
————-
access list archives, shared file area, your settings at
http://lists.neighborhood.net/index.html/info/newtonville
list services provided by the Newton Neighborhood Network with
partial sponsorship by The Village Bank
@Jane: If you reread my post, you will note I was commenting on the content of emails I had received from residents. Not what issues various city councilors “care” about. I am finding many people I speak with and hear from like the way our current structure allows for residents in a local area to have a voice about the issues that most concern them.
@Greg: I am so sorry that the meaning of my post was not clearer to you. Here is how I put it in the video:
“Currently we have Ward Councilors — that are beholden to only the voters in their ward. With this proposed change, all councilors would be elected citywide. The one residing in your ward could be non-responsive to you and your neighbors, yet still be re-elected handily by voters in the rest of the city, simply due to the size of our City. Do folks in Nonantum really know what’s going on in Waban? Probably not. As a ward councilor, I have to be hyper-vigilant to the needs of my ward, otherwise they may not re-elect me. Newton citizens will greatly miss this if Ward Councilors are eliminated, as proposed by the Charter Commission.”
You may not care that a city councilor disregard the concerns of the residents in the ward they live in. But I am finding many residents find that concept deeply disturbing.
Of course I want city councilors to care about the concerns to of they ward they live in! And of course the loss of that would be disturbing. But using this line of thinking, please justify letting ward councilors vote on matters in wards where they have no voter accountability.
Emily – I’ve received a number of emails from the Newtonville listserv, separate and distinct from my infrequent comments, asking me if I’d like to unsubscribe and reminding me that I can unsubscribe at any time. As I recollect, the only issue I’ve commented on is Question 2.
Let me rephrase my comment about the job description of a City Councilor: I expect every City Councilor to be informed about and vote on citywide issues with an eye for what’s best for the city as a whole. I expect Area Councils and village associations to be attuned to very local issues and inform the entire City Council and/or Mayor of issues and concerns related to their village.
There are ways of recusing oneself from a vote without actually doing so. If Councilors take the position that they must defer to the Councilors of the ward, then that in effect recuses them from a vote on an issue in another part of the city.
Just to follow up on Jane’s post, I’ve received similar emails and worse after commenting on the Newtonville listserv – so have others.
If ward councilors pay little attention to issues that have to do with other villages, other than saying they will only vote for issues supported by that village’s ward councilor, then they should not have been voting on issues affecting only other villages. Kessler woods is a city treasure. I know I and others weighed in on the city purchasing it.
Happy to make this point yet again, and will repeat as many times as is necessary… I was commenting on emails we have received from constituents. I did not say “ward councilors pay little attention to issues that have to do with other villages”.
@Greg: again I made this point in my video but very happy to repeat it: “Our State Reps are elected from Newton, but they vote on issues affecting the whole state. Members of Congress are elected by one Congressional District, Senators are elected by one state, yet they all make decisions that affect the whole Country. That is our system.” If you find that to be illegitimate, then I guess you’ll have to take it up with the Constitution.
Note Boston has 9 district councilors and only 4 at-large councilors.
@Councilor Norton: Newton is 18.2 square miles. Massachusetts is 10,554 square miles. The U.S. is 3.8 million square miles.
I get why we need state and federal representatives and senators to represent our specific geography and unique characteristics on the state and national level. But it seems every city councilor ought to be able to handle representing 18.2 square miles.
Are you suggesting that 18.2 square miles too big for you and seven of your colleagues to be effective?
And if small localized representation really is the most democratic, would the residents of Newton be better served if we divided the city in 16 or even 24 wards and had even more ward councilors?
Chuck Tanowitz asked “How do other cities deal with these issues?”
I grew up in New York City, where there’s a City Council with one councilor elected from each state senate district. Each separate borough also has a borough president.
The question of whether the existing structure of our City Council or the one being proposed is more “democratic” is worthy of discussion and involves several shades of grey. I’m glad that Emily so eloquently put this on the table and I trust there will be a rejoinder or two from the other side as this debate progresses.
I lived in Virginia for several years from the early 1960’s to the mid 70’s. I saw the state change dramatically with passage of the Voting Rights Act and intense voter registration drives in the African American community; but the old guard reactionary segregationist power structure did everything it could to hold on to power at the local level. This involved several instances where increases in Black registration threatened white control in one part of a municipality. One way they stymied this was to annex outlying predominantly white areas into the “threatened” municipality, something that could be done in Virginia, but not here. But the main thing they did was to depress the vote where ever they could and move to have all city elected officials run at large under a single slate. Most Black candidates initially broke through in municipalities that elected at least some of their candidates by ward or some other district arrangement.
I tell this story because there is another side to the argument that electing some local officials by ward as we do in Newton is somehow undemocratic since a candidate elected only with the votes in his or her ward has the same power as one who is elected citywide. Democracy is in the eye of the beholder. What some people I talk with are concerned about is the election of a cohesive, powerful 13 member at large city council that runs as a formal or informal slate, bowling over a fragmented opposition. I seem to recall that this was one reason Boston voted some years back to end it’s all at-large City Council and move to strong district representation. Too many small and marginal communities and interests were being left out of the decision making process. I doubt I could find many Boston voters that would want to go back to the old system. So it’s reasonable to ask why we should adopt an at-large system that the people of Boston rejected in the past because it was actually less democratic than the one they have now. I’d like evidence that what they have now is less representative or efficient than the one they tossed over the side.
It may appear that I am favoring eliminating ward councilors, but I am not. (See what I did there.) After much deliberation and study, weighing the pros and cons – I find that most of my cons have been overridden by the larger, more important pros. I am convinced there are better ways of fixing the cons than eliminating ward councilors. A representative government is most important in a democracy – worth the risk of ward counselors not representing all of their constituents and ward counselors being deferred to in decisions.
If reducing the size of the city council is the outcome of the new Charter, there needs to be more equal representation – even more so with only 4 NAC governmental bodies representing 4 areas of the city, 3 of them in Ward 5.
The size and composition of the city council that most represents the entire city is 17 councilors – 8 ward councilors and 9 at-large counselors.
If wards are combined into 4, the number could be 9+ with 4 ward counselors and at least 5 councilors.
As a caveat, counselors selected by ward only would be restricted from holding a city counsel office. The office holds too much authority to have its holder elected by a small portion of the city. Only counselors elected by the entire city could hold office.
I think there are better ways to any of solve the problems presented.
1.There are valid reasons city councilors make decisions relying on the judgement of the councilors most involved in the issue.
Ward councilors, and some ward residency required at-large councilors, do concentrate more on local issues than others and therefore know more about them than other councilors, ward or at-large. Not only do the other ward councilors but also the counselors-at large acquiesce to the ward councilor, but not because of quid pro quo, because of their greater knowledge of the subject. The councilors respect that each councilor has different jobs and duties on committees and boards, and therefore bring that knowledge to the table for discussion. They expect that each councilor, as do the voters, will listen to their colleagues and make their own decisions. The ward counselors do present their case to the all of the city councilors.
2.The allowance of “plan b” secretive citizen proposals (see Cabot School) or citizen power (see Engine 9) and NAC proposals (see Zervas) to be presented late in the process, essentially stalling a legally defined process, causes problems.
The preparers of the “plan b” proposals are working outside the on-going legal process behind the backs, so to speak, of participating stakeholders along with many committees and consultants. These “plan b” proposals, presented at the last minute, seemingly out of nowhere, are required to be reviewed, sometimes after a proposal has been accepted, creating divisiveness, ire over their going outside the prescribed process, fear of missing scheduled completion dates and conspiracy theories concerning back room, who was involved in, discussions and deals. These are valid reasons all city counselors have to rely on the counselors most involved.
Eliminating the allowance of last minute proposals, setting rules regarding submission of proposals such as time restrictions and requiring all who present proposals to participate in the on-going process are better suggestions than eliminating the very counselors trying to keep up with every new problem presented.
3.The elimination of ward councilors, particularly if reducing the city council to only 13 members, presents the problem of no counselor having the time to become intimately involved in projects and issues in order to disseminate that knowledge to the city council as a whole. No one to defer to.
4.Councilor Norton brings up the following valid probable problem. “The one [ward counselor] residing in your ward could be non-responsive to you and your neighbors, yet still be re-elected handily by voters in the rest of the city, simply due to the size of our City. ”
Voters generally do not have the time or schedule to participate or even follow thoroughly issues pertaining to wards other than their own. This would more than likely lead to a centralized government led by those who agree with each other and could easily disregard other ideas and opinions, leaving little debate involving the underrepresented voters who have no voice in their government. Not everyone has the same ideas about what is best for the city. The fewer voices, the less representation. Listservs and google groups, such as Newton Highlands’, that prohibit commenting on issues without being a resident contribute to this problem. (See Newton Free Library solar panel discussion.) I learn more on local city-wide allowed Facebook groups.
Moving to a complete At-Large elections will end up disenfranchising 50% of the city’s population.
2015 At-Large election data shows that the #1 choice of the city-wide votes directly contradicted #1 choice from that ward.
Ward #2 – Jake got most votes from his Ward, but lost city-wide ballot. He would NOT be the councilor
#5 – Yates would be #1 choice of Ward 5, but Crossley would end up representing the ward
#7 – Laredo won the ward, but would not be the Councilor
#8 – Lipof won the ward, but would not be the Councilor
Ward Citizens along with Achincloss, Yates, Laredo or Lipof would be the losers!
Why is this important – because the choice of the Ward constituents just would not be represented in 1/2 the cases. Given that the proposal on table is only 1 At-Large from each ward, ward citizens would just not be able to “fire” (sorry Donald) the councilor who was not listening to them.
How is this democratic? How does this make councilors more accountable?
Someone please explain…
Source – http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70157
@Neil P: What Rhanna said.
Also, a governing document (a constitution, charter, etc.) should not be designed for the current office holders but for the long term. Looking at data from any one election to reach conclusions about how should organize our government for generations would be a mistake.
Neil P, Jake, Brian, and Rick ran in 4-way and 3-way races for one of 2 seats. All voters got 2 votes in that contest. There is no way to know who would have come out first or city-wide if there had been a runoff and then voters had gotten to vote for 1 of 2 candidates for the 1 ward seat.
Sorry…who would have come out first in the ward or city-wide…
@Rihanna – As we all know, this data is as close as it gets to address a situation that just does not exist today. A 50% rate is sufficiently high to show ward disenfranchising is a very realistic scenario that will very likely occur based on the current proposal.
In fact, it is a much stronger evidence than that provided for the parochial behavior argument that has been made.
I’m currently looking into the data related to ward councilors, but have not yet completed the collection. When you vote for a ward councilor, you have 3 possible choices:
-vote foe one if the race is contested
-vote for one if the race is uncontested
-leave it blank and vote for no one.
In the Ward Councilor races, only ward residents can vote for the candidate. There appears to be a high rate of blanks in most wards for the Ward Councilor position. I question, and others have also asked the same question, if voters in a particular ward think the Ward Councilor represents their perspective, opinion, or position on issues.
@Greg – the burden of proof is not that onerous, if you believe ward disenfranchisement is a serious violation. 50% in the most recent election clearly demonstrates it is quite likely that ward voices will get lost.
If you believe distinct ward voices dont matter (as you alluded above), pl. outline why.
Also – I would like to see the reams of data that charter commission used to make the decision. I dont find it, but maybe someone will point me to data that shows my conclusion is incorrect. Always open to be corrected.
After the discussion of NACs, if they stay much the same as they are now in the proposed charter, it seems evident that without ward representation, not all areas of the city will have the same voice. Ward 5 and Newtonville will have a layer of governmental access that other areas do not but at least with each area having a ward representative, they will have a voice in city decision making.
I share some of the same opinions as Neal on the charter commission process pertaining to controversial subjects, including deliberations, dicussions, minutes and straw votes.
The minutes don’t include discussions/deliberations between commission members. They don’t include commissioners’ reasons for voting the way they did or how they came to their decisions. It seems they read material individually outside of meetings, listened to public comments, round table discussions and panels, then individually made decisions on how to vote.
The unanimous vote for the size and composition of the city council didn’t show any discussion of pros and cons or consequences of each possible variation. Basically each commissioner’s decision was based on picking one of 5 scenarios in the Model Charter, which they read on their own along with highlighted portions of a discussion guide. Each chose #5.
Eliminating ward counselors was not discussed; it was just a part of the scenario chosen. This manner of decision making is not appropriate for such a major issue.
One added thought regarding this comment from Councilor Norton for her video:
And I’d say that our current political landscape illustrates the pitfalls of “our system.”
For example: Presently, U.S. Senators in other states are blocking a discussion about a Supreme Court nominee and I can’t vote against those senators for refusing to do so. U.S. Congressman in other states are refusing to even discuss needed revisions to Obamacare and I can’t vote against those representatives for refusing to do so.
Now I’m not arguing to change the way we organize the U.S. Congress. The geography is just too large for that.
But our 18.2 square mile city is not too large for every Newton voter to have the ability to have a say about every city councilor.
It doesn’t matter much if residents of wards don’t think their ward rep agrees with them on some things. They may on other things. They can also hold that ward rep accountable. My guess as to why there might be a lot of blank votes is because either the voter is happy with the way things are going or has had no reason to even learn who their ward rep is. In the case of an incumbent running unopposed, a blank ballot could mean the voter is unsatisfied with the rep or knows they will win anyway so why bother. Some leave blank incumbents who didn’t bother to run since they were guaranteed to win.
The answers to those questions are irrelevant. The facts are that without ward reps or NACs with a 13 member city council, many voters will have no representation at all.
@Marti -So agree – the mins are too light, for an important topic like this.
Once I actually sat down to listen to the 116 min of audio recording. 30 mins or so, I took a break and paused the recording. The darn thing restarted itself and I could not drag it to the 30 min mark. Happened twice :(. So I really cant even hear the thinking and rationale behind the votes. Dang it!
BTW – did not intend to disrespect people who write these minutes, just expressing a bit of personal frustration.
Marti and Neal – The Charter Commission was advised that the audio was the true set of minutes and that the written copy does not need to be detailed in this day and age. The audio is uploaded directly after the meeting.
As for how to make the audio user friendly:
Go to the audio of your choice on the Charter Commission website, then right click on it. A popup allows you to save it onto your desktop as an mp3. In that format, you’re able to return to the place where you may have stopped for a break.
I forgot to mention that we had a second discussion of the composition of the City Council on August 24 and plan to have a third discussion at a November meeting.
In addition, the League of Women Voters has had observers at almost every meeting and they post detailed notes on their website. Here are the notes from the 4/13 discussion of council composition:
http://lwvnewton.org/category/local-action/charter-commission/page/4/
These observer notes and the audio show that many commissioners explained why they prefer at-large from the wards as opposed to councilors elected from the wards only. Reasons included that it has worked well for the school committee, that there’s a preference for councilors to be accountable to all voters in a city of this size, that parochialism has been an issue with ward councilors (both in Newton and according to testimony from councilors from other cities), and that many Newton councilors (ward and at-large) testified that the job of councilor should not look any different if someone is elected city-wide or by ward–that the first priority always needs to be what’s best for the city.
I’m flabbergasted. Who informed the commission that audio takes the place of detailed minutes? I have never seen or heard this definition for minutes conforming to open meeting law standards. I don’t know the law well enough to know. This fact would have been good to know in the beginning.
So all of these months we have been asking how and why this unanimous vote happened and no commissioner thought to tell us it’s not in the minutes; it’s in the audio. We were told about the model charter, the panels, the documentation and the minutes. I can’t think of any time a commissioner told residents that the minutes weren’t comprehensive so be sure to listen to the audio.
I don’t read or listen to anything on my computer – just on my iPad. In Audio it’s hard to decipher voices and keep up with a discussion. People talk over each other. I don’t agree with whoever came up with audio taking the place of minutes. I can read minutes quickly. Audio takes forever. I don’t know many who would listen to a long meeting unless the message was clear that it’s the only way to know what the discussions were.
I cannot possibly find the discussions of all the meetings now and have time to listen to all of them – and here I thought I was keeping up as well as I could.
Rihanna, really now you mention the discussions are on the League website.
Sorry for your name being wrong – it was google trying to read my mind. But I don’t think about Rihanna so it’s reading it correctly.
Marti – How minutes are written up is not a Charter Commission decision. This is how we, and other city groups, are instructed to write up minutes. In fact, if you look at the minutes for many city boards and commissions, you’ll note that they’re often posted long after the meeting has taken place and don’t include details of the discussion. This practice dates back a number of years. One might argue that’s not a bad thing because written minutes by their nature are subjective and reflect the writer’s perceptions of what is said, while the audio is te real deal.
Anyone who has been following the work of the Charter Commission has, no doubt, visted the Charter Commission webpage on the City of Newton website (http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/chartercommission/default.asp). In case you haven’t visited the webpage, in the top left hand corner is a green box that includes a link to the documentation for each Article review (Documents) and another titled “Agendas and Meetings”. The audios of each meeting is included in this section. See the above instruction for downloading the audio so you can use it at your convenience.
As one who has written the minutes for about four or five meetings, I can attest to the quality of the tapes, except for the few times that the meetings have been held in the Council Chambers. I used these audios to write the minutes and had no difficulty hearing the discussion.
As for the comment about members talking over one another, I’d have to disagree with you, and disagree quite strenuously. Commission Chair Josh Krintzman runs an organized, respectful meeting in which all members are provided an opportunity to speak and no one speaks until s/he is called on by the Chair. People do not speak over one another.
Please note that a Tab reporter attended our first meeting but has not attended any others. I was contacted by the Tab last week to ask if we were going to take straw votes on Article 9: Area Councils at the Oct. 19th meeting. I responded that we would be taking votes. I didn’t see a Tab reporter at the meeting, but he may very well have been there. My point is that the Tab is probably not the best source of information on an ongoing basis. Also, we can share opinions on a blog, banter back and forth about various issues, but I assume no one is depending on Village 14 to provide a journalistic level of reporting of the work of the Charter Commission.
Finally, I’m surprised to hear the level of your anger as I reached out to you specifically, asking to meet so we could discuss the work of the Commission. I’ve reached out to a number of people who have expressed an interest in our work, especially those who’ve had reservations and have met with many of these people and have had productive conversations. As I’ve said many times, I’m happy to meet with any resident about any issue relating to the work of the Charter Commission.
@Marti: I have to agree with Jane regarding posting of the minutes. The Charter Commission has been very diligent in terms of getting all of the research they have conducted as well as posting agendas and minutes in a much more timely fashion than many other city boards and commission – excluding, of course, the City Council – who has excellent staff under the leadership of our City Clerk David Olson, who makes sure that our documentation is posted in a timely fashion. While I do not necessarily agree with some of the straw votes taken by the Charter Commission – including the elimination of Ward representation (I’ll try to do a proper write-up once my life settles down), the Charter Commission has been sincere in its effort to be as transparent as possible.
Amy, I too believe the charter commission has been sincere in its effort to be transparent and diligent in its postings. I am not finding fault with their transparency, only in not mentioning that the minutes did not include discussions – they were only on the audio. I became frustrated that my effort to closely follow the charter commissions process was lacking in that I did not know the discussions among charter commissioners were only on audio.
Jane, there is no need to explain once again that which was pointed out just above. At times this repetition and use of words such as “anyone who has been following …” and “in case you haven’t visited …” comes across as condescending and arrogant or at least authoritative, as has been pointed out by other V14 commenters. You are confusing anger with frustration – although unfortunately I do realize my comments could be construed that way. I have not met with you because you have defended your position repeatedly – see above. I have spoken with other members of the commission with more of an exchange of ideas.. I did not imply that meetings were not run in an organized and respectful manner. Discussions are generally not each member expressing opinions individually as in a debate format; discussions that have the most value include a back and forth dialog with questions and clarifications of specific reasons members think one way or another. Generally when dealing with controversial, highly important, binding subjects these discussions include differing ideas and opinions and at times members do talk over each other. Members do not speak their name each time they speak. Your comments about the Tab are not relevant.
I was clear that I understood the commission was advised that audio could take the place of written minutes, that I have been following the work of the commission, that I have visited the webpage, clicked on the links, read the documentation, read the current charter and the minutes from each meeting.
The city council and its committees publish detailed minutes of pertinent discussions, including who was speaking. The charter commission publishes detailed minutes of invited speakers in panels and rountable discussions. I don’t find these minutes to be subjective, although your mention of listening to the audio to write the minutes doesn’t remove perception. Nothing does.
Listening to audio on an iPad does not require the twice mentioned instructions. Now that I have done so, my thoughts are the same. I heard no actual discussion of the different variables as they would apply to Newton specifically. No pros and cons; no possible consequences of each scenario. Wanting accountability is not a discusion of how best to have accountability in Newton. Mentioning problems that have happened a few times is not discussing various ways those problems could be solved – counselors deferring to other counselors’ understanding of issues is not quid pro quo, it is a realization that counselors are involved in different areas. In the case of Cabot School, the issue had become so involved and confusing, there was no choice but to depend on your fellow counselors’ judgement, after having the position explained.
Counselors saying all counselors’ jobs should not look any different than the others is not a discussion of the reality of that theory in Newton – or perhaps anywhere else. In practice each councilor’s job is vastly different. Even though they vote as one body, they bring different understandings of issues to the table similar to the manner in which one or two charter commissioners study different charter articles on their own and presenttheir study to the commission as a whole.
Ward counselors are in the best position to be involved in issues and listen to the voices in their wards and to bring that understanding to the city council. Different governmental offices have to be combined to understand each ones value to areas of the city. Areas covered by elected area councils have an additional layer of access to the city – removing ward counselors leaves those areas with that additional official access but leaves the other areas with no one to represent their interests in the city.
@Jane and @Rihanna – thank you for links and instructions
@ Marti, I don’t want to belabor this point, but as the author of the commission’s hearing/panel minutes, I am disappointed to hear they do not seem objective. Every effort was made to accurately capture the conversation(s). Also, please realize that there has been a learning curve over this past year with regard to what is expected/appreciated beyond what might be required. Hopefully you’d recognize a higher level of detail in the most recent sets of minutes if you are able to look through them. I’d love to discuss more, so please don’t hesitate to get in touch. Thank you!
Hi Karen,
I am sorry if I gave that impression. It was not my intention. I appreciate all you are doing. I applaud your contributions.
I said “The charter commission publishes detailed minutes of invited speakers in panels and rountable discussions. I don’t find these minutes to be subjective”
My frustration was centered on my not knowing , until it was posted in this thread, that the audio contains discussions between commission members that are not in the minutes. Thinking that the minutes included everything from the meeting, I did not listen to the audio so my conclusions lacked pertinent information.
Now that I have listened to the meeting audio before the city counsel composition straw vote, I think the minutes did include all that was necessary. The opinions of the commissioners were there. I was hoping to find a discussion between commissioners concerning the pros and cons of applying the 5 theories from the model charter to real situations in Newton, including other ways to solve apparent problems without eliminating ward counselors.
.At one point I did reply to Jane’s saying (something like) any minutes taken during any group’s meetings were subjective because they are written from the perspective of the minute taker. She went on to say that her minutes were objective because she wrote them afterward while listening to the audio. I replied that nothing gets rid of the writer’s perspective. It is always there.
Again I regret giving you the impression that your minutes were not objective.
Marti – I said that I did not have difficulty hearing the discussion when listening to the audio, not that my minutes were objective (“I used these audios to write the minutes and had no difficulty hearing the discussion.”.)
This was my comment about written minutes: “…written minutes by their nature are subjective and reflect the writer’s perceptions of what is said, while the audio is the real deal.” That being said, Karen does an excellent job of including the discussion in her minutes.
At a first meeting of any group that’s a public entity, the Law Department outlines the manner in which public records are kept for meetings and I assume the instructions are the same for everyone.
Marti,
OK~ I understand, and thank you so much for taking the time to walk through your points. I saw you sent an email with your thoughts and will follow up with you shortly. It means a lot that you and others are providing detailed feedback, and we all appreciate it.