Last night the Newton Charter Commission reaffirmed by a 7-2 vote its earlier straw vote to reduce the City Council from the present 24 to eight at-large ward seats (one per ward) and a pool of at-large seats (not tied to residency)—but four, instead of the previously proposed five.
The audio from the meeting is here and the Newton League of Women Voters provides a comprehensive play by play here notes here.
I have to say, they make my little once-a-week gig easier to write as they keep shoveling more logs onto an inferno.
Indeed
Just a quick reminder that anyone who wants to share their opinion about this with the Commission, please email us at [email protected].
Looking forward to lots of interesting conversations over the next few months.
Was that the final vote?
@Marti: 7-2 but as I understand it the two opposed — Rhianna Kidwell and Chris Steele — both also favor the smaller council with no ward councilors, they just disagreed over aspects of the the city wide seats. I will leave it to them to explain if they desire.
Thought it was so important to them to have an odd number. Guess it’s more important to make 2/3 easier to reach. Wouldn’t want to hinder all those developer rezoning requests that will be coming down the Pike (literally).
Greg, yes I saw that the vote was 7-2. I wanted to know if that was the final vote that will be taken for the composition of the council. I didn’t make myself clear enough.
I’m assuming that this decision is the fnal one and will go in the charter recommendation.
Makes it even easier to vote “NO Charter Change ” in 2017.
I voted against the 12-member council because I would prefer an at-large pool of 5 rather than 4. I think the at-large pool has such great benefits that I prefer the bigger number. I also prefer an odd number of councilors.
Regarding the idea that it will be easier to get to 2/3…8 of 12 is .67 and 9 of 13 is .69. I don’t really consider that “easier”. It’s one less vote out of a pool that is smaller by one. I think the vote in favor of the 4-person at-large pool reflected people’s thoughts about the balance of power between the truly at-large reps and the reps who have a residency requirement.
Marti, anything can be revisited up until our final report is completed in February, but realistically, I don’t see us discussing this one again. This was the third time we’ve discussed it and the opinions appear to be pretty firm. At this meeting, we considered 3 scenarios, including one very similar to what you have advocated for…one ward rep from each ward and an at-large pool that is greater by one.
The discussion document for this topic recaps the process we have undergone on this topic and shows the final 3 scenarios that were considered:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/79058
Charlie, just as the League’s power play tactics will lead to a defeat next fall, the council then can move to a KISS scenario of home rule petition for downsizing. As so often happens in Newtopolitico, the obvious easy way of accomplishing a goal becomes muddled in the ego-centric PCtricity groupthinking machine. One would think that they would be licking their wounds sufficiently to recognize that perhaps their view of the world beyond Newton is changing, the political polar magnetism is in flux, and that perhaps progressivism as they saw it was behind rather than in front. The mayor sees it.
Does anyone know the official position on this issue of Newton’s current Mayoral candidates? Given the predictable outcomes that follow consolidating power in a small political/power elite, in my opinion, Newton voters deserve to know unambiguously where all candidates stand.
Tom, for the 20 largest cities in Massachusetts, the average city council size is 10. (Population-wise, Newton is at the mid-point of this group.) City councils in the rest of the country tend to be smaller than they are in New England. The Model City Charter recommends a city council of 5 to 9 members. A 12-member city council for Newton is only “small” when compared to our current 24-member council. By any other measure 12 is above average.
None of our research has indicated that cities with average-sized city councils suffer from concentration of power “in a small political/power elite”.
@Rhanna: Let me ask you this since you’re so strongly relying on your research: what is a small power/political elite? I’m looking forward to learning more about the perspective with which you approach this.
I also hope that I’m not the only one here who believes that Newton voters deserve to unambiguously understand where all Mayoral candidates stand on this issue.
Tom, that was your term. From your post, I infer that you think a council of 12 is a “small political/power elite”.
@Rhanna: It’s not my term, it’s an actual thing that’s deeply ingrained in sociological/political science theory and literature. Has your research not happened upon this? Have none of your colleagues discussed it?
Rihanna, first thank you for your reply. I thought this would more than likely be the final discussion.
Secondly, your answer to Tom’s question wasn’t serious I hope. It would be unfortunate if power elite was a term not recognized or discussed among the commissioners.
I know I have mentioned the possibility would exist for a power elite to control Newton if the ward counselor position was eliminated. I may not have called it that but I referenced the same idea. Of those cities you tallied, how many have wards as diverse, particularly economically, spread around their city? Newton has a lot of economic diversity still but it’s not spread evenly throughout the city. I know the commissioners think the residence requirement will take their place but I’m not sure that’s probable when elected city wide. As housing prices are going up, Newton’s economy is becoming even more skewed.
The term ‘power elite’ was first used in the 1950’s by sociologist C. Wright Mills to describe relatively small group of people who tend to dominate American policy-making. More recently the power elite have been referred to as holding “top positions” encompassing the posts with the authority to run programs and activities of major political, economic, legal, educational, cultural, scientific, and civic institutions.
In political science and sociology, elite theory posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite and policy-planning networks, holds the most power. The power elite theory claims that a single elite group, not a multiplicity of competing groups, decides the life issues for a nation, or a city, as a whole, leaving relatively minor matters for the middle level and almost nothing for the common person. Basically it identifies a control of the highest positions in the political and business hierarchy who have shared values and beliefs.
My last paragraph should have been in quotes.
Marti – The cities we used as points of comparison were much more diverse than Newton.
The issue of the power elite in reference to the City Council is interesting. In almost all of my conversations with Councilors, I come away with the impression that they don’t feel they have enough power to actually effect change.
@Jane: Precisely – there isn’t currently a power elite in Newton because of our unique governmental structure, which has allowed Newton to evolve into one of the best municipalities in the United States of America. That’s in part why the conversations you refer to flow as they do.
For a variety of reasons, what the Charter Commission proposes would in all likelihood create a small power/political elite, which has predictable outcomes. As I asked Rihanna, who is still yet to answer, how extensively have you and your colleagues both researched and discussed this?
Thanks, Marti, I am definitely familiar with the concepts of the power elite.
Tom, we have one of the largest city councils in the country by a multiple of 2.5. While corruption occurs in any government entity from time to time, I found no research to support that average-sized city councils in the country suffer from chronic corruption that we have been immune to.
I wasn’t referring to individual councilors. What I heard expressed was that the Councilors thought the City Council as a body was not able to effect change.
If members of the city council feel that the current system doesn’t allow them to promote change, maybe they should step down and allow someone else to take the seat who feels that they can create change.
People aren’t going to get everything they want, it’s that simple. The same will happen if the council is cut down to 12. It won’t give them any more power only make it easier to get things done…in my opinion.
Also, the voters aren’t going to get everything they want as well. Lets remember that 67% of the voters voted for a smaller council, not once, but twice. The council has done it’s research and came up with this system. There is no system that is perfect for all people. It’s not plausible. Lets be reasonable. The people have elected this commission to do a job and they have done their research and compared us to many other communities, this is what they have come up with as the best scenario for us. I personally don’t agree with getting rid of the ward councilors as well, but I’m not going to let that get in the way of my support for a smaller council.
We have one of the best cities in the country according a diverse set of observers. We also have one of the biggest city councils in the country. Are the two facts connected? The only way to find out is by changing the council and see if it adversely affects the quality of life.
My perpetual and unanswered question to the Charter Commission remainsL”if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” By what standard is the form of government in Newton broken? With all due respect, why is the Model City Charter given such deference?
The comment concerning the ability of the Council to generate change assumes that change is inherently positive. Change can also be negative , The observations of past Aldermen and Councilors is probably a reaction to the facts of the Charter and the State Laws. This is a Strong Mayor city and has been one from the beginning. Most state laws limit the abilities of cities and towns to control our own destinies. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s observation in “Julius Caesar”, the fault lies in our status. Under the Charter and state law, “we are underlings.” To generate positive change, we need to recognize that fact and work around it to use all the powers available to us in creative ways. I have seen nothing in this debate to lead me to believe that the Model City Charter is a helpful model for us to follow.
City Councilor Brian Yates
@Councilor Yates: It’s true! Diverse observes agree! Newton is one of the nation’s “best cities.” We have wonderful, generous, wicked-smart citizens. Quaint villages with unique shops and restaurants. Grand, historic homes and gardens. World class higher ed institutions. An excellent hospital and medical care. Crystal Lake. Echo Gorge. The Charles River and other natural resources and parks. The Boston Marathon. Unique cultural institutions and non-profits. And we’re next door one of the world’s great cities.
Would any of the things I listed above be less true if we had 16 fewer city councilors? I doubt it.
Now, don’t get me wrong, having a well-managed city really matters. You and your hard-working, dedicated colleagues play an important role in our system of checks and balances.
But with all due respect councilor, don’t you think you may be over-inflating how much the size of our city council has to do with what really makes Newton one the “best cities in the country”?
That’s funny, I was sure everyone thought it was the best city because of it’s world class community blog.
I’m glad people are putting some discussion into this, and I particularly appreciate the points made by @Tom Sheff. From my perspective, I came to feel that based on the 2 previous votes and the discussions I had during the charter commission race, we were given an opportunity to create a system we thought would be workable with significantly fewer councilors. We have done that to the best of our ability.
Now it falls on the city to determine if they agree that the proposed system would be preferable to the current system or not. Either way, I did my best to ensure that diverse perspectives were considered and am proud that the voters will finally have a chance to vote on a binding question for a smaller council.
For the record, the final proposal won’t be my perfect charter either. There are aspects of it which I fought for and lost, such as stricter rules around public comment periods and the inclusion of a recall provision. That is the essence of Democracy. I still feel we will have a very strong proposal when we finish our work.
PS. I’m pretty sure we’re really the best city because of all the cool things @Jerry Reilly has gotten his hands into.
When people voted that they wanted a smaller council, that doesn’t mean they wanted one without ward councilors. That question wasn’t asked on the ballot. I doubt it occurred to most people that anyone would decide that the way to shrink the CC would be to do away with the ward representatives – at least, it certainly didn’t occur to me. I haven’t seen any sign that most people in Newton harbor a burning desire to make that change. Just because the model Charter doesn’t include them doesn’t mean that they don’t work well for our city.
First, to Bryan: Does this mean you and your colleagues came in with a pre-conceived bias towards reducing the size of the Council?
Second, to Rhanna (and Greg): How many of the 20 largest cities referenced by Rhanna are in the top 50 Best Cities to live in and how many of the cities that have adopted the “Model City Charter” are in the top 50 Best Cities to live in? The robust City Council has a great deal of input into the kind of community we are – especially when you consider our commitment to education and programmatic and quality of life issue that make Newton a desirable community.
@Harry: I vehemently disagree with their vote to eliminate Ward Councilors elected by their wards. There is so much value to having representatives who are elected solely by their Wards so we know as a Council how that particular area of the City is impacted by the policies and decisions we make. As Marti said, “Newton’s economic diversity is not spread evenly throughout the City” and as she so accurately recognizes,”as our housing prices increase,” the divide becomes even greater.
I think the Charter Commissioners will see much of their other good work go down the tubes if they continue to endorse the elimination of Ward Councilors elected by only the Ward.
And don’t get me started about the powerful political elite that already exists in Newton….
@Councilor Sangiolo: Try Googling “Best Cities to live” and you’ll discover more lists than Newton has City Councilors. All of them use different criteria, but more often than not its income, real estate values, high paying jobs, access to colleges/universities, healthcare, recreation, near professional sports teams, museums, theater, parks, nightlife, etc. Some even consider divorce rates and/or the singles scene. I’ve never seen one based on the number of Ward Councilors.
@Amy: I can only speak for myself, and I came in with an open mind. But through the research we conducted and all of the conversations I had, I came to believe that it was both the right recommendation and something that a majority of the city could support.
Now that the leaf blower ban decision has been pushed ahead once again, we see the obstructionism within the city council. I don’t know if it has anything to do with the size of the council, whose numbers I’m fine with cutting down, or ward councelors per se but before the next election, I would like to know why the council keeps postponing decisions.
To people opposed to getting rid of ward councilors- The commission has taken the school committee model. Most people feel this works well. The council will have 8 reps come from the ward that they represent, but are voted in at large. Most of you claim that your ward wouldn’t be represented in this format. Most of you have/had kids in the schools, do you feel you were underrepresented by your school committee rep? If you feel this way, I would guess you would want the sc to have their candidates elected by ward as opposed to at large. That would mean if you were from ward 7, a sc member from ward 2 would get to vote for your child’s future without you getting to vote for/against that candidate. Is that what you want? It works both ways.
To be more clear, and speaking in possibilities because that’s all we have now, Newton is economically diverse mainly because many residents have lived here for years, if not generations, so they purchased their homes before the price surge started and many citizens are renters and have been for years.
As those residents sell their homes and renters are priced out, they are being replaced with more and more wealthy residents. The city tries to combat this in a small way with adding affordable housing, but will those who win the lottery have anyone to speak for them?
A wealthy populous, in general, has different economic priorities than their lower income neighbors. As the electorate becomes more wealthy, particularly in a few wards, the possibility of electing councilors, including those with residency requirements, who share the same ideas about life in Newton grows.
This scenario portends an end to lower income residents having a voice on the city council. If enough residents’ ideal life in Newton becomes interacting with only with those with like-minded economic views in a wealthy enclave, the city might as well build a bubble like the one SNL put over Brooklyn.
Just my 2 cents.
Being able to push things through faster in no way relates to an improvement.
Newton’s current structure is arguably one of the most progressive, inclusive, and representative in the Commonwealth. The idea that we should be “more like those other towns” is about as backwards as possible.
The consolidation of power and an agenda of urbanization is a dangerous foundation upon which to build trust in government. It’s regressive and just plain wrong.
Vote NO on Charter Change.
Retain your vote in Newton’s Future.
@Greg: Rhanna was the one who referenced “for the 20 largest cities in Massachusetts, the average city council size is 10” – but so what? Does size (of the city or the council) make a difference as to whether those cities operate and function well and are attractive enough to make the most desirable list? There are plenty of criteria that make a great city but is the size of the council one of them? I think if you want to make the case that we should not only reduce the size of the Council but also eliminate Ward Councilors – provide solid reasons. The fact that 20 of the largest cities in Massachusetts have smaller city councils really doesn’t mean anything.
We could argue organizational theories of sound representation back and forth from now until the cows come home. My take is that we currently have a system that works pretty damned well and the ward city councilors add a lot to this dynamic mix. I’m certain that specific instances of how and why the current system works so well will emerge in abundance over the coming months and trump anything that other municipalities do or do not do.
I’m struggling to understand the argument that less “powerful” areas of the city are worse off when they have a say over who serves in all 12 seats on the city council. To get a councilor who only answers to your ward, you give up any say in who serves in 7 other seats on the council. I think this is a bad trade off ESPECIALLY if you are from a neighborhood that you feel is overlooked or marginalized. Your ward councilor may answer only to your neighborhood. But that person is 1 of 12. As a voter, you have much more power when you can form a coalition with like-minded voters from across the city to support or oppose all candidates who share your views on the issues.
Wouldn’t you rather “Retain Your VoteS in Newton’s Future”?
Protecting the interests and political power of every part of the city has been a concern continuously raised in charter commission deliberations.
Hey all, in case you missed it, Maine voters approved statewide ranked-choice voting. It ensures that the minority is represented while the majority maintains control. There is still time for the Charter Commission to recommend it!
Rihanna, I am troubled that you are struggling to understand something laid out plainly before you basically because it doesn’t fit your slogan.
Ted, I would be supportive of ranked voting.
There are no silver bullets to healing this country’s political discourse, but ranked-choice voting comes closest. It would encourage moderate positions in preliminaries and robust general-election run-offs (as opposed to extremist positions in primaries, with no general-election contest in most districts), and it would discourage ad hominem attacks, since candidates would need to appeal to opponents’ voters.
Elections that are already non-partisan preliminaries with general run-offs, like Newton’s, would gain least from adopting ranked-choice voting, as I’ve discussed with some Charter members, but the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ought to adopt it at both state and federal levels.
Thanks for the opportunity to talk about my favorite policy-nerd subject, @Ted.
I signed a petition for the formation of the charter commission, and was told that one of the stated goals was a smaller council. The removal of local ward councilors is not the way it was presented to me and its appearance in their efforts confirms other forces at work. The elimination of local ward council representation means greater power concentrated in fewer hands, and a greater diffusion of responsibility in order to satisfy the vision and goals of those who would bend and shape the city to their specific, singular vision. If one cannot tell, believe in, or recognize the existence of the power elites within the city, it is because one is a member on the inside with them, looking out upon those who are not.
@Mark: With all due respect I don’t understand how it could not occur to anyone who thought about it for a minute that reducing the size of the council would involve making some hard decisions about how to configure the seats.
Since we only have two ways we’ve been doing it or many others do it — ward or at large — there’s not a lot of permutations.
Now I totally understand how people might disagree with the decision.
But I can’t for the life of me understand why they are shocked, shocked, that this might have been the choice. The truth is there are only so many variations.
@Greg – it truly never occurred to me that the CC would recommend getting rid of ward councilors. You may find that hard to understand, but it’s true.
Part of why I’m so surprised is because one of the arguments for a smaller City Council was that when there are too many seats open at once, it’s hard for voters to educate themselves on a zillion races. If that’s the case, then it makes sense to choose an option that decreases rather than increasing the number of races each voter has to follow.
Maybe it’s because I come from a large city (NYC), where all city council members are elected by their district. I was really surprised when I moved to Newton and learned that the whole city would vote on someone who had to be from my ward; quite honestly, it didn’t make sense to me. All my life, any time I’d voted for someone who had to live in a certain area, the only people who could vote for that position were those in the same district. And when I was married, I lived in a town of about 5000 people, so all elections were town-wide and other decisions were made in town meeting.
At any rate, that is why I was shocked that the Charter Commission got rid of ward councilors.
Marti, it was not my slogan, it was Charlie’s. I was questioning it (retain 1 vote vs. 8 votes).
My point is sincere. Any aspect of city council composition presents a tradeoff. I understand what’s attractive about having someone answer only to my own ward. But it comes at a very high cost…to have a ward-only councilor, I have to give up any say in who serves in a majority of seats on the council. I would prefer that the councilors from all wards have to consider the perspective of my neighborhood.
mgwa, the length of the ballot was another tradeoff. I supported 4-year staggered terms for ward-based councilors because I think the ballot is too long. But others felt there was not enough accountability in 4-year terms…that elected officials should have to answer to the voters more often than that. 2-year terms prevailed.
Speaking of NYC, wasn’t it was because of district only voting that relatively politically unknown, lower income, diverse people won a city council seat and spoke out for their communities? Even their mayor?
I know the comparison is not valid but in a much smaller scale, Newton has wards that need diverse economic representation. I know that not everyone will be happy with the outcome, but I would rather err on the side of every voice gets a seat at the table rather than the possibility of the wealthy electing 12 councilors whose economic viewpoints are the same. My recommendation of 4 district representatives, with wards being combined into 4 districts, and 5 or more at-large councilors achieves that.
Two examples being discussed by the Council now: the leaf blower ban and winter parking ban. One big example: affordable housing. Which demographic primarily supports a leaf blower ban, is primarily against a winter parking ban and doesn’t want affordable housing in their area? I’m not saying it’s that cut and dried, just pointing out different viewpoints. In fact, I support a leaf blower ban even though my yard is small, support eliminating the winter parking ban even though I have plenty of space for our cars and am all in for affordable housing.
To be clear, I’m not calling out the Charter Commission other than attempting to open their eyes to a possibility they apparently haven’t discussed. Different viewpoints generally make better policy decisions.
As someone who sees the value of Ward councillors and does not want to see them abolished, it saddens me that an all up/all down vote on charter changes (that’s how it will work, correct?) means I would have to ignore any changes I might be in favor of. It’s a deal breaker, and I sense I am not alone.
There are 2 issues that are red herrings to me:
1. There will be a “consolidation of power”. Please tell me how there will be a consolidation of power. Tell me how the Councilors will have, as a collective group, more power than they do right now?? As a group some feel they can’t create change, what changes that?? An argument can be made that if the CC looks at giving special permits to a committee with real estate experience, as a group, will have LESS power than they do right now.
2. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. So, if something works for most people, don’t try to improve upon it?? Never try to get better?? This doesn’t work for me, either.
The CC looked at every option for the city and came up with this one.
Think about this: If we go to 12 councilors and 8 of them are ward councilors, there will be 7 out of the 12 councilors that you and I won’t have a say on. We will not get a chance to vote for or against the majority of the councilors. That’s scary to me. There are plenty of ward councilors I’d like to vote for or against based upon my history with them (mostly with), but can’t. I hope this helps.
As comptroller David C. Wilkinson has said so many times ‘elected officials have a moral obligation to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest’.
So here we have elected CC members feathering their own nest in an apparent attempt to create a new order for legislative municipal power.
Of course they would not admit to it, or pledge not to seek that very office for which they have created.
go figure…
That’s an outrageous claim. Disagree with the decision all you want but there is no evidence that any of the commissioners have any conflicts of interest or even any probable conflicts in this matter.
@Jane: Who specifically complains that they can’t effectuate needed change? I’m sure we can quickly point out substantive reasons as to why that have nothing to do with our current charter. Please don’t conflate an individuals inability to lead with an incapable community charter.
@Rhanna: Based on your responses, I’d respectfully suggest that you don’t understand what a ‘power/political elite’ is nor how creating one would interact with our policy making process to the detriment of Newton’s minority and disadvantaged residents. What does corruption have to do with anything? That’s an entirely different issue, so please do explain how you connect the two.
@Marti: Thank you for understanding my point…
@Marti – exactly. Ward councilors give an opportunity for new people to get into city government. It is possible to go knock on all the doors in your ward (as Jake Auchincloss so ably showed), but much harder to get city-wide name recognition. The ward councilor seat provide a stepping stone.
@Tom – it’s not necessary to keep the same number of ward councilors. For example, one could combine wards so they each represent 2 wards. That would preserve having some councilors representing smaller constituencies and making it easier to get fresh blood, without unbalancing the City Council composition.
MGWA,
I wouldn’t be opposed to that, either.
What problem are we trying to solve?
If we want to make sure that there is local representation on local issues, then residency is not enough. Candidate A for ward councilor may share the city majority position on an issue (Mega Mall in Ward 9) that is different than the local majority position. She has no electoral incentive to represent the ward.
If we want to make sure there is general diversity, then local voting is better in some cases. Socio-economic variety is not spread uniformly across the city. Concentration of some folks in a particular ward or ward makes the locally elected ward councilor a decent proxy on some issues.
On some dimensions, a minority position is spread uniformly across the city, or at least uniformly enough to never make up a majority in any ward. We don’t get many Republicans in office any more, for instance, which is not healthy, even to this die-hard lefty. (Yes, I know that our local politics are non-partisan. And, yes local issues have different political salience than do state and national issues. Still, name a recent or current Republican office-holder. Greer Swiston. Good. Name another. I think I’ve made my point.) Locally elected ward councilors won’t solve that problem. Pace Ted and contra Jake, ranked-choice could.