The Charter Commission is wrapping up its recommendations in advance of a preliminary report which will be put to the public and sent for approval to the Attorney General’s office. A clean draft of our current charter proposal is available here.
There are several upcoming dates of note which I hope members of the public will share widely and consider attending. Some of them are:
- January 25th – The Charter Commission’s next meeting, where it is expected we will take a vote on whether to approve our current charter recommendation as our preliminary draft
- March 3rd – The deadline for submission of the Commission’s preliminary report to the Attorney General
- March 15th – The official public hearing on the Commission’s preliminary report
- May 3rd – The deadline for submission of the Commission’s final report to the public
Please note that while we are planning to take a vote on the current charter proposal as a whole on January 25th, we are able to go in and make changes up until the May 3rd final deadline. If you still have recommendations for us, I suggest you make them ASAP.
I congratulate the Charter Commission on producing a well written and easily readable document.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to vote in favor of the new proposed Charter.
Two primary reasons to reject this proposal:
-It eliminates the ward-elected Councilors thereby gutting the voters’ ability to have direct input on ward issues.
-It concentrates power to a point where only 7 Councilors (a simple majority) can easily band together and exert control with little ability for residents to have meaningful input.
It is a radical departure from the true Ward-based accountable system under which Newton has thrived.
It is it safe to say when (if?) public hearings are held in each Ward, the residents of each ward will be alarmed to find out the proposal means voters will have less of a voice into the future of their part of the city.
In short:
Vote NO on consolidating power into so few hands.
Vote NO on eliminating Ward Councilors.
Vote NO on this misguided proposal.
#WhatCharlieSaid
Charlie – Residents will always have an opportunity to make direct input to the City Council. No part of the proposal eliminates that possibility.
If you look at the current composition of the Council, the following parts of the city don’t have Councilor representation:
Ward 1: South of the Pike and Newton Corner. All the Councilors live in Nonantum.
Ward 2: South of Commonwealth Ave.has no representation. West Newton Hill has no representation and hasn’t in years (not that I’m feeling sorry for them)
Ward 3: Anywhere north of Albamarle Ave./Craft St. has not had Coucilor representation for many years. Please correct me if I’m wrong, The Franklin School area has not had a Councilor represent them in recent years to my knowledge.
Ward 4: all four Councilors live on the south side of the Pike and have for many years. The Burr and Franklin School areas have not had representation on the Council for a number of years.
Ward 5: It may come as a shock, but Waban hasn’t had a representative on the Council in my memory (more about that later).
Ward 6: The best representation throughout the ward.
Ward 7: Two councilors live on the same section/street in Chestnut Hill.
Ward 8: Has there ever been a Councilor from Oak Hill Park?
Ward lines are political constructs that change with the reults of a new census. The ward councilor represents a section of their ward, not necessarily the whole ward. Take Ward 2 for example. The ward councilor (and the area council, for that matter) didn’t represent the residents who had children at Cabot School when the new building project was being debated last spring.
So why do Waban and Newton Centre get so much attention? One simple reason: they VOTE in very high numbers. So if you want your local needs addressed, get out and VOTE at every municipal election. Every. Municipal. Election. Every ward has roughly the same number of registered voters, but in some areas people VOTE in large numbers and in others, they simply don’t. The way to get you views noted is to GOTV in your neighborhood: Get out the VOTE!
Tomorrow I’ll post the election results data on ward counselors. If they are so necessary and popular, why do residents walk into the voting booth with the intent of voting in a municipal election and blank their ward councelors in high numbers?
I wish the rest of our city’s government functioned as well as the Charter Commission has thus far. These folks have done an amazing job, and deserve our gratitude. While I share the concern expressed above by Charlie, I’ll wait to judge the whole package before deciding how to vote. I expect this will be the last opportunity for many years to reduce the size of the City Council. Admittedly, I don’t love the Charter Commission’s version of a smaller Council. But I do think the City would function more efficiently with fewer Council members.
Mike Striar is correct in the the Charter Commission deserves praise for its transparency and commitment to our city.
That’s not the same as saying we all need to share or approve their vision. But their efforts deserve a thoughtful, respectful and robust debate.
Looking ahead to the voters’ up or down, (my opinion being a voter veto) the positive lingering effect will be an awareness of attempted political bullying by the select women of the golden circle.
At that time, we will be back to square one – will 24 councilors still be the rule?
— stay tuned..
Jane, I invite you to join with me in scheduling and promoting 8 different ward based community meetings to help voters be aware of the changes proposed.
I hope we all can agree the more awareness voters have, the better it is for the democratic process.
@Jane-
Not true at all about ward 5 not having a rep on the council in recent memory. There is one on there now – John Rice. I think you may have mentioned at some point during the last couple of years that you moved to Waban from somewhere else in the city. I’ll bring you up to speed. Ward 5 had an alderman or councilor for 14 years – Hammond
Realtor Christine Snow Samuelson, one before that Mark White, (?) and continues to have a councilor from Waban, John Rice, who lives just about across the street from Samuelson behind Cold Springs Park – also in Waban.
In addition, via the Waban area council and the Waban Improvement Society – (a name that reeks of elitism) – you have ward 5 also-ran and Samuelson friend Chris Pitts(WAC president) and economic development rep Chris Steele also looking out for Waban. Isn’t Josh Krintzman also from Waban? (See Waban Improvement society.) Isn’t he on the charter commission? I could keep going…
In fact, i’d have to say that given Waban’s elected and pseudo elected – area councils etc,
Waban is probably the best represented, richest- money-wise, and powerful ward in the city. They have been effective in beating back almost any affordable housing development- even modest ones-, fought against parking meters, have one multi million dollar elementary being built, and another building right now. Their schools, parks and streets have always been at the top of the list. Residents in many other wards would be grateful to have the voice that white wealthy Democrats-only-need- apply Waban has. Waban votes, is organized and disciplined. A segment of its population has the money and TIME to play politics full time – unlike wards north of the city whose working class residents must- god forbid- work. -all advantages in organizing, planning and advocating for its needs.
Efficiency is overrated. I prefer less concentration of power. I’ll be voting no on any charter that gets rid of ward councilors, drastically reduces the total number, or reduces ward representation by eliminating residency requirements.
The power is already concentrated. The horse has left the barn. Wish it wasn’t true. Take a look at the amounts of money being raise for Mayoral candidates…
Other than the playground near us being rebuilt, having Ward specific councilors/alderman
haven’t benefitted our area one bit over many, many years. Our schools are still overcrowded, Needham St is a mess, and the resulting traffic off of Kendrick St is dangerous for pedestrians, runners and bicyclists.. All the whining about bicycles is ironic. It is dangerous to even RUN anywhere near traffic near me. I’ve almost been hit 3 times by cars AND bicyclists. Where are the running lanes? The paving and infrastructure of our streets is deplorable, even with the high tax rate. The sidewalks near the 5 million dollar Angino Farm CPA debacle weren’t paved- forcing runners into the streets- but the driveway and entrance to it were. Visitors to the JCC park on the sidewalks on Winchester St, as do visitors to Angino Farm. It doesn’t feel like our representatives are paying attention to much except the results of the presidential election, or working on issues of no consequence to most people- historic districts and sanctuary cities. Time for change. We will all live… The time to do the right thing and get involved was years ago when it wasn’t sexy or hip to do so. Now Newton is a lot like Harvard – “each tub(or Ward) on its own bottom”. Maybe it should be that way after all.
The Charter Commission has been great at transparency and communication. I agree.
While I too have misgivings about the consolidation of power, I think many ward at-large councilors represent their ward well – sometimes better than the ward councilors do.
I completely disagree with Jane’s comment concerning certain parts of wards not being represented in the current system. If that were true, we would need a Councilor for every neighborhood. The part about the lack of representation for Waban is ridiculous.
I do think efficiency isn’t always the best way of getting things done. So-called efficiency experts have theories that seldom work well in practice. They are usually a means to cut costs. Deliberations over Austin Street brought about more affordable units but didn’t stop frivolous lawsuits dragging out the time frame. Deliberations have brought Washington place to a better project for Newton – particularly if they follow through on having affordable units available to a lower percentage of AMI. Hopefully a smaller council will continue to represent different visions for Newton.
What Mike wrote.
I second what Jane said about Ward councilors. Certainly Cabot parents (and I’ve spoken to many about this) felt that our interests weren’t being taken into consideration with the rehabilitation of Cabot Elementary School. None of these issues are easy, and I respect that there are two sides, but I’ve found that ward councilors in most wards vote more according to their own beliefs regarding government, the environment, affordable housing, development then they do with their particular ward. And I’ve found that many at-large councilors are just as, if not more so, attuned to my input and discussion that ward councilors.
Look, I would have preferred the same ratio as previous in a smaller city counsel. I would have preferred no term limits either. But I find that thus far I like what the charter commission has done. I look forward to studying it in detail.
And for the love of logic, pay them more. The job shouldn’t just be for the wealthy to take. We should pay for the time we require of our public servants.
@Jane. I won’t comment on the other wards, but the three representatives from Ward 5 includes three representatives who live in the three villages that comprise that ward. Brian Yates is from Upper Falls; Deb Crossly hails from Newton Highlands and John Rice has his home in Waban, albeit from a part of that village that Waban heisted from the Highlands more than a half century ago.
Thank you to all the members of the Charter Commission for their hard work.
I will be voting no, as I think this is a large step backwards for Newton.
– concentrated power in the hands of few is rarely a good idea. If this goes into affect, you have the potential for 5 of 12 members to be from the same ward- something that should never be allowed to happen.
-elimination of ward councilors
-Term limits on the mayor at 4 terms, but the Councilors at 9!
– no provision for the removal of an elected official( at least I couldn’t find it)- unconscionable, in a democracy.
-Section 10.5- 20% of eligible voters must participate for an initiative to take effect. Bad policy, people are free to participate or not, those that do should not be wasting their time.
-11.3 So, do any recommended changes go before the voters, automatically?
@Neal: All recommendations go before the voters automatically. The entire charter recommendation gets an up or down vote by the city at large.
Note that the mayoral and council term limits are different, but not as different as you suggest Neal. The Mayor has 3 4 year terms (total: 12 years) whereas the council has 8 2 year terms (total: 16 years).
My personal preference was to have a 12 year term limit across the board, but my fellow councilors went a different way and after all, politics is the art of compromise.
Efficiency isn’t one of the objectives of the charter commission and never has been. I’ll post the three objectives when I get home.
I always think of John Rice as living in Newton Highlands. If his address is Waban, then it’s the Highlands that hasn’t had a local representative. My point is that Newton residents should expect that the City Council will be attentive to all areas of the city. The best Councilors do that right now, and that includes most at-large Councilors.
@Jane. If local is synonymous with village then, Newton Highlands did have a ward representative in the person of Bill Brandel from 2009 to 2011. And Deb is indeed a resident of Newton Highlands because she lives on Circuit Avenue which has a Highlands zip code and is in the Newton Highlands Highland Area Council’s “Service Area.” Of course, there’s a claque of rowdies and dissidents in the Falls that have long had their eye on this border territory of the Highlands known locally on both sides of the wire as the “Triangle”.
The main thing here is that Councilors Crossly, Yates and Rice may have different agendas and priorities they stress, but they are all deeply committed to the City and its villages. All are accessible and fully engaged in what they do.
@Jane-
Now you are singing my song, but you need to look at what i wrote. Yes, the best city councilors
should be advocating for all parts of the city but they have historically not done that, certainly not in this area.
I can write a book about this stuff, but with all due respect, as an educator you should really do your home work and dig into the details as i have over many years, as i know you have to some degree also. I know that Greg(R) would prefer that we not relitigate events of the last decade
but you need to take a look at what has happened in the past to see how we got here and where we are going. I’m not convinced you are looking beyond where you need to look to see evidence of facts beyond those that you believe to be true. As i have said before and i’ll say it again,
the Newton Highlands whether they have an elected councilor/alderman or mascot is being very well taken care of. The union of the Waban Area Council & the NHNAC sees to that. However, the Highlands extend to the south side of route 9. You, as well as others that would like to, are welcome to venture onto the streets and neighborhoods on the south side of route 9, and take a peek at what i have been talking about.
I’m not sure if it is denial or willful ignorance, but people really need to get outside of their own little enclaves and see the rest of the city.
These are the stated objectives that the Charter Commission developed at the outset of the review process:
• The establishment of a more effective and responsive government
• Greater public participation in government in Newton as evidenced by voter turnout, number of contested elections
• Increased level of civic understanding by the citizens of Newton as evidenced by citizens knowing about our government structure, roles, responsibilities.
Marti – I’ve had numerous residents speak to me about the lack of representation in their area of the city, especially in those sections where a major highway divides the ward. So I do know that it’s a concern. Over time, the school committee has functioned well as a body that holds a citywide view and all are elected at-large.
Trust me, I’m not feeling sorry for Waban – at all. I do question the village assignments that Bob assigned to Ward 5 Councilors. I’d say two live in Upper Falls and one lives in the Highlands, but that it totally beside the point and subjective. More importantly, the people in Ward 5, especially those in the Waban section, consistently VOTE in very high numbers. A high VOTING history in an area is the game changer.
Did I mention it’s important to VOTE and to get as many people in your area to VOTE as well?
Paul – I don’t want to tell you about how much homework and digging deep I’ve done in the last year, and well before that. I also read your many posts on the issue of great concern to you.
I’ve also listened carefully to the concerns of residents throughout the city and tried to address them as a member of the charter Commission. As an example, I probably spent about 75 hours on the area council article alone.
I suspect we see just things through a different lens. It appears that you think that Waban and the Highlands are “taken care of” by the area councils. I think the voting record in ward 5 and 6 speaks for itself.
For a variety of reasons, I often drive over Rte. 9 onto Eliot St. and into Upper Falls. As an aside, I’ve lived in Newtonville, Auburndale and the eastern part of Waban. I taught at Burr, Williams, Franklin, Countryside and currently teach at NNHS. I’ve spent significant and substantive time in many parts of the city.
Hi Bryan:
Just to clarify; I am speaking of the new proposed provision, the charter review section 11.3.
If they recommend a change, does that automatically go to the voters?
Its all good Jane. Its obvious I’m just spinning my wheels here. My last child will be done with the NPS this May/June and i suspect my priorities and interest in all of this will change.
Its incumbent upon every other citizen to get involved and do their own homework. I’m done! Thanks for your hard work and service. Good luck.
Thanks, Paul. I’ve always enjoy sparring with you, Congratulations on the graduation of your youngest!
As Jane and Bryan are kind enough to be commenting on here, I am wondering if each could give me their perspective ( and the deliberation) on the issue of a recall of a public official. Was there ever a straw vote question regarding it, and if so, what was the outcome. I find it hard to believe people are opposed to having the opportunity to get rid of an elected official they think needs to go immediately. ( as unlikely as that may be).
I know John Stewart asked about it, in the first public hearing, and I know others have asked as well. What happened during that discussion.
Thanks
@Neal: There was a straw vote on the question of recall. Several of them. I fought hard for recall and believe that it should be included. I think it is outrageous that we could have a Mayor or other elected official who has done something offensive to the city that wasn’t illegal and yet have no way to remove that person. There have been several recent examples I could use, including the former Mayor of
Fall River who engaged in allegedly borderline illegal behavior and a town clerk from another state who sent around incredibly offensive memes about our President, where it would not be illegal and yet I would be leading the charge for a recall campaign.
That being said, I lost on that, the majority of the commission didn’t agree with me. That’s Democracy and I accept it. Even without recall, I think this is a very strong proposal and worthy of your support.
I think the people are going to have a decision to make about whether they want to view this Charter through the lens of “it’s not what I would have done” versus the lens of “this is better than what we have now”. I think if they choose to see it through the latter lens, we stand an excellent chance of passage.
Hi Bryan:
Thanks for getting back to me. I am looking through the lens of if this is better, and I just don’t see it. Losing ward councilors is a net loss, with little advantages at all( where is the problem that we see with current ward representation?), I still don’t understand how you all reached that conclusion. I hear argument of how some areas are underrepresented now, so the solution is to make it even less likely for all areas to be fully represented? Just doesn’t make sense.
Not having a recall provision is irresponsible, I see no other way around it. How do you justify forcing the voters to keep someone for a full term, when a large majority no longer want the person(that is what it would take in a recall vote). It would have to have been an egregious action to cause so many to turn against them. Is it really that difficult to imagine a scenario where that might happen?
To not allow the voters who bother to show up at the polls the majority say, if too small a percent show up?(regarding initiatives) Kind of crazy if you ask me. Why not have the same standard for elected officials? (because many years, no one would be elected) It is the slap in the face to voters to ignore their will.
To me, this is a major step in the wrong direction. I don’t like the present Charter, had high hopes for a new one, but sorry, I will stick to the current one, if this is the choice.
I agree with Neal on the recall provision. I’m very disappointed none will be included. It is a glaring omission from our current Charter, and should have been included in the new proposal.
Most cities and towns include a referendum that requires the petitioners to collect signatures from 20% of the registered voters within a specified period of time (six months is typical). Given that it took 5 years to collect signatures from 15% of the registered voters, it didn’t seem like a realistic standard. However, the 5% standard is achievable if an issue is well publicized and of concern to a substantial segment of the community.
As for referendum as opposed to recall, my preference was to focus in issues rather than personalities. Elections are the appropriate means for removing an individual from office.
I wish they had gone with Bryan on the removal provision. It empowers voters and helps keep people honest.
Having a removal provision becomes even more of a public necessity when consolidating power…unless you’re the one in power.
.
The Charter draft as it is written now should be opposed not only for the elimination of the Ward Counselor but also for the restrictions and limitations being placed on the Area Councils. Compare the wording in their draft section 9 to the current Charter and the current system is much more supportive of the Area Councils. It gives them more power and freedom than the Commission wording which gives all the control and decision making to the Council , if and when the Council should ever decide to do anything. The changes to the Area Councils are another example and instance in the draft that remove operations and activity from the local neighborhoods to the all powerful central government , which should be resisted.
“As for referendum as opposed to recall, my preference was to focus in issues rather than personalities”
First, it doesn’t have to be an either or situation. Second, incompetence or gross negligence is not a personality.
Had what happened to the water supply in Flint, taken place here, should the people really have to wait for a new election to rid themselves of politicians who endangered the lives of its citizens?
To not provide a provision for removal of elected officials is horrible public policy.
Jane, It was Mike Striar who said “a smaller council would function more efficiently” (although all in all I agree with him) so we were addressing his comment not the charter commissions objectives.
I’m sorry Paul Green says he is done pushing his points, because he has some good ones and I don’t come to V14 looking for a consensus of opinion. Disagreement over issues should make us all contemplate our decisions and he speaks the truth about most things. The WAC and NHAC banding together have made the area they represent more powerful. Recently Waban’s outsized complaints motivated the change on the St Neri site from a mid size development with affordable housing to single family homes and 9-12 units with 2 affordable units.
At this point I’m leaning toward supporting the Charter draft even though I am not in agreement on everything in it. I appreciate the time and work put in by every member of the commission. I especially appreciate Bryan sharing his thoughts. Thanks to all of you.
@Don Ross, the proposed charter does not specify any changes to the election and operation of Neighborhood Area Councils, and it reaffirms their important role in the city. The proposal moves the detailed NAC provisions from the charter to city ordinances. The level of detail on NACs in the current charter is inappropriate–the charter is so difficult to change that those kinds of details should be more flexible.
Like Bryan, I was a strong proponent of a recall provision. A recall is structured so that it is extremely difficult to accomplish and could only be effected under extreme circumstances. It is a great safety valve for extreme malfeasance.
Thanks, Rhanna.
I would have liked to see a recall provision too. It seems to me that Jane has a misunderstanding of what it accomplishes. It’s not a personality concern but an issue of gross malfeasance that would warrant attempting a recall.
I am wondering with changes in the size of the board, was there any talk about downsizing responsibility, ie taking special permits away from the board and giving the responsibility to a group of experienced citizens?
Tom – State law mandates that the City Council has responsibility for establishing the body that will grant special permitting authority. The city charter cannot designate another body to grant special permits.
Marti – I actually was one of the leaders of the recall section, so I’ve studied and read a lot about the issue. I can say with confidence that if it had passed, the provision was well researched and written.
Here are my concerns about recalls: if a recall were to take place when an elected official is alleged to have committed an action of gross malfeasance, then later is found not guilty, the city would be at great risk of having a major lawsuit on its hands. Innocent until proven guilty remains a core value in this country. Unfortunately, given how long it takes to litigate a case, a recall would most likely precede a trial and verdict.
Also, the recall procedure the Commission considered required signatures from 15% of the registered voters within a 28 day period which I thought was the equivalent of saying we’re going to have a recall provision, but it’s one that’s virtually impossible to achieve.
Marti – You raise an interesting point. Not one person in the city will agree with every point in the charter, including the 9 members of the Charter Commission. Very few of our votes have been unanimous and we’ve all been on the losing end of a significant issue. I lost the composition of the Council vote – big time. But I see the total document as a significant step forward for Newton.
On a final note, at one point during the review process, a number of residents thought that efficiency was one of the Commission’s stated objectives, so this thread was merely an opportunity to provide clarification on that point.
Correction: The City Council has the authority, not responsibility, to establish procedures for establishing procedures for granting special permits.
Charlie – I favored a removal clause, but it became clear that an election would precede the completion of the legal action necessary for the removal to take place.
Just wondering what purpose of the Ward Councilors is? It seems that recently instead of our Ward Councilors especially in Ward 1,2 and 3 concerning themselves with issues of their Ward and their constituents they are looking at more global issues. Considering that dont understand what they were elected to DO then I agree with the Report – lets get rid of the Ward Councilors.
I’m with the folks who see the elimination of Ward Councillors as a deal killer in an up-or-down vote. I worry that may kill (and simply cause us to pay less attention to) some better ideas, but that’s the way this is, um, rigged (ok, I need a better word there).
I have no problem with Ward Councillors paying attention to “global” issues. We elect them to represent their interests, and that is not limited to potholes and in-ward zoning. I still prefer to have someone (or two) accountable and available to our local ward voters, especially in a city the size and density of Newton.
Really Doug – THEIR INTERESTS?? Not the Ward Interests? I thought the point of the Ward Alderman is the ward! It just proves the point that the Commission came up with that you can eliminate the ward Alderman and they wont even be missed.
Hi Bryan:
Still looking for some clarification. If the charter revisions are approved and go into effect, Sec11-13 calls for a periodic review of a charter at 10 year intervals. It suggests that the charter commission to review this is established by the Mayor and council. So unlike this time around, a review committee could be chosen instead of elected?
Also, do any recommendations made, automatically go before the voters?
If so, will the vote be subject to the same requirements s a referendum- at least 20% of voters participate?
Thanks
@Neal —
Unfortunately, the periodic review would be a recommendation to the Council and would not go through the voter approval process that we go through. The recommendation could be accepted by the council in which case it would go through the normal home rule petition process for charter revision.
The process we are going through now is something that has to be citizen petition initiated — We can’t mandate a periodic review that uses this process.
@Bryan – is there a reason the review committee couldn’t be elected? I think the part that worries Neal (and me) is that all charter reviewers would be appointed rather than elected.
The process is set out by state law and each step is prescribed in the law, so another full charter review would require collecting signatures from 15% of the registered voters. Nothing in the state law that prevents citizens from going through the another full charter review process. But it’s important to keep in mind that it took 5 years to collect the signatures for this charter review.
That being said, if this charter passes and some aspect of it is particularly unpopular, doesn’t work as expected, if circumstances in the city change, etc,, the periodic review allows for a change to take place without going through the arduous process of collecting signatures of 15% of the registered voters.
Jane and Bryan – is there any reason the periodic review couldn’t involve electing the review committee?
Joanne– “their” meaning “ward constituents,” of course. Had I meant the other, I suppose that would have deserved an all-caps response.
@mgwa, to clarify…a charter commission (like Newton has right now) happens through a process specified under state law. The elected commission gets to put its proposal straight to the voters of the city, without the approval of the city council or the mayor. The only way to have an elected charter commission is to have 15% of registered voters sign a petition (as Jane said).
We could, in our charter proposal, require that the 10-year charter review committee be elected, but that group would still not be able to submit their proposal straight to the voters. That is only allowed with a charter commission. The only thing the charter review group can do is submit their recommendations to the city council. The city council must then vote on whether to use the home rule petition process to adopt the changes (council must approve the changes by 2/3 majority, mayor must sign, and then it’s submitted to state legislature). And I’m not certain that the state legislature would allow that process to be used for major changes such as the size or composition of the city council.
I think it important for people to know that there is nothing that prevents the city council for changing the Charter now, through home rule petition. It does not require a charter review committee to recommend any changes.
@ Jane, I think you misrepresent the process to suggest this new addition is somehow a shortcut to change unpopular laws. The periodic review does not put in motion any change; according to Bryan.
I also think it extremely poor policy to deny voters their right to be heard, if there is an arbitrary number attached to what is sufficient for change ( referendum). In fact, why not apply the same standard to elected officials, requiring 20% participation of ALL registered voters in each race, to be elected. We would have a lot of empty seats. Why is that OK, but when the people take the time to gather signatures required, and only 19% show up, the whole vote doesn’t count?
It is as much a citizen’s right to not vote as it is to vote. Those that take the time to show up at the polls should never be denied. This is voter disenfranchisement.
Neal – Perhaps it’s best said that my comments were not clear. The review isn’t a shortcut by any means. However it would allow for a review of the charter and is a more reliable method for getting the voice of the public heard. As you know, in 2 non-binding referendums elections, voters overwhelming favored downsizing the City Council be downsized, yet the Council never filed a home rule petition for that to happen.
@Jane: charter review is a “more reliable method for getting the voice of the public heard.”
To say it is more reliable, is just 100% conjuncture on your part.
One could easily argue, the review will stifle debate, look at who will choose its members.
It’s fine to take a guess about something; but don’t mistake it or worse represent it as anything other than that.
But why no threshold on the percent of voters for elected office? Shouldn’t the same logic hold for that, as the charter commission suggests for a valid vote for a public initiated petition?
Not even an effort to bring the proposed changes to the people in a discussion forum prior to a vote?
What’s the fear? Ward meetings are easy to arrange. Mayor Warren did an excellent job with those when he was first elected.
Sadly, the answer seems obvious. The less the public learns, the easier it will be to pass it.
Charlie – All the members of the Charter Commission members have attended meetings to explain the charter and spoken to many residents over the course of a year explaining the rationale behind decisions. I’m sorry that you’ve not been able to attend meetings, but they are well advertised and the discussions are completely open and transparent.
The CC is banking that the citizens are so in favor of downsizing that their leveraging of all other terms will win out. As we saw in the nationals, this grouped mindset has blinders compounding a strategy aiming toward overwhelming defeat. The People want change, just not this woman..
stay tuned, there is another innovative way.
@ Charlie, As required by state law, the charter commission will be publishing a copy of our proposed charter in the Newton Tab in March and then holding a public hearing on March 15th.
This will be our 7th public hearing. In addition, we’ve held 28 open meetings, all of which began with time for public comment, and 6 open panel discussions.
After the public hearing, we have a month to consider changes, and then our final proposal will be mailed to every voting household in Newton, as required by state law.
From the beginning, we have embraced public outreach and transparency. We maintain an email list of interested citizens and we have also used social media and Village 14 to inform the public about our work.
@Charlie: Note that this is a preliminary vote. We have attempted to get the word out in local meetings throughout the city as well as through public forums in the city. The sad truth is that even when we publicize on V14 / the TAB / email lists, we haven’t had much turnout.
Anyone who wants to help us get the word out about these final meetings, I would certainly appreciate it. I want as much citizen engagement as possible.
Has the Charter Commission published a document that shows the old version, with aspects crossed out and replaced with new wording and sections? I can’t find that, I would appreciate it if it exists to be pointed in the direction to find it.
It seems to me the clean version gives no indication of what the changes are, and what they used to be, the average person would not be that familiar to be able to recognize what is being changed without spending a lot of time.
For the proposal to gain the support of a majority of Newton voters it MUST retain the current Ward Councilor elected representation. Otherwise, the proposal will not carry. I would strongly urge the Charter Commission Members to re-look and compromise on this.
For the reasons stated by @Charlie in the 1st posting, I could never support the Charter as proposed. @Jane has great ideas and insight but to breakdown the Wards to determine which part of that Ward does not have representation is not relevant. In W3, the three Ward Councilors have been directly involved in 3 of the 4 elementary schools, and as recently as a few years ago, I had our youngest at Franklin Elementary.
Term limits: The term limit number listed by the Charter Commission for Councilors is not really a limit, and if this were to be a factor then it should be more like 10 or 12 years.
The bottom line, as a Veteran I am totally opposed to any one group advocating for “less” representation. This one group is poised to control city politics in short order should the Charter be approved.
You need only look at some of the fund raising going on now for an open Council seat, to follow the dots and realize that a Council Campaign, in 4 years may cost at a minimum, about $30K, as virtually all of the seats will be contested.
@Jim: Just to clarify, are you suggesting that highly contested races is a bad thing? I see the possibility of every race being contested as a huge positive.
Straw Man Alert!!
Come on Bryan, you know darn well, Jim isn’t advocating for less contested races. It seems the members of the commission are more interested in defending what they have, then listening to others at this point. (at least those commenting). I have yet to see an instance of any consideration of alternatives to what they have. It will be interesting to see if they modify at all before the final draft.
Jim Cote:
I certainly respect your service as a Veteran, but I’m not sure how you connect that with less representation in the proposal. As the charter commission will be voted on by the entire city, since the charter commission members were democratically elected, and since the new proposal would still have voting rights by every citizen, I’m not sure how you connect the your veteran status with the matter at hand. It certainly isn’t a constitutional issue. I can definitely understand why you wouldn’t like the proposal from the charter commission (and I’m still thinking about it myself), but I just don’t see the connection. To the contrary, local jurisdictions have the right to determine how best they are governed, and in this case there will be multiple votes by all.
If the charter commission had made it all local wards and no at-large (or reduced the at-large ratio) would you be objecting? If the answer is no, this isn’t a matter of less representation, but a matter of you not liking the reorganization of the city-wide representation. I certainly don’t see the latter as a issue of morality or freedom, in fact I think it is a pretty cool feature that we can have a one in a generation charter commission in such an democratic way.
Just saying.
@Neal: Well, you can’t have it both ways. Either we want seriously contested elections, or we want it to be easy to run and win. It’s great to say we wish every race costed no money and people paid close attention and they were all highly contested, but that’s not reality.
There are tradeoffs here, and personally I believe that highly contested elections that hold elected officials accountable is an important goal of charter reform.
@Bryan – one of the arguments for a smaller City Council was that people find it too hard to keep track of all the candidates for making choices when they vote. If the proposed CC had 8 at-large and 8 ward councilors (for example), each voter would only have to track 9 races – the 8 at-large and their own ward. The current proposal means tracking 16 races (or whatever the final number is). Voters get overwhelmed and giving up on trying to make intelligent choices when there are too many to track.
@bryan: I think you know what I’m talking about. Heavily contested races are great, but cost a lot of money, hence the price of a “seat” in the Chamber will be beyond the ability of many to pursue. Given a 2 year term, the sitting Councilors would be either self funded, or funded by special interests. The 2 year term, which is currently, ineffective, becomes a 1 year term of actual “work” on city business with the remainder of time being devoted to the campaign season. Terms should expand to 3 or 4 years for the city to receive full value from the Councilors.
Additionally, one big failure in our system is compensation, so when you account for a pay level that has been in effect for 23 years, try and find middle income candidates?
@fig: Veterans serve to protect the rights of others, and since 1775 much of that time has been spent ensuring the rights of representation.
I am only offering my opinion, as I am in this for community service.
Jim: I agree with you on the concept but not the application to the matter at hand. Veterans clearly protect our rights. I’m just saying the right of representation is not at risk here. Are you against gerrymandering on the federal level? Wouldn’t that be the equivalent? And while I may not personally like the result or how it is done, it is well established that the state legislatures every 10 years have the right to reasonably set the congressional boundaries. Your argument is that the current approach isn’t reasonable because it lowers the political powers of the local wards. That is debatable as to its effect, but it isn’t a loss of representation. It just is a loss of gerrymandered district that you happen to like. Everyone is still represented, everyone still gets to vote.
But we do agree on one thing, and I’ve been very vocal about this. I think it is horrible that we don’t pay the counsel more. I know of multiple candidates who would run if they could afford to do so. As it is right now, you are 100% correct that it is public service in a pure form, since the compensation is peanuts. We lose good people because of that, and it is better for all of us if more folks run in the long run.
As for the campaign’s costing too much, one way to combat that is to run as a slate. I think you, Emily, etc. would be a powerful slate for instance. We’ll see more of that I think, for better or worse.
Again, no disrespect meant on either argument.
There is a huge difference in taking important questions TO the people (as Mayor Warren did), and just sitting back and being content with letting people come to City Hall. Unless people are truly freaked out, hardly anyone ever shows up at City Hall.
If you’re serious about getting input, you go TO the people. On a Sunday. When they have time.
You engage them. And you bring them pizza as a thank you.
I think it is quite clear that a true outreach was not desired by the Commission. Which, during an attempted power grab, certainly makes sense.
After all, why would you reach out to the very people who might have a problem with you taking their rep away?
@Bryan: it just isn’t a valid argument, Cost and degree of competitiveness are not necessarily tightly related. You can have low cost elections which are hotly contested. I know contests decided by 500 votes city wide in which the candidates spent little money( a few thousand); without joining a slate.
If your comments which are a pure defense of what you (the commission) has recommended, there seems little reason for anyone to bother making suggestions. My observation at this point, Rhanna and Jane seem much more interested in defending than considering.
Charlie – I don’t know how much clearer I can be. I’ve gone TO the people. I ‘ve attended a number of area council meetings, Newton Dems meetings, and reached out early on to the Newton Republicans and was told they didn’t hold regular meetings. I’ve met with the current chair of the Nonantum Village Association at her home and she invited other members to join us. No one came. I’ve had numerous meetings with individuals who oppose portions at a time and place of their choosing. I met with you for 2 and a half hours!
There is no other city or town in Massachusetts, and we didn’t find one in the entire country, with more than one representative per ward. More than one representative per ward immediately builds in reduncancy/duplication. The 16-councilor scenario did not gain traction for that reason. (In addition, the average council size is 10 for the 20 largest cities in Mass, of which Newton is one. 16 is still too big.)
In order for a ward to have exclusive say over who is elected from that ward, the ward voters have to give up any say in who gets elected to 7 other seats. 7 would be a majority of a council of 12. Under the proposed structure, each ward is guaranteed to have a representative, and all representatives are accountable to all voters. This is how our school committee is elected, and 2/3 of our current city council.
@Neal: I’m very interested in having a debate. We have been discussing and debating these issues for over a year now, collecting feedback, and discussing voter concerns. I’m still open to changes and, as I’ve said in the past, the current proposal doesn’t 100% represent what I would have done.
I’m supporting the charter proposal that we have as of now because I believe that the sum of its parts represents a significant improvement over what we have now.
@Jane-
You did meet with me, but I’m already informed and it way back at the beginning of the process. Thank you for your time.
I’m talking about calling a specific neighborhood/ward meeting with the express purpose of discussion the proposed changes.
You have not done that as of yet, and it certainly has not been done recently after major decisions were made.
I am not aware that anyone has. Please do not conflate the two.
@Charlie, I know that the Highlands Area Council is budgeting for a service area wide public meeting for the Charter Commission. If the other three ACs also host meetings that would cover a portion of the city.
Charlie – I’m sorry that you don’t believe that we’ve done a very significant a amount of outreach we’ve done over the last year. There’s really nothing more to add to this conversation.
@Groot – My hat’s off to the Highlands AC. Very proactive of you. Please let me know when/where. If I’m in town, I’d love to attend and hear first hand how people feel about things.
@Jane-
Outreach is subjective.
Could you (or anyone) please provide a list of community or ward meetings called specifically to outline the changes being proposed encouraging a dialogue?
Cue the crickets.
Charlie- I met with you for 2 and a half hours. I assume you realize that you weren’t the only person or group I’ve met and had extensive conversations with. However, you are the only person who has said that members of the commission haven’t been readily available to the community.
@Charlie — We encourage all residents to be active participants. Would be great to have you join us for a meeting or submit feedback to the committee as a whole. I think the extent to which we have engaged in outreach is evident in our public discussions.
@Jane- It’s not about you or me. It’s about the community.
@Bryan-I don’t feel that individual feedback in a vacuum will make one bit of difference. I follow it all very closely.
Use the Setti example: take your concepts and ideas TO the Wards.
I believe Ward meetings will bring out what I feel is a majority of folks who will be unhappy (if not actually angry) that the CC is attempting to strip them of their Ward Councilor. If I’m in town, I would gladly take part in a balanced community presentation of the pros/cons.
Did anyone do any sort of survey asking people who thought reducing the number of Aldermen by gutting the Ward system was an acceptable trade-off ? If so, please share the survey.
I personally witnessed (many times!) what turned out to be bait and switch signature collection: (“hi, if you’d like to reduce the number of aldermen…sign here”).
Summary:
Vote NO on this bad Charter change.
Keep your Ward Councilor.
Keep your full voting power.
Keep your ability to help determine your own neighborhood’s future.
There does not seem to be any takers (Jane, Bryan) in going out to the public to make a case and provide convenient neighborhood input opportunities. This would seem to indicate that none (so far) of the CC feels it’s in their best interest to do so. The hypocrisy is off the charts.
Meanwhile, I’d like to tease out a thought that Rhanna had in her January 25, 2017 at 5:10 pm post regarding the way the SC is elected.
The reason it makes sense for the School Committee to be elected at large from each ward is because delivery of education services in Newton should be universal and equal across all wards and villages, regardless of any social or economic variances.
Whereas the residential/commercial/look/feel/personality/desires and lifestyle construct of Wards varies greatly and must be respected. That’s part of why the BOA/Council was set up the way it was…and that’s why it’s been working so well…for so long.
To gut the Ward councilors disrespects the entire village concept.
Vote NO on this bad charter change.
Keep your ability to help determine your own neighborhood’s future.
Charlie says, “The reason it makes sense for the School Committee to be elected at large from each ward is because delivery of education services in Newton should be universal and equal across all wards and villages, regardless of any social or economic variances.”
I’m leaning toward the fact that it makes equal sense for the city council to be elected at large from each ward because city policy and services should be more universal and equal across all wards than they are now.
I do agree that the charter commission would be able to present their new charter to more of the community if they had meetings in wards.
A reminder that the Charter Commission’s Public Hearing on the draft charter will take place this evening at 7pm at City Hall. I have tried to summarize my feedback here:
http://newtonwatch.org/2017/03/07/charter-proposal-needs-improvement/