After more than a year of research, public comment, debate, straw votes and then more debate, Newton’s Charter Commission unanimously approved a draft of a proposed charter revision. The TAB’s Laura Lovett’s story is here.
Among other things, the draft reduces the size of Newton’s city council from 24 to 12. Eight councilors will have ward residency requirements but be elected at-large, the remaining four will be elected at-large with no residency requirements. It also calls for term limits for councilors (8 terms/16 consecutive years) and mayor (3 terms/12 consecutive years.)
There will be a public hearing at City Hall about the draft on March 15. Voters will asked to ratify (or not) a final version in November.
Good people will disagree on the merits of the proposed changes (my friend Charlie Shapiro, for example, will tell us that this is akin to ending Democracy in Newton) but I believe we all owe the members of the commission our gratitude for 14 months of hard work and for a process that was thoughtfully organized and transparent.
Thanks for sharing Greg and to everyone who offered feedback and advice throughout the process. It has been incredible to work on this with 8 dedicated public servants who put an incredible amount of thought and feedback into this recommendation.
Just wanted to make sure everyone knows that if you can’t make the meeting, feel free to give us feedback via email at [email protected].
Also want to make sure everyone understands that there is still an opportunity to revise the charter for our final recommendation after the March 15th hearing, so your feedback can and will be taken into account before our final vote.
@Bryan- With a unanimous vote by the CC, what would public input could have any impact whatsoever? March 15th is at best a formality.
I give credit to the folks for the time spent, but it’s truly a train wreck. It guts the Ward system upon which Newton was built. It reduces voters’ choices and eliminates a voter’s ability to have meaningful input with an accountable Ward rep.
It’s quite literally a centralized power grab…and just a really, really awful, ill-conceived proposal.
5 out of 12 Councillors could all be from one Ward? There is nothing positive about that.
Voter should enthusiastically vote NO this fall on this badly conceived idea.
@Charlie – We have consistently made revisions based on public feedback. In fact, we made several changes in our final meeting in response to concerns that had been raised in emails that week and in the public comment that weekend.
This is a strong proposal that will increase the influence of the voters, reduce redundancy, increase competition, and improve responsiveness to citizens’ concerns.
Our preliminary report is completed and should be on the Charter Commission website within a day or two. It will also be in an upcoming issue of the TAB.
I’m sorry to see the Charter Commission backed City-wide elections. Research finds these elections narrow the diversity (economic, educational, gender, etc.) of elected representatives and raise the costs of elections. The only positive I could find, is representatives elected citywide come to agreement more quickly on issues, but I’m not even sure that is a positive.
Summary of a 50 study comparing ward versus city-wide elections in Little Rock Arkansas: “the ward system has been shown to promote smaller dollar campaigns and decidedly more competitive contests. In some respects, this simply reiterates
previous research” (Governance in Little Rock, Arkansas; Arkansas Policy Program, 2016)
From the National League of Cities:
“District elections give all legitimate groups, especially those with a geographic base, a better chance of being represented on the city council, especially minority groups. Several court decisions have forced jurisdictions to switch from at-large elections to district elections, and in most cases the reason was to allow more representation by specific ethnic and racial groups (see: Springfield, IL, 1987 and Dallas, TX,1990; see also amendments by the U.S. Congress to the Voting Rights Act, 1982).
District council members are more sensitive to the small but important problems of their consituents, like waste disposal.
District elections may improve citizen participation because councilmen who represent a specific district may be more responsive to their constituency.”
@Bryan- Sorry but the logic you’re using doesn’t hold up.
When you take away the distribution of power and local input, you by definition, dilute a persons vote/input over their Ward. There is simply no possible way you can spin this as a positive with any credibility.
It disenfranchises voters. It consolidates power. It makes it extremely tough for anyone to break through incumbency. (Ward reps provide the ability to go door to door and win by talking with individual voters).
plus……
Lucia’s post above is spot on. Excellent research! If the new charter passes, there will be several areas of the city that will have MUCH less representation. Any guesses which those might be ? Hint: it won’t be Newton Centre.
Nobody, but nobody was clamoring to gut the ward system that makes Newton so special. Reduce the total number of the BOA? sure.. people were open to that. But the process went off the rails, became a bait and switch, and now we have a bad proposal that needs to be voted down.
Vote NO bad charter proposal this fall.
While I commend the commissioners for their dedication and work, their findings/proposal is not something I can support. The Ward system is too important, the cut from 24 to 12 is too deep, and I fear the costs to run a city-wide campaign will deter people from running. I supported the initiative to open the charter commission because I want what is best for the City. IMO, this is not it.
This proposal will be defeated because of the elimination of the Ward representation. Yes, the Council needs to be reduced and there is agreement for the reduction. The Charter Commission has one final opportunity to restore the Ward Councilors please listen.
@Bryan,
Can you respond as to why 8 ward councilors, and 4 at-large would not work? Same cut, but would appeal to those whom feel their needs would not be met?
Randy, you solved the problem. If only the Charter Commission would listen. Best to compromise and get voter approval than to draw a line in the sand.
What Randy said ( although I would be OK with 8 ward and 8 at Large( one from each ward) ) and also a 2 term Limit and we dont pay for a lifetime of Health Insurance for them and their spouse and family. We don’t need Councilors for a lifetime.
I completely agree with Charlie and Lucia. Terrible idea to get rid of ward councilors. Lowell’s nine-member all at-large city council is typically disproportionately from the wealthier sections of the city.
And having run at-large, I can tell you there’s a real cost differential to running city wide, in both dollars and time. An all at-large city council is going to favor the candidates of the Democratic establishment, those with lots of money, or both. Time to re-watch Emily’s commentary: https://vimeo.com/185375756
By contrast, the Framingham Charter Commission, which is recommending a switch to a city form of government, has proposed an 11-member city council, nine elected by district, and two at-large. And even that has the author of their Charter Commission’s minority report worried about too much concentration of power, if three were elected from one district: http://framinghamsource.com/index.php/2017/01/31/vote-no-proposed-city-charter-much-power-hands-just/
Charlie says this proposal “guts the ward system on which Newton was built”, without defining “ward system”.
Since 1897, Newton’s “ward system” has looked like this: 3 councilors are elected from each ward. 2 answer to voters citywide, and 1 answers to the ward voters only. Pre-1897, the mix was the reverse, with 2/3 elected from the ward only. I assume that the authors of that charter thought 2/3 answering to all voters would better serve Newton.
The charter commission proposal maintains the feature of Newton’s current ward system in which 2/3 of the council is elected from the wards by voters citywide. We propose to retain this feature of “the ward system upon which Newton was built” because we feel like it has served Newton well.
Under the suggestion mentioned here that the 8 ward-based councilors be elected by the home ward only, Newton would have 2/3 of the council answering only to the local district, which would be a radical change from the city council that has been in place since 1897.
A drawback of councils that have a majority of councilors elected from the home ward only is that a majority of councilors have incentive to put parochial concerns ahead of citywide concerns. They only answer to a fraction of voters and can trade votes or vote as a bloc without answering to most of the voters in the city.
Current and former Newton ward councilors testified to the charter commission that the job of councilor should be done the same way regardless of whether the councilor is elected by the ward only or citywide: what is best for the whole city needs to be the primary consideration. This argues against adopting a council where a majority of councilors have incentive to think parochially.
The research Lucia cites, while interesting, is not applicable to the charter commission proposal. The research compares city councils with all of the councilors elected at-large with no residency requirement to city councils with all or a majority of councilors elected by the home-ward only.
The charter commission proposal retains “councilors who represent a specific district” specifically to address all of the concerns mentioned in the research, including the need to give “all legitimate groups, especially those with a geographic base, a better chance of being represented on the city council.”
The city council composition proposed by the charter commission is more similar to “the ward system upon which Newton was built” than a council with a majority of councilors elected by the ward only or even a council with 50% of councilors elected by the ward only (the 16-councilor scenario).
If you want to reduce the size of the city council — and over the years that has consistently been the view of voters — then you have to make a difficult choice as to which seats are eliminated. Why would anyone want the overwhelming majority of city council seats belonging to people they can’t vote for? But that’s exactly what would happen if you had eight ward and four at large councilors.
Another concern mentioned above is that “5 out of 12 councilors could all be from one ward”. 7/8ths of the voters would not live in the ward in question, so if this were to happen, it would have to be because a majority of voters citywide think that the 4 unrestricted at-large councilors are the best people to represent the entire city. If these 4 in fact put the needs of one ward first, it’s hard to imagine that 7/8ths of voters would keep them in office.
In the emails I sent to the charter commission, I recommended 8 ward plus 9 at-large (17) and was told the city council would still be too large. Next I supported 4 district ward councilors and 5+ at-large – the districts would be composed of two wards. These would keep the ward representation, reduce the size of the council and have a majority voted on citywide.
From Lucia’s comment: “representatives elected citywide come to agreement more quickly on issue.” This seems to be the intention of all at-large.
Why would “trading votes” or “voting as a bloc” not be possible in the new council because there are no ward reps? Seems to me the possibility exists with any makeup of the city council.
Rhanna – you focused on one part of one of the studies and with a fell swoop, disregarded the entirety of the research. Citywide elections cost much more than district elections, citywide elections elect less diverse representatives – wealthier, whiter and more highly educated. IMHO the residency requirement is window-dressing.
Greg – On both the State and National level, I can’t directly vote for most of the representatives. With 4 at large, 1 ward and the mayor, I’d be able to vote directly for 6/12. On the State level, I can vote for 3/191 (including the governor); Nationally I can vote for 3/536 (including the president).
@Lucia: Are you really sure you want to use Congress or even the state as a model for why we should have so little say in who controls the power in our legislatures?
That aside, Newton is 18.19 sq. miles, Massachusetts is 10,554 square miles, the U.S. is 3.797 million square miles. It would be ridiculous to think a member of the US House should represent 3.797 million miles or a state rep. 10,554 square miles…but 18.19 for all city councilors? That seems reasonable.
The question that I posed at the start of this process is still valid.
What Problem are you trying to fix?
Newton’s high property values and high ratings by national magazines still demonstrate that Newton is an excellent city.
This may or may not be due to the current structure, but the only way to find out is to change the structure and see if the quality of life in city declines.
This leads to the concomitant rule of thumb : If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. If the current Charter is not seriously defective, don’t change it for some hypothetical but unproven benefit.
Brian Yates
Greg – You are reading it differently than I am. I think I’d have less say “in who controls the power” with the elimination of ward representation. I also think our governmental system is strong enough to weather the Trump presidency, which I see as a speed bump but not a downward death spiral for our nation.
I think population comparisons are better than land comparisons, but both a little irrelevant….
I’d rather my vote had more influence in fewer elected positions, than a tiny influence in a lot of elected positions.
Marti, I was intrigued by your suggestion, and at the 11/16/16 meeting where we revisited the city council, I included a scenario for reducing to 6 wards, with 1 ward councilor from each ward and 7 unrestricted at-large. In general, the objections to this were that 46% from the ward only is still very different from our current ward system of 33%, and reducing the number of wards adds another layer of change.
Every council configuration has strengths and weaknesses, so the challenge is to figure out the configuration that best addresses Newton’s specific needs. I think that Newton’s economic and geographic diversity simultaneously create a need for ward-based representatives and a need to guard against parochialism, which is why I favor ward reps elected citywide.
I agree that vote trading or bloc voting can occur with at-large elected representatives, but in an at-large-by-ward model, all ward-based councilors answer to all voters so they have less incentive to put the local concerns ahead of what’s best for the whole city.
The ward-based councilor should be the primary advocate on ward issues and should make sure ward issues are addressed by the council. But they should not be insulated from the repercussions of actions that might affect the whole city by only answering to 7,000 voters.
Lucia, The studies argue for district reps, and we are proposing district reps. The studies argue against a council with 100% of the councilors elected at-large, unrestricted by residency requirement, and we are not proposing that (we propose 33% elected that way). One cannot infer that these studies argue against what the charter commission is proposing, because none of the studies consider district reps elected citywide. They only compare 100% at-large unrestricted to majority ward-only reps.
Marti wrote: “From Lucia’s comment: “representatives elected citywide come to agreement more quickly on issue.” This seems to be the intention of all at-large.”
Coming to agreement more quickly isn’t necessarily a good thing. It can mean that other sides of the issue aren’t being listened to, or brought forth in the first place.
I think what gets to me with this system system is that in contested race in ward N, if their only candidate is elected at-large, the voters within ward N could vote 90% to 10% against that candidate and still end up being represented them because the rest of the city wills it so.
My feelings are that either we have ward-by-ward representation (which should be elected by the wards) of we have at-large/city wide representation, but this strange elect at-large to represent local interests is a thing I don’t get – both for City Councilors and for the School Committee. It seems to
1) increase the difficulty of challenges by forcing candidates to run city-wide/reach 10’s of thousands of voters
2) in crease the difficulty of challenges by limiting who you can challenge based on where you live (want to throw out the ward 28 councillor, but you live in ward 33? Unless you plan to move, it sucks to be you)
3) fail to simplify the ballot. Voters are now down to 17 races (8 ‘ward’ councillors, 8 ‘ward’ school committee, 1 at-large councillor) with … if every race were contested… 37 candidates. That’s a lot of research to do for a local election where info about the candidates is thin to begin with.
This only makes sense if you think that the ward you live in is the most important thing shaping a councillor or school committee’s actions and policies. At which point, why even bother with elections — make it like jury duty, anyone in the ward could be called up to serve….?
mgwa, my point exactly. I would rather encourage diverse opinions and some struggle before making major decisions.
For some reason, a common misconception about the objective of the Charter Commission has been that efficiency was a top priority. The stated and unanimously agreed upon objective was to provide for a more effective government. As Marti and mgwa mentioned, in the public sector, struggle is a necessary and valued part of the process.
@Rhanna @Bryan @Jane
A city councilor that is continually elected city-wide, while living in a given ward, who also continually loses their specific ward is a problem. Just living in a certain ward does not mean that it is being adequately represented.
A proposed compromise for the ward-specific seats:
A councilor who wins 2 terms at-large, but loses the ward in question for two consecutive terms, may not run for a third term. It gives the ward some power to reject a councilor that is insufficiently representing the ward, while still requiring candidates to win at-large to be elected.
As is, the residency requirement does not do enough to address the concerns about ward representation. DOA in my book.
Thanks for posting my video again Julia – I laid out my reasons there for opposing this proposed change which is terrible for democracy, terrible for the less powerful, terrible for the less wealthy, terrible for those who want more independent voices in our government.
Interested in helping the Vote No Charter Change campaign? Contact me
here.
@Jane Frantz – Can you please educate us on how the CC defined “effective government”. I looked but could not find its reference in the minutes.
@Paul, the charter commission looked at 22 years of elections data during which 176 at-large seats were filled. We found 9 instances of a candidate winning the home ward but losing the citywide contest (and the seat).
There were no instances of the same person losing the home ward but winning city-wide in back-to-back elections.
The 9 occurrences took place in 5 different wards; Wards 1, 2, 3 and 5 were affected twice, Ward 4 once.
@Rhanna
That’s great research, and all the more reason to have a check on the system as I suggested.
If we were in the situation of a city-wide elected ward-specific representative losing their ward in back-to-back elections, that should be considered by all to be a problem.
Reassurances that it hasn’t happened in the past are good, but not sufficient. The charter commission should be looking to do more to address those of us with concerns about ward representation– this seems like a no-brainer. I’m not really clear why the commission wouldn’t include this.
Change is good. The sky wont fall and Democracy in Newton won’t end.
The neighborhood i haved lived in primarily since 1972 still has poor roads and historically
rampant unchecked development nearby, mostly supported by status-quo long- term ward and at-large pols. The local elementary school has mostly been treated as a “harvest the votes and forget ’em until the next election” outlet and a convenient dumping ground for overpopulation. The traffic and speeding throughout our neighborhoods is dangerous, as is the traffic from Route 9. Other than our local playground being redone after almost 20 years of carping, i can’t see how the current political power alignment has benefitted our neighborhood one bit. You have been part of the problem Brian (NVA) Yates.
Despite all these issues, our local representation is focusing on Newton’s sanctuary city status and historic neighborhood designations. The wealthier parts of the ward and city are already
favored, so the arguments here by some posters has to be in self interest. Comprehensive charter change is necessary and essential. When i look back at the campaign issues and materials i had when i ran for ward 5 alderman in 2002(3?), i had the same issues we currently have and things are exactly the same and have only gotten worse.
@Charlie Shapiro-
The roads near your home(and mine) are among the worst in the city.
Kendall, Alexander, Elinor, Woodcliff etc. Just a complete garbage can fire mess.
Anyone over there making any calls to city hall or local pols while this charter distraction is going on? Thats Ward 6. Greg Schwartz? Are all of these local pols impotent, or just blind?
They drive the same darn streets!!!
Independent Voices??? That is actually Really FUNNY. I needed a good laugh today.
@Rhanna, or anyone who knows, or can point me directly to the data.
The 9 out 176 statistic is fascinating. 9 candidates win the ward but lose the city-wide race. How many of those 9 were challengers? How many were incumbents?
Thanks.
I would like to see the data as well.
I looked at the data for 2015 cycle and found that in the hypothetical situation of only 1 winner, in 3 out of 4 the city trounced the ward. (Yes really)
This scenario aligns closest to the charter proposal.
Here is my data:
Ward 2 – Auchincloss won the Ward; BUT Albright won the citywide vote
Ward 3 – Hess-Mahan won both the Ward and City
Ward 5 – Yates won the ward BUT Crossley won the city
Ward 8 – Upof won the ward BUT Kalis won the city
3 out of 4 times… City and Ward diverged.
My sources – http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70157
@Rihanna – Please share the numbers that CC used to justify its decision.
@Paul-
I don’t feel the roads are bad as you are suggesting, but Dick Blazar is the Ward rep. Start by contacting him. He is the prime #1 example of how to win a Ward race by going door to door, spending very little money, and besting a 30 year incumbent.
He is certainly an independent voice on the Council, and while this is not about the specific individual, it is absolutely about the path of an individual having the chance to participate in government with zero ties to an existing power base.
This is precisely the type of accessibility that the poorly conceived charter proposal will eliminate.
…and that equals consolidation of insider power, rubber stamps, less transparency, and reduction of access of challengers to participate.
Vote NO on this very bad idea. Gutting the Ward representation is an idea that nobody actually asked for, and it’s becoming tragically comical to watch certain Charter Commission members try to spin this as increasing voter input. Sniff test: Failed.
Jeffrey, I can answer for 8 of them. 3 were challengers, 4 were vying for an open seat, and 1 was an incumbent.
The 9th occurrence was in 1993, which is the oldest year of data reviewed, so I don’t know who the incumbents were. In Ward 1, Gerst and Diduca won the ward, but Gerst and Lupo won citywide…in case anyone remembers?
Because my wife and I are gluttons for punishment we often watch the riveting school committee meetings on NewTV. Although the members of this august body are from one ward each, they are chosen city-wide. Over my many years in this city otherwise qualified people running for the committee have not won because they lacked the resources to mount a city-wide campaign and, more crushing, lacked the backing of the establishment and the power elite. The result? A Kiri Noh play of the highest order in their meetings, most especially with the outcome known and decided beforehand, everyone on the same stale page, dissent discouraged and changes such as those involving the health of students being delayed for years due to the lack of any maverick or forward thinking person being present. Having watched enough broadcasts of these meetings and continually falling into a state of despair, I lack the desire to watch this format and structure be replicated with the city council. It defies common sense to wish such a template of anti-democracy be visited upon another institution. Unless that was one’s intent all along.
Thanks Rhanna. My number one hope is to have elections where challengers have a fighting chance.
Your data supports the theory that at-large voting protects incumbents. Let’sfocusing on incumbent versus challenger races. Ward elections would have produced wins by 3 challengers and one incumbent, instead we got wins by 3 incumbents and one challenger.
I guess this makes sense. Incumbents benefit from city-wide attention and a tight elite-support-reciprocity network. A challenger might be able to put up a fight at the ward level, but a city-wide fight is futile.
@Mark Marderosian. You are to be commended for spending hours with the Newton School Committee on New TV. You are indeed a man of tolerance and patience. I don’t have the animus against members of the School Committee that some others on this blog do. As a minor elected official in Newton, I have a good deal of appreciation for the time, commitment and honest endeavor they put into what they do; but my God it sure is boring to watch their deliberations in any detail. I don’t know if you are Catholic or not. If you are, I understand that your efforts here are good for time off in Purgatory, quite a bit in fact.
@Bob, thanks for your comments. I had never thought of it that way, and although I would certainly welcome some of the sentence in Purgatory commuted, I’m afraid those in charge would know I didn’t do it voluntarily. As a pre-K teacher for 37 years, my wife finds the SC’s deliberations interesting. Since I like spending time with her, I go along for the ride. The price to pay, I guess.
So, hey, maybe the time spent WILL be worth something down the road. 🙂
Jeffrey, first off…I looked back and realize I gave you incorrect totals. 2 were challengers, 1 was an incumbent, and 5 were vying for an open seat.
As you know, it’s difficult to draw any conclusions from 4 data points. In part, the 3 data points where challengers lost reflect our our current system of 3 candidates running for 2 seats. This system hurts challengers, b/c people bullet vote to protect one or the other incumbent (this is clearly seen in the data).
Also note that this particular analysis does not take into account all challenges to and upsets of incumbents. It only looks at the data points when the home ward outcome was different from the citywide outcome.
For these reasons, this analysis can’t be used to compare challenges to at-large vs. ward councilors.
Sorry…the 2 data points where challengers lost…
@Mark. Again, no disrespect to the Board. I’m a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council and I’ve seen people nod off (one even started snoring) at our meetings. I’m the Secretary and one even fell asleep early in one meeting during the Council’s review of my carefully crafted minutes.
We need Term Limits and NO Paid Health Insurance for both Councilors and SC. Then maybe the Lifetime Members will allow others to be part of the Club.
Agree with Jeffrey.
When I ran city-wide n 1997, I ran against an incumbent and won on a recount by 12 votes. 12 votes. I think I lost the Ward but won city-wide. Rhanna can probably confirm since she’s done the research. It’s not impossible to beat an incumbent in an at-large race. It’s not easy but it also shouldn’t be. Many of my colleagues, including myself, spend a great deal of their time and energy committed to serving the people of Newton. The meetings can be very long, the phone calls and the emails can be very nasty and as my former colleague, Dick McGrath had warned, it is a thankless job. Those of us who have served for some time (me – 19 years), do it – not for the lifetime benefits. We do it because we believe we make a difference and we believe we do a good job.
As an at-large Councilor, I rely heavily on my Ward Councilor to reach out to the residents, to leaflet and provide them notice of upcoming issues and meetings, to organize neighborhood meetings and to reach out to the residents of the ward and share what issues are most important to the Ward and what needs must be met.
While I greatly appreciate all of the hard work and research done by the Charter Commission, I will not support their recommendation to eliminate Ward representation and will advocate against it. If there is to be a reduction in the number of City Councilors, eliminate one of the at-large positions for each Ward.
@Amy – thank you. I appreciate your view of the ward councilors and am glad to hear an at-large councilor speaking out against eliminating them.
Amy, your dedication and hard work does not go unnoticed citywide. We look forward to your running for mayor. Coupled with the CC’s revision will be the year of the woman running for council positions. Many new women running, tired of being sidelined by the established system. We need a woman in the corner office to deal with them.
Yes, Amy, you are one of the data points.
Just to reiterate, the charter commission is not proposing to “eliminate ward representation”. Every ward would have a representative. Aside from Newton, there are no cities or towns in Massachusetts (and in fact we haven’t found one anywhere in the country) with more than one representative per ward, so that would seem to be an effective structure. In the Mass. peer group (with the exception of Cambridge) the role of city councilor is a part time commitment with low pay and most of the councilors holding other full-time jobs.
Rhanna, sorry for the focused questions. When you looked at winning at the ward, and losing the seat, did you call “winning the ward” placing in the top position or placing in the top two? Winning the seat, is, of course, placing in the top two.
I agree that more data is better than less, but sometimes you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had. We could learn more by including SC races. Did you look at instances where SC candidates won their ward and lost the seat?
The historical trends conversation Jeffery, Rhanna and others here are having is fascinating but perhaps only somewhat instructive.
If we no longer have contests where the top-two vote getters win and if we have fewer city councilors overall, voters are going to have an easier time/greater ability to focus on the pros and cons of each candidate. How an incumbent or a challenger fares in their ward vs. at large in the two way race might not be the same as when they were one of three or four names on a crowded ballot.
@Amy. You bring refreshing and factual insights to this discussion based on what you have personally observed from your time and hard work on the City Council. I can’t speak for every ward, but I know that the positive interactions I have observed on the Highlands Area Council between the ward and at-large councilors from Wards 5 and 6 fully match what you stated about Ward 4. This is a wonderful gift from the City’s founders to the people of this City. We have great two way communications between City Councilors and Area Councils and between the Village and City Hall. We provide our City Councilors with important supplementary information about what we see as priorities for the Highlands and its people and they try to help us put together proposals that will work and be politically acceptable.
Some years, back, there was a common perception that there would be an inevitable clash between area councils and applicable ward or at-large members of the City Council. This just hasn’t happened. The exact reverse, in fact.
Amy, great points.
I disagree with this opinion: “Every ward would have a representative. ” Every ward would have a city representative who lives within its boundaries. Very different from every ward having a representative they choose, elect and hold accountable.
Also, many (most?) of us do not have an area council for our ward/neighborhood, our ward representatives are it.
It’s important to not conflate “Ward Representation” with “Ward-elected Ward Representation”. The are not the same and it muddies the issue for many people who might not be as well informed as those on this blog.
The Charter Commission’s proposal eliminates Ward-Elected Ward Representation.
…and that’s why the proposal needs to voted down.
Meanwhile, I’m thrilled to have read Amy’s thoughtful posting. Her opinion and willingness to advocate to keep Ward Councillors is meaningful and impactful.
I am interested to hear from the charter commission members to find out if other people in the city, outside this blog, want their ward representation saved. I am wondering if the V14 blog are the only people talking about this issue.
What Greg said.
The current Ward 4 councilors, amongst themselves, have set up a system that works for them. That’s really terrific and I applaud them for working collaboratively. Other councilors have chosen to carry out their responsibilities differently. A number have taken on important issues of interest to them and the entire city has benefitted from their expertise and commitment (water/sewer, environmental issues, affordable housing, etc). That’s another positive and successful way to approach the position,
But this is very different from setting up a governmental structure, which is what a charter does. It does not define how a councilor will do his/her job.
A local blog, by its nature, is going to attract people who are particularly interested in local issues and know more about the issues.
As for the issue you raise, Tom, the data from past elections that have just the city council and school committee seats on the ballot raises some questions. Over time, these election results show that voters chose not to vote for their ward councilor in very high numbers. Some ward councilors had more blanks than votes; others had a very high percentage of blanks. Why would a person choose to take the time to go to a polling place to vote in wha ts/he knows is a municipal election, then not cast a vote for their own ward councilor?
There are several possibilities:
1. The voter doesn’t agree with the position the ward councilor has taken on issues and doesn’t want to vote for him/her.
2. The voter doesn’t know who his/her ward councilor is. It’s not uncommon for voters to blank candidates they don’t know.
3. The voter doesn’t know what a ward councilor does and is reluctant to vote for a candidate without this information. This will come as a surprise to the well-informed V14 community, but I can vouch for this one. I’ve had many conversations with people who don’t know the difference between at-large and ward councilors.
4. The voter doesn’t vote in uncontested races.
So all that data is great and I certainly love data. But the simple reality is that other than a desire to centralize/consolidate power – which will result in less voter input and less village focus – there is no logical reason why anyone would want to strip Newton from it’s unique and successful structure.
Hmmm. Maybe we’re onto something there 🙂
The logical reason is to have a smaller city council while allowing all Newton voters the right to elect all members.
One person’s idea of a successful council structure is countered by another’s who believes that the council has issues that need to be addressed. If you want to place the power in the hands of a few, then make decisions based on the most vocal people in the city.
Every registered voter has the opprotunity to cast one vote. It doesn’t matter if you know and talk to every single councilor or can’t name one. It doesn’t matter if you’re extremely involved in the community or simply enjoy its many benefits. Every individual’s vote counts.
Charlie:
I personally think a smaller counsel that is better paid will be more effective. While I’ve certainly had my issues with Emily from time to time, this really isn’t about her or any of the other ward folks. I’m sure I agree with some, disagree with others. And any change we make here would likely outlast any of the current councilors. But what I do think is that the current system is unwieldy, disorganized, and too diffuse in its responsibilities. The system could use an overhaul.
And Charlie, you keep claiming that power is being centralized/consolidated. But your premise rests on the fact that certain wards will vote more than others, and thus “centralize” power. Or that they will organize and vote in a list of people, in a similar fashion as some view the charter commission were voted in. But isn’t that everyone’s option and right? If folks love the ward councilors so much, couldn’t they run as a list and defeat the other candidates?
Basically in my view your biggest concern is the right of the minority viewpoint, but you are defending that by defending the ward councilor system. My personal take is that those are different things. But your argument relies on ward councilors needing fewer folks voting for them overall (just the ward) in order to achieve more democracy (by not consolidating/centralizing power).
I would prefer the city as a whole as a vote on everyone, but that residency requirements exist so that each ward has a voice. As you know, I would have preferred keeping the ratios the same, leaving 4 ward councilors and 8 at-large. My viewpoint didn’t win out, but I’ll take this new experiment over the current dysfunction. Perhaps some of my fellow voters will as well. That doesn’t make us part of some gigantic cabal or illogical.
You view Newton’s govt. as unique and successful. I don’t. This wouldn’t have been exact model, but after being very frustrating with the current council on multiple issues, the status quo isn’t a model I support either.
Time for a change.
Fig -We’re back on the same page!
Nine people who knew one another only through attendance at community meetings (or had never laid eyes on one another) sat at a table for 16 months and had real conversations about important matters . I had no contact with other members of the Commission in between meetings, and neither did anyone else. . We walked into meetings with our own thinking (and often firm beliefs) on an issue, but had no idea as to where others stood. Few of our votes were unanimous and we all lost on issues that we believed in strongly. In the end, we all come to the conclusion that this is what democracy is all about.
What Fig and Greg said.
Jane, was our past disagreement Orr Block? Take heart, we probably still disagree on that one. 😉
Democracy in action!
Btw, I still strongly believe that any change to the council needs to come with pay raises. And for the folks advocating that we not give them health insurance, doesn’t that move basically assure us that no one without independent means or a full time job can be a city councilor? That is a type of power consolidation of its own….
One final note before I sign off, I wouldn’t have wanted the charter commission’s job. That is a lot of hours spent doing a deep dive into the sometimes fetid waters of our city’s organizational process. Regardless of your viewpoint on the end result, hopefully we can all appreciate the hard work involved. Criticize the end result as much as you like, but let’s recognize public service when it is given.
Fig – I can’t even remember the issue! It’s just a vague recollection of some disagreement. .
I agree with you about city council compensation and hope that they’ll deal with the issue in the future. Unfortunately, it’s not a charter level issue.
@Greg- It is ill-conceived to gut the Ward system (which is essentially the village system) in the name of a smaller Council.
8/8 would have been fine. 8ward/4 at large would have been fine. Damn near anything other than this would have been fine.
Anyone from Newton knows there is strong village association. (Q: “Where are you from?” A: “The Highlands”.)
I am now beginning to think this bad Charter proposal is a *deliberate* attempt to tear away village identity and uniqueness.
Possible reasons? power grab, less localized input into development/planning, less opportunity for new/independent candidates to successfully run for office. When you lay it out….it really sounds bad.
BTW, I completely agree with those who have praised the CC members for their time and effort. Even though the conclusions turned out to be bad for Newton, that should not take anything away from their efforts.
“New Coke” bombed, too. But they were still a very smart group of people.
@Charlie: It’s more than a little disingenuous to be complimenting the CC members at the same time that you accuse them of a “deliberate….power grab”
Also, as you know, some of our eight wards cut across more than one of our 13 villages. So you are also playing a little lose with the facts to pretend that they are one in the same.
And of course, this proposal continues to be based on ward residency for both our council and our school committee.
Apparently the CC has not learned from failure, and is on the path to self destruct. Their belief in misconceptions reinforce an attitude of group speak delivering an incestuous product easily seen thru by independents and Repubs alike. The predicted thumbs down in Nov. will create an opportunity for meaningful home rule self change. Unfortunately at that time the Women of the Golden Circle will further dig in their high heels, reaffirming to the citizen majority of their blind bias.
@Charlie – I am also starting to believe, they started w an outcome in mind, and then stacked the deck and data to support it.
One evidence is right here in this thread – @Rihanna has flipped flopped on the data. First she claimed CC used it, and then when challenged says its not relevant due to small sample size. All the while, she has not shared her data at all
@Jane talks about “effective” without bothering to define it.
@Harry – Dont be so sure this will get voted down. The powerful interests that got this CC slate elected, will work to get the charter passed.
Charlie – You may believe that a Newton public school teacher is part of a “power grab”, but I find it to be a bit of a stretch. As it stands, we disagree on an issue that has varying perspectives.
As for the idea that the Commission entered the process with a preconceived end in mind, the facts dispute that. The question on the ballot in 2015 was this: “Shall a commission be elected to revise the charter of Newton?” Two members of the Commission voted No on that question.
The connection between the city council and village identity is questionable at best. The village connection to area councils and village associations is strong, as it should be.
I see an effective government as one in which the residents have a solid understanding of how the local government works and can use city resources to resolve issues. With the current city council structure, very few residents can name more than a handful of councilors and as a result, it’s very difficult to hold individual councilors accountable for their votes or stands on issues. Accountability is key to an effective government.
@Greg- I can appreciate someone’s time commitment and still disagree with the outcome.
The rest? More conflating. Not cool. Very misleading.
Yes Charlie but you weren’t just disagreeing, you were impugning their motives.
@Greg- I never said “deliberate power grab”. You connected those words which were from different paragraphs to try and change the meaning and gin up controversy. Throwing 3 dots in the middle of it does not give you any ‘cover’. The way you typed it is indicative of your media background and part of the reason media no longer has the trust it once had.
To be clear: I am simply stating that the signatures were gathered on the basis of pitching to people a smaller BOA. Then, during the CC process it somehow morphed into gutting the Ward system. I believe that is a clear bait and switch.
If the signatures had been gathered with a verbal or written statement that said “a newly proposed charter might include the elimination of your Ward Councillor”, then it would have been a legitimate process.
But it didn’t. The signatures were, in many cases, gathered under false pretense.
And that’s simply wrong.
@Charlie: remove the word “deliberate” from any of my comments and my point remains: You’ve accused these nine commissioners of being engaged in a “power grab” at the same time you praised their service.
Which one is it?
More importantly, reducing the size of the council by definition meant we would have to have fewer ward and/or at large seats (and/or a some brand new configuration).
That’s not “false pretenses” it’s basic physics.
I gathered signatures to have the charter commission placed on the ballot and never mentioned possible outcomes in my composition. I stated that the current charter hadn’t been reviewed in 45 years and was in need of updating. When people asked what issues might be addressed in a review, I said that the functioning of the city council was the concern most signers mentioned to me. During the campaign in which I spoke to hundreds of people, about 3 or 4 people told me that retaining the ward councilors was important. More people told me that the council should have no more than 8 or 9 members than mentioned ward councilors.
The Commission held a public hearing focused on the legislative, mayoral, and school committee articles on June 1st after the initial straw vote on the council was taken. Six or seven people commented on the composition of the council at that hearing. Maybe 15 people attended the hearing, if that many. We have an email list of close to 1000 people who were notified of the hearing and it was advertised in the Tab.
@Greg- Sorry, but you purposefully wrote a statement which deliberately altered the meaning of my post. Not cool. At all. If anyone should know better, it’s you.
@Jane- I completely believe you. I, however, was present when signatures were being gathered by others and I witnessed dozens, if not hundreds of times the person was being asked to sign “to give us a chance to reduce the number of Aldermen”. Which was technically true….but not in any way complete.
I believe if people had been told they would (or could) lose their Ward Alderman, they would not have signed.
Also, the last two sentences in the first paragraph of Jane’s last post can both be true. Obviously, more people would be keenly aware of a quantity than a construct, unless the construct was explained. Please take a moment to think that through.
I agree it is unfortunate, but not uncommon, to have few people show up to a meeting on general government structure.
Perhaps there is a list of community outreach efforts dates/locations where the topic of ditching the Ward structure was brought to the neighborhoods where folks live ? I’m not aware of any.
The bottom line is people tried hard and simple went off track or got stuck in group think. It happens. It does not diminish their effort. Only their conclusions.
And Charlie, my friend, you deliberately impugn the motives of the commissioners when you accuse them of a “power grab.”
Really not cool.
Have a nice day!
@Greg-Taking a person’s words from one paragraph and combining them with words from another paragraph and then suggesting they were part of the same statement is clearly unethical. The most not cool.
Either way, it’s a beautiful day. Enjoy!