My household received a flyer this morning from the Committee to Re-Elect Emily Norton that lays out reasons not to support the Charter Commission’s suggestions.
The arguments are what you’d expect: reduces local representation and accountability, concentrates political power, hinders and blocks independent votes, turns councilors into full-time politicians, and breaks traditions of American government.
An excerpt:
[The Charter Commission is] aiming for, in their words, “greater public participation in government,” and “effectiveness, responsiveness, and efficiency.” Neewton’s charter had not been reviewed in forty years, so such a review make sense – however, the changes they are recommending are drastic and likely to have a negative effect on our city’s governance.
Seems a little early to try and capture the attention of voters to me, but I’m confident there’s a strategy in place. The question for me remains: If the proposed changes are the only path forward for reducing the size of the City Council, are they worth the drawbacks they’ll create?
Gail wrote
For me, the answer is definitely no, the “cure” is worse than the disease. Getting rid of ward councilors is a deal-breaker. Besides losing local representation, there are other issues. One of the arguments for reducing the size of the CC was to increase voter engagement in local elections – trying to keep track of potentially 17 races (if all city-wide were contested plus the ward race) is just too much. If the CC were reduced to 16 with ward councilors, that would be reduced to 9. Even better would be something like 3 year terms with staggered expirations, so only 1/3 of the CC would be up for election each year – again, something not included in the proposal.
In 21 years of living in Newton, I’d never heard any of the proponents of a smaller CC say “It’s too large – let’s get rid of ward aldermen”. It was a shock when that was the route chosen by the charter commissioners. There’s no way I’ll vote for the revised charter, even though I was very much in favor of having a charter commission.
I noted with interest in today’s TAB that there was a letter by the Co-chairs of the “Yes for a New Charter” so I guess it’s never too early to begin advocating.
This seems, at best, odd for a campaign account to be funding this. I would think you’d need to form a ballot campaign committee. Perhaps it’s too early to form a ballot committee since the charter hasn’t been legally approved for the ballot?
Yes For a New Charter has already filed the papers to form a ballot committee with the City Clerk.
Gail, I think that your headline misrepresents the mailing. It is not “anti-Charter” but rather is arguing against changing the Charter in the manner proposed by the Charter Commission. If anything, it is “pro-Charter” because it’s arguing that the current Charter — the only one we have — is better than the one that would result from the changes being proposed.
Bruce, you are correct. I’ll change it.
Why not get rid of the at large councilors?
Who paid for the Booklet on the Newton Charter Commission that was in the Newton Tab yesterday?
Look at page 9 – Pretty Presumptuous of them to assume everyone is going to vote Yes!
I got this flyer too, and didn’t quite understand one thing: does the charter committee suggest making the 12 councilors full-time city employees? Strangely, the flyer laments the loss of “real life” experience gained from having councilors with other day jobs, but says nothing about the potential cost of councilors’ salaries (if that is really the proposal). To me, that would be much more of a concern than loss of “local representation”. I don’t really see the need for anything more local than the City of Newton itself. Wards are not really distinct entities with competing interests, and overly local representation corrupts the system and empowers all sorts of NIMBYs.
And if Boston, with issues so much more complex than Newton’s, can get by with 13 councilors, why do we need 24? 12 councilors for a city of 90,000 seems pretty reasonable. Cambridge has 9. Quincy has 9. Worcester has 10.
This is happening in the private sector at a alarming rate: suddenly a person has to do the job they were doing, plus 1 or 2 other jobs of people who were “downsized”. The overemployee almost never gets paid more for this new obligation. Looks great on the balance sheet but in reality productivity suffers, workers are overburdened, and clients get frustrated from reduced service. Regardless of political stance, I think we can agree that Councilors work a lot of hours, bring a high level of expertise, and all that for what amounts to a honorarium of 10K per year. Seems like the city has a very good deal going and I can’t imagine how the current work load would be accomplished by half the workforce, let alone at the same quality. Outsourcing democracy is not an option in my book either. I agree with Emily and the many others, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
BTW, Cambridge councilors make 78K per year. Cambridge also has the highest commercial income of any city in the Commonwealth (59% vs Newton’s 16%) which gives them lots options we don’t have. Read more: http://newtonforum.org/fix-first-part-1/
Who paid for the Pamphlet that was put in the Newton Tab by the Charter Commission???
Some of us (ahem, ahem) especially those of us named after cookies have been advocating for better pay for quite some time….
I always have thought they should double the pay and take health insurance away. What Part time jobs have benes like they do?
I am very comfortable advocating for higher pay for a city council of 12 members. However, even this is not a charter issue.
@Joanne: I believe that by State Regulation the Charter Commission must pay for the Tab insert from their own budget (minimum mandated amount of budget = $7000) funded by Newton taxpayers. In fact the Commission could and did ask for and receive about $30,000 to fund this publication and to hire the consultants from the Collins Center who helped them with their research. I also thought the “YES” vote marketing page was inappropriate.
The Charter Commission is required by state law to publish the report and the city council approved the allocation.
As an aside, the members of the Commission has written up its own minutes and completed a significant amount of the research and documentation. I might remind people at this point that the taxpayers did not pay for any of this. We are an volunteer commission.
@Joanne, publishing the preliminary report in a newspaper is required by state law, we had no choice. It cost roughly $4,000 and that was paid for by the City.
Since OUR tax dollars paid for this you should have excluded PAGE 9 regarding that citizens should Vote YES. IMHO – it was Unethical for your commission to post how people should vote.
Joanne, I’d be disappointed if the Charter Commission didn’t advocate for voters to approve the changes they’re suggesting. Page 9 includes a graphic indicating that it’s a vote, and they’d like voters to vote yes. I don’t see the big deal.
I do thank you for pointing it out though. I never would have noticed the insert in the TAB if you hadn’t mentioned it. I never look at the circulars.
Back to the the Vote No on the new Charter pamphlet paid for by the Campaign to Re-Elect Emily Norton, I don’t necessarily disagree with some of it but I’m always skeptical of any campaign material. If the cause/campaign you’re supporting/running for is what is as is stated, it should stand on its on merits and not include emotionally charged, misleading claims.
Interestingly one statement of why to vote no leads me to think otherwise from its wording: “Currently we have Ward Councilors that are beholden to only the voters in their ward.” Just the sound of it seems wrong.
This proposed charter would not turn “Councilors into Full-time Politicians” and “lose the rich experience” of having day jobs.
In addition the entire thing loses credibility being associated with the campaign of a ward counselor who wants to keep her job instead of a separate appeal to keep the charter we have now.
If I’m not mistaken, the charter commission is allowed to “market” the proposed new charter.
Agree with @Marti, some of the text is really sloppy and unconvincing. Reminds me of some anti-development materials I have seen coming from the same ward.
Gail – They shouldn’t be doing that on TAX payer dollars. It would be one thing if they sent out their own personal flyer but not on our MONEY. Clearly it was Unethical in my opinion.
@Joanne: Voters approved forming a Charter Commission, which means they approved the education/promotion of the proposed charter as well as the associated expenses.
I don’t see the graphic as a big deal.
I can see it being an equal access issue-should those opposed to the charter have get taxpayer money to have an insert in the tab to present their views?
State law requires that the proposed charter and the preliminary report be distributed to households through a local publication.
That’s fine but I think this overstepped their mission by including an appeal to voters to vote yes. It wasn’t necessary and makes it even more politicized than needed
There was one sentence from a commission that voted unanimously to approve the proposal. I’m actually pleased to hear that so many people read that far into the report. That I hadn’t expected.
I wonder if the State Ethics Commission would agree that is it not a big deal??
They should not have put how people should vote.
Jane – It doesn’t say on pg 9 that the committee was a unanimous vote.
It says Ballot Question To appear on City Ballot on November 7,2017
Shall this city approve the new charter recommended by the charter commission summarized below. And your committee instead of leaving the Yes and No Blank chose to Check off YES.
SO again – OUR tax payer money should not have gone for the Charter Commission to tell Citizens HOW TO VOTE . It is one thing to be informative it is another thing to be political about their report.
Folks: The page that Joanne is so upset about is on page 9 or this 40 page document.
I’m having trouble been scandalized by this because I have faith that anyone who is going to read through all 40 pages is smart enough to make up his or her own mind.
It says it on page one of the report.
An absolutely disgusting display of unethical behavior.
The Commission is an official elected body of the city. It is beyond unethical for the Commission to be promoting the passage of such a highly controversial plan without offering the opposing side the same budget, space, and time.
We should all be thankful to Emily for taking the initiative to set out the facts. Although I’m certain there will be some deep pocket, pro-high density, pro-power consolidators who will band together to try and push this special interest thing through.
Vote NO on this ill-conceived Charter change.
It would be fascinating to put both the mandated by law publication by the Charter Commission and Councilor Norton’s use of her campaign account to raise funds for a ballot question before the state election commission and see if they have concerns with either one or both. Really folks if you’re in a snit about it, give it a shot and report back.
I moved to Newton in April 2016. I’m aware of the back and forth thoughts on reducing council members and I’m strongly in support.
But, I’m biased. I served on the Newburyport City Council for six years and that had 11 members for a 17,000 population. I thought it had too many, given larger north shore cities with less members.
I moved here, saw 24, and thought it was a typo. It’s inefficient. Fact is, whether one is a ward or at-large councilor, one’s job is the same.
Newton is fairly diverse economically- from chestnut hill to nonantum. And my concern about all at large councilors is the obvious one – money talks. When campaigning, the money needed to run at large will weight things towards those communities where the money is – more than it already does.
I’d be surprised if one needs more than $5k to run a successful municipal campaign in Newton. I was at large in Nbpt and spent maybe $3k my first time.
The biggest expense is a sign. And we all know that signs don’t vote.
@Ari: I have been asking about the cost of running a campaign for Ward vs. At-Large seats in Newton. The consensus seems to be: Ward = $10,000; At-Large = $30,000. (Everything costs more in Newton!) So, now let’s compare representation in your former residence in Newburyport, using your figures, to representation in Newton.
Newton population (2013) = approx. 88,000
Each of Newton’s 8 Wards’ population (they are approx. equal) = 11,000
Newburyport population total = 11,000
Number of representatives/11,000 population (each Ward) in Newton = 3
Number of representatives/11,000 population in Newburyport = 11
So, a total of twenty-four in Newton is not crazy…those 24 work diligently and represent varied and well researched views. And they do that for ~$11,000/year plus some bennies; nonetheless, the PEOPLE have voted several times to reduce the Council. I respect that, no matter that I disagree with it because I believe that the PEOPLE weren’t given all the facts when they signed the petition for Charter Review. I believe that signers never dreamed that a Charter Review Commission would amputate positions from the Council by eliminating Ward Councilors directly elected by Ward the way it has currently proposed. To reduce the Council the way I believe voters expected (as I predict the voters will show next November with a NO vote to eliminating Ward Councilors elected directly by Ward), the Commission should be eliminating 8 At-Large Councilors if it wants to reduce the Council from 24. Maybe they will still do so…they have a couple of weeks to change their minds again.
Not everyone has an extra $5k lying around to spend on a campaign, or lives in an area of the city where raising several thousand dollars is an easy proposition.
@Tricia: I guess that means that a campaigner has to raise the funds and we all know to follow the money, if not the campaign promises.
$10,000+ for a city council campaign?
Bullshit. I don’t doubt your fact-checking. I believe it. But, anyone spending that much is spending unnecessarily. For instance:
1. Instead of newsletters, run a targeted Facebook ad that reaches several thousand people for about $100.
2. Instead of buying USPS stamps, go electronic.
3. Instead of insisting on a union bug for your printed material, buy from an online shop for a 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.
And so forth.
The population of a city is irrelevant. Newburyport had 17,000 people — but I have friends who ran (and won) council campaigns in Somerville and Cambridge for similar budgets that I had. Anything over $5K for a municipal (non-mayor) campaign is wasteful spending. My 2 cents.
P.S. I don’t doubt 24 councilors are helpful. They’re also clutter. Reduce the number and the same constituent relations will occur.
@Ari: 1. We try to be civil in our discourse here. Expletives like bullshit are not convincing arguments and detract from any value you could add to the conversation.
2. I definitely don’t agree. Judging by your picture here on V14, our voting population is older than you are. They may not visit the “targeted ad sites” that you suggest. Or, they may be wise enough to ignore them! It costs about $2500 to send out a flyer to one Ward. It costs about $18,000 to send out a flyer to the whole City. Posters and signs are not free either. Walking the Ward or City requires people to help. Since everyone in Newton is busy with the daily tasks of being employed, raising children, socializing, volunteering in year-long good deeds, a campaigner would likely have to hire that help!
3. The biggest problem our Area Council has faced is reaching out to our constituents to alert them to issues in Waban. We have no budget, so we rely completely on gathering e-mail addresses from as many Waban residents as possible. That task is gargantuan. Any new candidate would have to gather e-mail addresses from the get-go. No government agency or other institution can turn them over to them! Perhaps they could buy them (from Russia?), but that would also cost dollars.
4. Printing online may be cheaper, but don’t forget the cost of shipping in your calculation and you will see that the budgets explained above ($10,000 and $30,000 are not excessive or worthy of denigration.
To continue with the argument about directly elected Ward Councilors, Ward Councilors, elected only by a given Ward’s voters, are very important for residents to reach the right people at City Hall to get messages communicated quickly and to get matters of importance to move expeditiously. Our Waban Area Council reaps huge benefits from its relationship with our Ward Councilor in carrying out its mission of facilitating communication between Waban residents and City Hall. That Councilor who sits ex officio on our Council, attends nearly all our monthly meetings and also responds quickly to our requests between meetings, thus facilitating the lines of communication between local residents and our government.
Removing Ward Councilors definitely moves the voter away from his/her representation. Centralizing our City government by making the Council all at-large will, by definition, take power away from the individual voter. A Ward Councilor is a Ward Champion who knows most closely what the voters in that Ward care about. (S)He listens to those voters and speaks out to protect them from negative consequences that would most impact those voters. A Ward Councilor’s voice provides balance to a City-wide voice that could act with complete disregard for the potential damage to any ward-specific resident minority in Newton.
If your election campaign includes direct mail, you’re correct that adds up the cost. In my personal experience (as candidate and recipient) it’s a waste of money.
I get direct mail from time to time. I rarely look. It goes straight into my recycling bin. But maybe that’s me.
At the end of the day, there’s a need for ward and citywide councilors. I disagree Newton needs 24 of them.
P.S. Sorry for my use of bullshit. It’s a passionate subject of mine. Government, that is.
Ari, yes, it’s you. Newton, at least in my neighborhood and some others, is an aging community at the moment . I live on a block next to an elementary school – the kids used to be walking by our house. All of our kids ( and our neighbors kids, up and down the street ) are grown now. Housing prices are very high and that’s why there’s such a push for affordable housing. At any rate, unless it’s to see what their kids or grandchildren are up to, people on our street are not going to be spending much time on Facebook. My wife still gets the times and the globe delivered. It’s going to cost much more money to run at large and go door to door to collect emails and addresses across the whole town. And, if you’re running in a section of town where there’s a printing shop ( if they exist) you’d also be wise to use their services, and support a local business. Because I’m a software engineer, I spend more time on social media than most people my age. And, there’s nothing that ticks me off more than Facebook ads – I usually mark them all as “offensive – spam”.
I’m part of the aging community in Newton and read all of my news on-line with subscriptions to many newspapers and blogs. I am on Facebook too, along with Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat – I have children and teenage grandchildren. I still like the feel of a good book but read most on-line. I do not read Facebook ads and scroll right by instead of reporting them. I realize that I am the exception to the rule more often than not. I do my own due diligence and am skeptical of most political ads, paper or electronic.
In Newton, I think maybe you need both – as well as walking the ward/city. I pay close attention to body language as well as what is said, or not said, in debates or panel discussions. I vote for people that I think will look at all sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. I don’t want a consensus council – too many good ideas are lost that way – so I don’t vote for slates.
I think ward councilors bring residents’ voice to the council – whether I agree with them or not. It makes for vigorous debate. At this point I’m a no vote on the proposed charter – because I think a representative council is the best way to govern – not because of ads for either side. I would support 8 ward councilors as well as 4-9 at-large.