Note: This post was moved up so it would not be lost behind our April Fools Day posts.
The Charter Commission last night voted 5-4* to add residency requirements to the four councilor-at-large seats. Candidates for the four seats must live in a designated district (probably a combination of two wards) but will be elected by the whole city.
This is a game changer for me. I’m delighted to hear the news.
*Votes to change to districts:
Barash, Frantz, Krintzman, Lipsitt and Steele
Votes to remain at-large:
Haywood, Kidwell, Larner and Manning
@Gail, what makes this “a game changer” for you? Seems to solve none of the problems with the previous proposal, and add more complexity & uncertainty.
@Emily: I was not comfortable with the possibility that 5 out of 12 councilors could live in the same neighborhood.
Come on, Emily, Gail’s right, this seems like a pretty good compromise that solves the main problem with the previous proposal, which was that too many councilors from the same ward might have ended up on the council. Did you not understand that? And what’s the complexity/uncertainty exactly? That we don’t yet have the four districts defined as 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8? Can you imagine any other pairing? In reality you’re not thinking about what’s best for the city, you’re thinking about the easiest way to keep your seat. I’d think this will be a slam dunk yes vote as in the end it’ll be all about shrinking the council, not whether the whole city gets to vote on all twelve councilors or only eight of them.
Thanks for posting Gail, really curious to get people’s feedback on the change, I think it’s an improvement.
@Gerry: One other proposal we’ve heard would be a North (2-3), South (6-8), East (1-7), West (4-5) configuration. I’m agnostic on this point and just as the election commission will draw precinct lines, they would be empowered to draw district lines, so anything in the charter would be a starting point, not an ending point.
Sounds like a good improvement to me.
I think it does solve the concentration problem of having 5 or so councilors in the same ward. I can see Emily’s point in that she’s been laser focused on making sure each ward can elect it’s own councilor with just its own votes, so while this just does spread out the potential councilors, it doesn’t solve what I’m guessing is Emily’s big issue, the possibility of folks running a slate of candidates, which are then elected by the whole city. In other words, the majority still has more power than in the current system.
Gerry could be correct as well, the two thoughts aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m sure someone can be opposed to a particular policy AND be focused on self preservation of her political position. I’ve very much discounted all of the rhetoric from current Councilors for that reason, since the charter commission is effectively a layoff of councilors!
When does this all come up for a vote?
I don’t know if it adds more uncertainty (or even complexity), and in fact is an improvement of sorts- but other than that I am with Emily- still does not solve the problem of stripping ward representation. Residency is not the same as who votes. Can’t speak for others who do not like the idea of losing ward councillors, but it doesn’t solve that fundamental issue.
I’m with Emily and Doug. It doesn’t solve the problem of getting rid of ward councilors, something I didn’t hear anyone asking for in advance of the Charter Commission.
Could one of the four Charter Commission councilors who voted against the residency requirement explain why? Maybe Rhanna?
Its an improvement, but not sufficient for me to support.
Losing ward residency is a non-starter.
I hope the commission has done their homework to know I’m the minority. I wonder it they’ve actually done so.
Ward councilor just isn’t my biggest issue. I really like some of them, others not so much. Whatever I lose in some small degree of local power, I gain by getting to vote on everyone’s candidates and not just my own. I also think there are a lot of folks who feel underserved by their particular ward councilor. I guess we’ll see how valuable it is to the voting public.
When is the vote?
The vote is n November if I’m not mistaken.
I do like this adjustment for the same reasons Gail does. I’m still not sure if I would vote for this new charter with the current proposed composition of the council but I’m warming up to the idea.
The charter proposal will be on the November ballot (Tuesday, Nov 7th) with all the other municipal elections. The exact language of the question can be seen on page 9 of our preliminary report: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/81018
Thanks again to the commission and Karen Manning for documenting these deliberation, including getting audio from meetings uploaded on the city site very quickly.
The commission had a transparent discussion and debate last night which, combined with Rhanna’s comments here on v14, provided a good overview of the principles and data interpretations that guide their choices. The problem is the community does not agree with the principles or the data interpretation.
The City of Newton website audio player doesn’t allow advancing to particular time stamps, so I put a copy here than can be navigated:
http://newtonwatch.org/032917_mp3_128kbit_44khz_stereo/
After public comment and discussion, the commission voted at 01:41:00. Over the next 90 minutes, the commission fine tuned important, albeit less controversial aspects of the charter, but then at 03:10:00 they revisited how the districts might be drawn. At 03:18:30 they moved to vote on how to set the initial districts, and discussion ensued until at 03:25:00. In the end it seemed commission was less sure of the finality of their 01:41:00 vote.
As Sally pointed out at 3:34:00, neither the original or revised proposal addresses the core concerns of many residents who believe in the importance of retaining local representation. If you support retaining ward-elected councilors in Newton city government, please visit the link below:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/GTZWB8X
@Gerry, welcome back! Under your own name even. We’ve missed you, and of course your charm.
The November voting window will be interesting when connected to the mayor election. I wonder what the candidates are going to say?
@fignewtonville: At least as of the preliminary charter release, both Scott and Ruthanne have come out in support of the new charter.
This makes me less likely to vote for the proposal.
The at large seats are not at large; now we have ward seats and district seats. All elected city wide. My issue with this are several fold
a) it increases the number of city council elections on my ballot from 9 to 12 (I wanted 1 ward, plus some number of at-large councilors so I would have 2 races. One with multiple candidates choose N)
b) it still doesn’t ensure that the rep from my ward will be the preferred rep from my ward (because the other 7 wards can overrule me)
c) it is incredibly protective of incumbents. Right now
…breaking in as a ward councilor requires beating one incumbent in a single ward. This is going away.
… breaking in at-large required beating 1 of 2 incumbents city wide. Now it’s beating the ONLY incumbent. And you can only oppose the incumbent intheward where you live. If the councilor you disagree with lives somewhere else? You have to move to run against them.
. . . breaking in for a district has all of the problems as for the ward. And additional complications.
Say I have three contested races – Ward A, Ward B, and District Z (containing wards A & B):
– Andrew and Andrea live in A and are running for A – Andrea is the favored incumbent.
– Barry and Betty live in B and are running for B. (Open seat)
– Aaron (lives in A) and Baron (lives in B) are running for Z.
Andrew gets 2,000 votes and Andrea gets 7,000 (9,000 ballots cast)
Barry gets 4,800 votes and Betty gets 4,300 (9,500 ballots cast)
Aaron gets 5,100 votes and Baron gets 4,900 votes ( 10,00 ballots cast)
Andrea, Barry, and Aaron are elected. (Note the different races get different votes because of how competitive they are, how many voters recognize the name because they’re in the PTO/village facebook groups/etc.)
In vote totals it goes:
Andrea (7,000)
Aaron (5,100)
Baron (4,900)
Barry (4,800)
Betty (4,300)
Andrew (2,000)
More people voted for Baron than Barry, yet because the races artificially fence off the competitors Barry is in and Barron is out.
My husband and I have discussed that if we’re serious about having councilors from each ward thing we should just have a single vote with all the names on it. The top vote getter from each ward gets in, then we look at the highest vote getter who wasn’t elected and let them in (let’s say they’re from ward 1) the. The next highest vote getter – if they’re from ward 1, skip them, ward 1 already has 2 seats, otherwise, yay! they’re in. Continue until all seats are filled. (With some provision for if candidates do not represent every ward)
… and could we do this with the school committee too?
@Anne:
I saw it as far more simple than that. In a pool, you can get all kinds of strange results, including all 4 councilors elected by a minority of voters. In the district scenario, every race is for one seat and all councilors will be elected by a majority of the votes cast in that race.
I came to believe that retaining the 100% geographic diversity that we currently have and ensuring every race is a head to head, 50% +1 matchup was a move in the right direction.
@Bryan
But given the number of unopposed races, aren’t councilors already being elected by a minority of voters? I personally refuse to vote in an uncontested races* – so how is getting in unopposed a more democratic result than getting in with a minority of votes in a pool?
At least if a councilor was a clear low-vote-getter in a pool, there would be a clear signal that this person is not representing their district/the city of newton and would invite challengers. The number of votes in an unopposed election gives little to no useful data to those considering the time and expense of a race.
In my prior example it might have been better for Baron if he’d thrown in for Ward B and let Aaron run for District Z unopposed. Perhaps not better for the town, but better for Baron.
If it was a pool all of the candidates would be running in the same race. It’s not first past the post, but it’s not first past the post now.
*There is one candidate I like enough to bullet vote for each election, even if their ward is uncontested, because I want them to have more votes than the other at-large councilor there.
I love this change. It makes so much sense. It reminds me of Marc Laredo’s proposal which I supported. I’m glad that the Charter Commission listened to people during that open meeting and made the change. Kudos.
Who is going to challenge in all of these uncompetitive races? In the last 8 elections only
Year – At Large – Ward
2001 – 4/8 (6 challengers) – 3/8 (3)
2003 – 8/8 (9 challengers) – 4/8 (4)
2005 – 3/8 (5 challengers) – 2/8 (2)
2007 – 4/8 (6 challengers) – 2/8 (2)
2009 – 3/8 (3 challengers) – 2/8 (2)
2011 – 3/8 (3 challengers) – 0/8 (0)
2013 – 1/8 (1 challenger) – 1/8 (1)
2015 – 4/8 (5 challengers) – 1/8 (1)
Since the turn of the millennia, less than 1/2 of the at-large seats (30/64) have been contested. As well as less than 1/4 of ward seats (15/64). This works out to an average of 7 challengers (with a smaller number of challenged races) per year.
Maybe there really are only on average 31 people (24+7) willing to serve in this city. Or maybe the convoluted election structure that limits you to running where you live puts people off running because they like their councilors, and there’s no point replacing a vote you like with the same.
but, in the end, I think that the restrictions on residency should match the restrictions on voting. Ward = Ward, At Large = At Large. Keep the ballot simple, and make the races competitive. I think that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction there.
(I’ve actually got a printed copy of the new charter where I’ve highlighted the differences. I think that there is some good stuff around language modernization and the role of the school committee … enough to overweigh my former misgivings. But this is too much.)
Being in attendance for the Commission’s discussion was interesting. (If you dislike long posts, skip this one)
My take-aways?
1. Jane made a powerful and compelling argument that from what she’s been hearing from people, the proposal would have been dead in the water without some sort of change.
2. Brooke, through the structure of her initial and follow up comments which laid a path for the vote, showed why she has always been so politically successful. Clearly she was on the same page as Jane and it was like watching someone conduct a symphony.
3. Rhanna was right that this change does not satisfy anyone who wants to retain Ward-elected Ward Councillors. She was also very astute to point out that switch from pool to district means less diversity in a path to election. (At which point I turned to my wife and whispered “hmm, if you really want people to have a path to participation, maybe just keep the Ward structure?”)
In my previous postings, I’ve mentioned “power grab”. Last night provided more context. It it is more than a simple power grab.
There appears to be an underlying goal to destroy the uniqueness of Newton’s village structure and install a “greater city good” system – controlled by a smaller group of people who know what’s good for you. This is a radical change unto itself and it ties into why the more people learn of it, the more resistance there is to getting rid of Ward-elected Ward Councilors.
By gutting the ability for village residents to have a direct say over the future of their village, you devalue the entire village idea. What’s special about The Highlands? The Falls? West Newton? Newtonville? Oak Hill? Nonantum? Chestnut Hill?
If this passes….the answer is nothing. It’s all about the city. Local character? Forget it. Who needs it. We’re a city!
Sure, it’ll take a few years to notice the erosion of the uniqueness of Newton’s village structure, but such a radical departure from our history for no apparent reason violates the #1 rule of “do no harm.” It does harm.
That’s why Newton voters should research, consider, and reject this ill-conceived idea, do NO harm…
… and vote NO this fall.
PS: To Josh – When you’re done with this thing, please run for something so I can vote for you. Great job chairing.
oh…and can we please stop with concept that every incumbent should be challenged? Maybe, just maybe, people don’t challenge Councilor Baker (and others) because they simply think he’s doing a great job. Do we think Sen Kennedy should have been challenged by another Democrat in a primary just for the sake of challenge? I think not.
Opportunity to challenge? Sure. Make it do-able and affordable (aka: Ward races). But a lack of challenge happening is not a valuable data point in a vacuum.
The charter proposal remains fundamentally flawed, in my opinion, due to one item only: the elimination of representation of the ward, elected by the ward.
@Bryan — I understand your point about the risk of having all four slate candidate be minority voices, but having the entire council elected city-wide by 50%+1 could means potentially NO diverse minority views represented.
According to the data the commission compiled the “median” city council composition in Massachusetts for cities with direct representation would be Lynn, with 7 ward-elected and 5 non-residency slate. The most practical and logical compromise solution would be 8 ward-elected and 7 or 8 non-residency slate seats. There are no cites other than Newton that have more at-large representation than direct representation (except for those with none). The power concentration risk of the slate seats would be somewhat balanced by direct ward representation seats.
Here is an updated survey link. Please participate no matter how you feel on the council composition
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YPMG2WL
Charlie – You either totally misunderstood my comments or misinterpreted them. I really don’t have much else to say about that but want to correct the record on this blog.
Councilors are voted on by ward, not by village. While I respect your commitment to villages, you can’t expect everyone else to share your perspective. I moved to the city of Newton for its location, amenities, parks and outdoor spaces, and as a great community to raise my kids.
Jack – I don’t think either of the models debated last evening addresses the issue of diversity as much as we need to in the city, but I’m not sure a particular city council structure that can do so.
The at large nature of all of the elections remains an unmitigated disaster for Newton.
Ward elected councilors and school committee members is the way to go to ensure real local democracy.
Newton will end up like Lowell where all of the power resides in a small part of the city.
Everyone should vote NO to this power grab.
Question for people who insist on ward representation: Do you accept the premise that the council should be smaller?
@Jane-
I was referring to your statement about all the people you’re hearing from who have major issues with the proposal.
I think it was clear you tried to improve a potential train wreck. And that was admirable.
Unfortunately the train is still off the tracks. It just hasn’t crashed yet.
@Gail
Perfectly acceptable to have smaller council.
But not at expense of direct Ward representation.
@Charlie:
I probably should have added this question: Do you believe that voters want a smaller council?
Yes. The council should be smaller. 24 is too big. Believe me, even with 8-9, the school committee sometimes felt like there was not enough time to have everyone heard properly.
An easy move for Newton, would be to clip off one at large councilor from each ward, ending up with a 16 member council.
Smooth transition, easy fix.
I would add in making the SC members elected by ward, not at large. That would ensure real representation across the city.
@Gail – I accept the premise that the council probably should be smaller. The way that would have made most sense to me would have been to keep at-large and ward councilors and get rid of the “live in ward but are elected city-wide” ones.
Here’s my problem with one at-large and one ward councilor from eight wards: The votes of a councilor who was elected with 900 votes will carry the same weight as the votes of a councilor who was elected with 6,000 votes. I think that’s a worse scenario than losing direct ward representation.
I can’t see another way to make the council smaller and maintain the same balance of power.
Hmm…if both mayor candidates back it, that is going to be a huge boost for its chances to pass.
If it does pass, when does the shrinking take effect?
Also, Jack, why do a survey that is basically designed to only be voted on if you don’t support the charter. That isn’t a survey. It is rather hilariously biased though.
@Jane — A sincere thanks to you and the commissioners for the debate last evening. You all spoke from the heart and to your thinking, at the risk of appearing divided.
There are many facets to diversity, or lack thereof, in the city, but at a minimum the city has a vast diversity of priorities to be represented and reconciled. Ward councilors often bring viewpoints to the table that reflect not just who elects them, but the different manner in which they go about being elected.
Nobody is quite sure what has helped Newton be a successful city for decades, but the concern is pulling out the ward councilor jenga block could be very detrimental.
@Gail — Vote counts are clearly a concern for you and the commissioners. We should remember that ward councilors represent over 11,000 residents each. If city services and infrastructure are working well for them, many of those residents may not have a need to learn much about their ward councilor or even know they exist. In contrast, if their at-large councilor is running a $30K city-wide campaign, they are seeing the lawn signs and mailings just like the rest of the city. “I see a lot of signs, so this candidate must be good”.
People will tend to not vote for uncontested races and candidates won’t campaign for them. Chances are that many of the votes they do get are well informed votes compared with city-wide candidates voted for name recognition. While uncontested seats have been a problem in the past, my sense is the events of the last year are only going to ramp up resident desire for civic engagement at the local level in the coming years.
Personally I didn’t know much about the Board of Alderman or city hall as a new resident until the expanding no-parking perimeter around Newton North suddenly flooded our street with student cars to the point of not being passable by buses or fire engines during the winter once the snow piled up.
A neighbor knew to contact our then Ward Alderman Steve Linsky and he walked the street through the process of getting school day 2-hour parking limits implemented, including accompanying and prepping the group to the hearing with the traffic council, which I felt handled the safety issue seriously and professionally. It was our first real introduction to city government and a positive experience.
@Gail – I absolutely want a smaller council. I want contested elections and a smaller ballot. But NOT at the expense of losing ward accountability.
And a ward councilor elected by few is much preferred to slate candidates backed by political establishment.
Seriously – lets keep ideology out of Newton politics. Thats what DC is for. Lets solve practical problems that affect everyday lifes of residents who have chosen to make Newton and its village, their home.
I want a smaller (ideally full-time) council and a smaller ballot.
I this gives us a smaller council (24 to 12 seats) , a larger ballot (9 to 12 races), creates an entirely new geographical conceps and and removes direct ward representation.
I think that most town-level governments either a) have a split between local and town representation such as (boston) city councilor/mayor, (brookline) town meeting member/board of select men or b) choose to have town-only representation (cambridge) city council/mayor.
A bullet-voting minority can get onto the cambridge city council; a local area can change their boston city councilor or selectmen.
I see the proposal as a chimera of the two ways, with all of the disadvantages of each. Residency in a ward is used as a proxy for “diverse” or “minority” viewpoints without any way to express them.
Charlie – This is what you said: “Jane made a powerful and compelling argument that from what she’s been hearing from people, the proposal would have been dead in the water without some sort of change.”
This statement is completely false. I never said or implied it at the meeting, nor do I believe it.
As I’ve written before, a compromise that directly addresses concerns over ward representation:
A ward-residency councilor, elected at-large, who loses their specific ward in two consecutive elections, cannot run for a third term.
We should all be opposed to a situation where a councilor continually loses the ward they come from, and haven’t heard why this isn’t an attractive compromise to the Commission.
Jack – I think the two main reasons Newton has been successful is its location with easy access to Rte 95 and Boston on either the T commuter rail and the schools, though strangely, it wasn’t the reason we moved here.
As for the meeting the other night, it was quite typical of our discussions. As the final report indicated, our deliberations have been “spirited” and our straw votes are rarely unanimous. But they are also quite intense.
In my opinion, and may I emphasize this is my opinion only, we do our best thinking and work before 9:45pm. Several members had misgivings about beginning the discussion about how to configure the districts would be set up because of the late hour. In my experience, the city council and school committee also function well until about that time. The current president of the city council and the recent chairs of the school committee make an effort to avoid the marathon meetings that go late into the night.
Smaller Council? Yes. Elimination of Ward Councilors? No.
That we can’t have one without the other is a deal breaker for me. I can live with a larger Council with Ward representation better than I can live with a smaller Council that no longer preserves the unique character and spirit of our different Wards and neighborhoods.
Here is a comparison with what is happening elsewhere.
On April 4, Framingham will vote on its new charter. A YES result will move its government from a town meeting model to a city model, with a mayor and a council of 11, comprised of 9 councilors, each elected just by their district plus 2 at large. The school committee is also being adjusted from all at large, to 9 members, each elected just by their district. An all at large model, as Newton is heading towards, would have received a decisive NO vote in Framingham. Town meeting is precinct based, so each local in the town has its specific representatives. 18 precincts have been folded into 9 districts.
The Framingham charter commission originally had 13 as the council number but in their deliberative process and folding in best practices, they lowered the number of at large councilors from 4 to 2. Too many at large races lead to concentrations of power which are detrimental to a city. Witness Lowell, where with all races at large, the mayor and a majority of its councilors live within a mile of each other.
A city with a majority of at large races, but with a ward or district residency requirement, still suffer from the Lowell phenomenon. It’s just not so obvious. Newton has suffered from concentrations of power over the years which have been damaging in multiple ways. And now Newton is moving to a 100% at large model, which will totally weaken the diversity of opinion on its council. It is a big power shift away from true neighborhood representation. This is completely at odds with the electoral models employed at the state and federal levels. And would be very bad for Newton’s future.
Every Newton ward resident should consider very carefully, whether they wish to give up their ward councilor for the embrace of ‘central government’ where they have only a 10% say in who their locally resident councilor will be.
@Jane-
You did not refer to “dead in the water”. But the emotion and concern for passage without making a change, based upon what you’ve heard from people, was what came through in a powerful way.
Others appeared to agree with you. Otherwise why make a change at such a late date? I was stunned the change passed and I believe it was a Hail Mary attempt.
But as we’re seeing here, folks that don’t normally agree on much else seem to agree that gutting the Ward reps is a super bad idea.
When such a bad idea is presented….it makes sense to Vote NO.
Greer, a question. I’m still on the fence and considering the effect of the new changes. In your opinion, how does having ward representation “preserve the unique character and spirit of our different wards and neighborhoods?” I assume you mean voted on in the ward only.
P Ryan said: Big things are hard to do. And Trump: Who knew healthcare could be so complicated. Not that I put any stock in what either says. But to paraphrase, changing the structure of the city council is both hard and complicated.
The charter commission had to accomplish much in a relatively short time. They’ve done a great job of being transparent, holding public hearings and posting comprehensive minutes. I sincerely applaud them.
If every ward has close to 11,000 residents, then, to me, that statistic matters more than the number of votes received by ward councilors. (The number of votes for uncontested races means nothing.) This means that every ward has a similar number of voters so if constituents are displeased they can come forward, find someone to run against the ward incumbent head to head, get out the vote and vote him/her out and not need to the win over the entire city’s voters costing more money.
I don’t see why ward representatives need to be well known to the entire city. We all live in one city but if wards have individual grievances, they need someone to represent their voice at the table. I don’t need to vote for the representative in each ward – I don’t know enough about the needs of some of the other wards to know who might best represent them – so I’m happy to let them decide for themselves. We would each have two different voting lists to consider: one for ward rep and the other for the at-large reps.
Ward councilors each represent 1/8 of the population of city, regardless of how many votes they get- sounds fair to me. That’s the way a representive democracy works. Adding 4-5 at large councilors voted for city wide, with no residency requirement, brings the council to 12 or 13.
I get that adding district residency requirements fixes the hypothetical fear the 5 councilors could come from one ward. But it seems a tad ridiculous for at-large councilors to have to move to another district to challenge an underperforming incumbent.
Taking a vote essentially in the middle of the night when brains are tired and commissioners are exhausted was a bad idea.
Leveraging voter majority (2 1/2 election times) to downsize the BoA (council) provided the CC (Women of the GC) an air of strength, power playing on a strategy that voters are ignorant and will blindly follow their lead over the cliff of failure. After the Hillary sting in Nov., will they smarten up? Doubtful this last minute revision is enough; ward rep elimination is the spiral death knoll.
aside what do we have – 6 or 7 new women running for council??
One should remember in all of this that the cost to run a ward race is simply 8 times less than for an at large race.
That fact alone guarantees that it is much easier financially and logistically to run a race at the ward level. Ward races greatly reduce the ability of the citywide power groups to control the outcomes. Big money and citywide networks don’t matter any more. A ward race can be run for several thousand dollars and the candidate can walk the ward. The playing field is leveled. This alone will guarantee that more candidates with a broader range of perspectives will enter the race. More diverse viewpoints offer more choice to the voters and surely better candidates will be able to prevail.
Ward races factor big money and big networks out of the picture.
That is a huge win for democracy and a guarantee that the quality of councilors will be much better. Look at the Newton ward councilors and you’ll find much greater independence of thought, common sense and diversity of opinion than for the at large councilors. They are also the strongest defenders of their wards from adverse governmental practices, such as over development which threatens the character and attractiveness of the villages and the quality of the schools.
Newton has benefited from having strong neighborhoods over the decades, but that local neighborhood strength has eroded. Elementary schools are getting bigger and less walkable. Village centers are being viewed as residential centers, rather than commercial centers. It goes on and on.
Its time to increase the strength of neighborhoods, not weaken them.
The only path forward here, is to ensure that the ward councilors are preserved in some better model than has been put forth so far. And the school committee should also be aligned with that model by making their races ward level, not at large.
I’m in favor of a smaller council as the current size just does not match a city of our size. I don’t necessarily feel that I need a ward specific rep that only people in that ward can vote on. I am less concerned about this power grab that the Vote No folks seem to be trying to create hysteria with. It would be useful to have perspective from the various geographic areas and closer connections to the people from those areas which I feel can be accomplished from the latest proposal that includes residency requirements. I will say however in the past I found my ward rep to be unresponsive so I’m more interested in having someone who is motivated and responsive than someone who lives in my area. As far as the School Committee I feel it is very important that they are voted on citywide. They may bring perspective/experiences from their own Ward however as is often said they have to make decisions for the District as a whole. I think if their fate were decided on by only voters within their Ward the overall decision making may be overly influenced by the impacts to the schools within their ward rather than making the best decision for the District. .
Just to clarify, the vote on the composition was our first item of business and was not taken in the middle of the night. At the end of our agenda, we tried to come back and begin discussing district configurations, which is I think what Jane was referring to. We decided to hold that discussion until the next meeting.
Marti – I agree with much of what you said. However, just to clarify a very important point – the discussion and vote on the composition of the council was the first item on the agenda after public comment and began at 7:20. After completing that agenda item, we moved to a number of other issues that needed to be tied up. We then began the discussion about the process for setting up districts at around 10:00 as I recall, and no vote was taken on that issue.
Charlie – You continue to misrepresent my statements. My intent was, as Marti pointed out, to try to figure out a good council composition. I have long favored the district model, and stated that I found it appealing at the very first discussion of the composition of the council one full year ago. During subsequent meetings about the issue, I spoke much more clearly of my support for the model because it provides equal representation on the council throughout the city. Without geographic representation, certain wards/precincts of the city could go for years without having one of the pool councilors elected from their ward/precinct. That concerns me.
Clearly, most of the people who post on V14 have a particular viewpoint on the subject of ward councilors. Ward councilors vote on issues that affect the entire city. A recent flyer sent to Newton residents claims that ward councilors “are beholden to the voters of the ward only”, or 12.5% of the city. While I don’t believe all ward councilors think this way or approach their job in that manner, the statement is troubling.
The detrimental effects of at large races on a school committee are quite evident in Framingham, where all of the school committee members live on the north side, but 60% of the students live on the south side. Representation is hugely out of balance. North side schools have been better maintained and there is a lot of busing of south side students to the north. That’s why school committee members are being shifted from at large to district-elected in the new charter.
The same problem exists in Newton, where the lower income areas are under served by the current system of government.
If the Newton school committee had a better balance of local view points, Zervas would never have been expanded to a mega school on the smallest site in the city, enlarging capacity where it is not needed (more busing). [The operating override money would have gone for a modest Zervas renovation and a new elementary school south of Rt 9.]
Nor would we have two middle schools right next to each other: Brown and Oak Hill.
Nor would we be classifying low income students into SPED at twice the rate of regular students.
Nor would we be quite so quick to approve residential developments which will swamp the local schools, especially in lower income neighborhoods.
Central planning facilitated by at large school committee members is not really working so well for the schools.
If Newton had ward level school committee members, it might well have much better planning of the building and technology infrastructure and better general education support for its 1200 low income students.
The power center in Newton lies elsewhere than south of route 9 and north of the pike.
The lack of parking meters in Waban is a clue to its location, as is the fact that the two newest elementary schools are in Ward 5. And you won’t see big residential projects in Waban for sure.
Ward level representation would bring much more equal representation to the lower income areas of Newton. It’s time Newton righted this wrong and elected its school committee members from just their wards, not at large. Then you might get some really rich and diverse perspectives onto the school committee for the greater benefit of all of the students in the city.
@Newton Highlands Mom: I am in total agreement with your thoughts. I was actually moderately supportive of the new charter proposal as it previously stood, if only to substantially decrease the size of the city council. After observing city governance and politics for the decade I have lived here, it is clear that there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Yes, governmental change can be slow, but Newton takes it well beyond what makes common sense. A 12-member council is in line with similar communities and should be able, with constituent contribution (which we all know there will be no shortage of!), to make well-reasoned decisions in a reasonable amount of time. The new proposal to add a residency requirement strengthens the structure of the council and only makes me happier to vote for the new charter.
@Harry Sanders: your posts referencing “ladies” reek of misogyny and, unless I’m missing references that pre-date my time in Newton, make little sense. (Apologies for being so blunt on a public forum — I have no desire to be a flamer-type poster; I wish village14 had a private messaging system.)
I have sat through most of the Charter Commission’s deliberations. Their process has been impeccable and I find absolutely NO fault with it, publicly praising them each time I have spoken. Karen Manning and Josh Krintzman have devoted more energy to this democratic process than any City’s electorate could ever expect and all nine have exercised polite, courteous and vigorous debate throughout. If only our meta-governmental bodies could learn from their example.
BUT, and it’s a big BUT, their fundamental assumption of what is the best practice for governing has never had a vigorous debate. All of them entered the debating arena accepting the notion that a candidate for City Council must be elected by the whole City.
The arguments made by those of us who value the closeness of a voter to the local Ward Councilor as an ombudsman, champion and locus for neighborhood sensitivities were never considered. They never recognized the value we place on having a person for whom our small portion of the City votes, a person we can approach for help in a time of real or perceived injury from a more distant, centralized Government. Do we care about the Whole City? Of course, but we enjoy the comfort of Ward representation in Whole City decisions.
What would I have done to get a YES vote from Newton’s voters in November? I would have answered Gail’s question with the following:
1. Ideally, I would leave 24 Councilors in place with no term limits.
2. Politically, I would have recognized that the most politically active and involved Newtonians, i.e., those who exercise their power to vote, want a smaller Council.
3. While I believe most of those voters didn’t really think through the risk of opening the Charter to change and how that process could misinterpret their possible desire for simplicity of the ballot, I would recognize that there is no choice but to shrink the Council.
4. How would I do that? I would have 8 at-large with Ward residency and 8 elected directly by Ward. That would eliminate half of the at-large Councilors. That scenario would accomplish Council size reduction, as suggested by Newton’s voters, while maintaining both city-wide and ward representation in the Council’s composition. If, however,through discussion, I was convinced that the proportion of half at-large and half directly-elected ward Councilors in this design does not offer enough city-wide representation over ward-only representation, then I would suggest maintaining the current 2:1 voting power of at-large Councilors by mandating in the Charter the following 66%-33% vote weighting for full Council votes only:
At-Large Councilors’ votes would each count as 2 votes during full Council voting.
Directly-elected Ward Councilors’ votes would each count as 1 vote during full Council voting.
(Please note that during Council Committee voting, all votes would count equally.)
Currently, a 2/3 majority would require 16 votes from 16 people.
In this proposed composition, a 2/3 majority would still require 16 votes.
The only possible votes that would achieve a 2/3 majority would be:
8 at-large Councilors only = 16
7 at-large plus 2 ward Councilors = 16
6 at-large plus 4 ward Councilors = 16
5 at-large plus 6 ward Councilors = 16
4 at-large plus 8 ward Councilors = 16
Currently, a ¾ majority would require 18 votes from 18 people.
In this proposed composition, a ¾ majority would still require 18 votes.
The only possible votes that would achieve a ¾ majority would be:
8 at-large plus 2 ward Councilors = 18
7 at-large plus 4 ward Councilors = 18
6 at-large plus 6 ward Councilors = 18
5 at-large plus 8 ward Councilors = 18
Now…before your eyes glaze over…this Council configuration might make David Olson’s job of vote counting more difficult, it would be much simpler for the voter and most likely what voters wanted when they asked for a smaller Council twice at the polls:
In this configuration the voter would choose 8 at-large Councilors and 1 Ward Councilor, voting for a total of only 9 Council candidates (as opposed to the 12 being proposed).
Every candidate for Council office would have, at most, one opponent on Election Day.
5. @Gail: That’s how I would do it!
In answer to Gail’s question about why I prefer the 4 non-ward reps to be at-large with no residency restriction…
All but 2 cities in Mass. have some portion of their city council elected at-large with no residency requirement. It’s a popular structure for a reason. Three benefits:
1) You get to vote for the best people from across the whole city. With geographically linked seats, you can have 2 great people in one ward running against each other and 2 not-so-great people running against each other in the next ward.
2) These at-large unrestricted seats are always challenged. One of my least favorite things about Newton’s government is the low number of contested elections. A councilor who never has an opponent is not held accountable. Anyone in the unrestricted pool will have to run for their seat every 2 years and be held accountable for their positions and their responsiveness.
3) The unrestricted at-large pool offers more opportunities for people to run for office. If you live in a ward with a councilor you like and support, you can still run for an unrestricted at-large seat (or if you don’t think the person is great but you don’t want to challenge your neighbor in a 1:1 race, you can run for and unrestricted at-large seat).
As a resident, I want to make sure my neighborhood has a representative, and I want that representative to prioritize what is best for the city as a whole. I realize that person may rarely be challenged. I don’t feel any added benefit of having one more local person, from my “district”, also rarely challenged. Both my reps could be unresponsive and I never get to vote them out. I would prefer to choose from the best people across the whole city for reps who will have to defend their seat every two years.
To paraphrase some commenters at our recent meetings: “I don’t feel better represented by someone because they live close to me, but that need is already taken care of by the councilor from the ward anyway. I feel better represented more contested elections and a diversity of choices. Just because someone lives close to me does not necessarily make them responsive or competent, and if they never get challenged I don’t get to vote them out.”
As for idea of 5 councilors being elected from one ward…remember that every ward will have a councilor, so there will be no ward that doesn’t have a representative. If the unrestricted at-large all live in one ward, 7/8ths of voters don’t live in that ward. If those councilors seem to favor the ward they live in (that they are not elected to represent), it’s hard to imagine that 7/8ths of voters would have a hard time getting rid of them.
Rhanna: I’m not sure why a lack of challenge automatically means an elected official is not accountable.
As I said in a previous post…. maybe they’re just doing a good job?
If you really want people to be challenged…make it easier…not harder. At Large is harder. Ward is easier.
It really is as simple as that.
Are you certain you really want challengers? It’s tough to match up the words with logic.
“you can have 2 great people in one ward running against each other and 2 not-so-great people running against each other in the next ward.”
It has been my experience living in Newton all these decades that there are NO not-so-great people living here. At least the ones I’ve met at any rate. How are we defining “not-so-great” if they, in fact, do exist?
Charlie – The data is very clear on this issue. In 5 of the last 9 elections (1999 -21015), not one ward councilor has had a contested race. But in the last 3 election cycles, close to 40% of the at-large seats have been contested. Whether it’s a reality or perception, ward councilors are challenged at a very low rate, even when the election data points to dissatisfaction with the incumbent.
Jane-
I interpret that to mean that Ward Councilors are highly responsive to their Ward constituencies.
Here’s a real-world data point: When 30 year incumbent George Mansfield was defeated by Dick Blazar, it was because Blazar was able to “walk the ward” and make the case for change… house by house.
Without changing the subject, drowning us in additional data, or diverting from this specific question, can we at least agree contested at large races likely cost more than a Ward race and make it tough to run on a small budget?
It’s likely that the ward voters are happy with their ward councilors and so they don’t get much challenge, but that voters are not happy with their at large councilors so they do get challenged but very often unsuccessfully.
But the school committee is the poster child for at large lack of challenge. Independent challenges to incumbents have been very rare, with challengers often having to run multiple times to succeed. The costs to campaign and the size of the voter network needed to succeed almost always overwhelms at large challengers.
Look at the current school committee leadership team. Neither the chair not vice chair ever had to actually win their seats. They just walked in unopposed. That is really bad.
How many school committee incumbents are going to be challenged in the upcoming elections?
This challenged seat argument is just a red herring to try to tip the balance even more towards at large races and the further power expansion of the well off and well networked power elites in the city.
@Bryan — re: “Proud to vote for geographic diversity & majority rule”
As I had commented earlier, residents have diverse opinions and priorities that need to be REPRESENTED, debated, and reconciled on the council if the city is to form consensus policies and decisions that the city can fully embrace.
Take the charter commission as a case study and consider minutes from their two deliberations on council composition on 4/13 and 8/14 in their archive: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/chartercommission/agendas_n_minutes/2016.asp
There appears to be no discussion of the merits of ward-elected representation. As contentious as this issue is, retaining ward-elected representation was not put on the table despite being present in 14 of the 20 Massachusetts cities the commission gathered data on, and even though MAJORITY ward-elected is in place for 13 of those 14 cities.
When the commission revisited their straw vote in August, in part due to public outcry over lack of ward-elected representation, Josh prepared an excellent graphical PowerPoint presentation enumerating composition options, but did not include any models that included ward-elected representation. The minutes show one sentence of ward-elected representation from the commission: “Brooke thinks the model Josh proposed does not wholly address the concerns of those who favor ward councilors (elected by ward).”
Imagine if other contentious issues and options getting similar consideration and debate on future city councils.
With 22 candidates running for the nine seats on the commission in November 2016, it seems a few powerful interest groups identified the nine candidates most opposed to ward-elected representation, and their slate recommendation helped those nine to receive the most votes. No diversity of opinion on this question made it onto the commission
Several commissioners have expressed concern that officials getting votes from only 2% of the city’s residents should not be making decisions. In that context, the winning charter commission candidates received votes ranging from only 3.1% (Manning) to 4.9% (Lipsett) of the city’s residents despite being on the ballot in all eight wards rather than one. Please consider this and try to strike a balance in your final recommendation to the voters in November.
@fignewtonville – Good point – the survey wasn’t meant to be a poll but rather to understand view of those supporting ward representation.
Jack – The commission has revisited several of the major topics over the last year. The decision to take straw votes was based on the concept that several issues needed more than one deliberation. Term limits, the size of the council and the composition, and neighborhood area councils are three items that took more than one meeting to complete. The issue was not revisited for the reason you mentioned.
Posting on a blog is one way to express an opinion, as is sending an email. But the fact is that I’ve heard from residents with the full range of opinions and in terms of numbers, there simply wasn’t consensus on the issue of the composition of the council. As an example as to how this can play out, at public hearings, a number of people advocated for keeping 24 councilors, but the overwhelming consensus in any other form of communication was that people wanted to see a smaller city council.
Can those who promote the conspiracy theory that some secret cabal is controlling the Charter Reform process, in spite of a competitive election and 18 months of public meetings, please share the evidence on which you should base these assertions?
I’m referring to statements like:
“There appears to be an underlying goal to … install a ‘greater city good’ system — controlled by a smaller group of people who know what’s good for you.”
“…the ability of the citywide power groups to control the outcomes.”
“…it seems a few powerful interest groups identified the nine candidates most opposed to ward-elected representation, and their slate recommendation helped those nine to receive the most votes.”
Perhaps Putin is using kitchen appliances to destroy our local democracy. Then again, it could be Obama…
In all my discussions with people advocating for the start of the Charter Commission and even the very day I signed the petition at the Farmer’s Market in West Newton, the discussions included shrinking the size of the board. I think most people agree that it should probably be smaller, I know I have since 1990. But not ONCE, did I ever hear, “this will include removing local ward representation.”
My bad, I take responsibility for not asking the questions I should have. I mean it: it was my fault for just ASSUMING one of the at-large councilors would be eliminated from the equation. Still, forgive me for feeling that a bait-n-switch has taken place since the elimination of direct representation was NEVER, ever brought into the conversations and seemingly suddenly appeared.
Okay, fine, let’s go past that. So…given that my experience in over 4 decades had been the larger the diffusion of responsibility, the less responsiveness the entity, why would it follow logically that eliminating ward representation is going to mean the streets near me will now definitely, really, this time for sure Rocky, ever be fixed?
@John. I can send you a screen grab of the NDCC’s web site page in October 2015 that advocated their slate of candidates for the charter commission as most agreeable to their interests, despite it supposedly being a non-partisan vote. There were many candidates running for this office that had no chance of winning because they lacked the backing of powerful collections of people who only talk and network with each other. At the very least, making sure that the candidates chosen were predisposed to these changes, ie: they’re all ducks, no bear or eagle among them. Thus, the elected candidates, BY THEIR VERY NATURE, are not wired or predisposed to any other perspective. If you wish please IM through my Facebook page to discuss further.
@Mark: No, you can’t. You can show him a slate because none existed. The Newton Democratic Party doesn’t endorse candidates in local elections. They only inform voters of which candidates are members of the party and which candidates are members of their ward committee. This is publicly available information that they provide for people who would prefer local elected officials who are Democrats. Most of the candidates running for charter commission were on that list.
I think there is a perception that the city is controlled by Democrats, because it is. The people of Newton overwhelmingly vote for and support Democrats, so unsurprisingly, they tend to vote for Democrats with progressive views even in non-partisan elections.
@Bryan, splitting a hair over a word doesn’t change the intent. The NDCC pointing it them out has the same effect. Nor does this subject have anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to do with progressive views or the lack thereof.
The Charter Commission changes direction now that they see more homework should have been put into, “who represents who.” The problem is that one group, which then became the Charter Commission, decided that the city needed to reduce the size of the Council. One of the previous comments in this string, nailed it, noting that the 1st debate should have been to reduce or not.
If the goal of the Commission was to lessen debate, and add challengers to the races then there are simple solutions:
1. Change the Council debate rules and enhance the committees responsibilities. Really, residents may come in for one lengthy debate in their lifetime, whereas as Councilors we punish ourselves with lengthy debtes more often than not. In my 3 year insider view I see this as a good thing.
2. Put 1/3 of the City Council up for election every year by going to a 3 year term.
3. Term limits: The administration and permanent city employees are the keeper of the keys and add the background, and historic knowledge to the process. The City Council works best as the eyes and ears of the people, and you need not have 20 years on the Council to be effective. Let staff do their job, and let Council be the Council, but not the “owners” of the city. Look up the definition of Alderman and you can see another reason why we became Councilors.
I would never urge anyone to reduce their representation, and especially the local Ward element. In its current non-partisan make-up residents can be elected that are not owned by a political party and can therefore represent the residents.
The Charter Commission’s plan will result in very “expensive” Council seats, and allow for one group to control all aspects of the city. This could mean anything to include no development, to full blown development; taxes out of control, and city battles over turf. Vote NO!
For the record, I think I did receive multiple emails from many different friends and neighbors pushing different people for charter commission. Some were “slates” of people, some were “I love this particular person”, some listed a few people. I used those emails to narrow down a list to about 12 people from my recollection, and then made my decisions in the voting booth.
That isn’t debating the fact that slates are powerful tools to rally voters to your particular cause. I seem to recall the NVA using one in the last election. But I discount the cabal theme. Lots of folks could also want serious change to the counsel. Anyone doubt that a majority of folks would desire that? In my brief experience with it over the past 10 years, I’ve found it to be frustrating, slow, and yet paradoxically filled with dedicated public servants, many of which I also fundamentally disagree with. Go figure. A little change would be a good thing.
Lets do a quick count of elected officials who had the spine to publicly declared where they stand:
Voting NO : Emily Norton, James Cote, David Kalis, Brian Yates,
Greer Tan Swiston, Charlie Shapiro
Voting YES: If Scott/Ruth have taken a position publicly – pl add a link to their statement (Whispering in Bryan’s ear does not count).
Pl. add more to the list above.
I am just waiting for the leaders to start organizing against the Charter Proposal. Cant wait to join them.
Mark -The people who collected the signatures and the members of the charter commission are two separate groups The idea of a bait and switch simply can’t be accurate information.
In the final month before the deadline for collecting the requisite number of signatures to get the question on the 2015 ballot, the count was close but not quite there. At that point, I offered to help out and collected about 150 signatures of the thousands necessary to put a put review on the ballot.
What I learned in that month of talking to many residents was eye-opening – very few residents knew how the city functioned, especially regarding the city council. Only a handful of people knew how many city councilors we had, most people could name one or two. Even in my very own household that is totally consumed with the topic right now, my very well informed spouse is hard pressed to name a majority of the councilors, several whom he described quite colorfully.
No matter what, the inability of the charter commission to properly review the importance and effectiveness of ward councilors stands out like a sore thumb.
The mindset of the charter commission was to have a process which appeared comprehensive but which quietly omitted a really important part of the debate.
Killing Newton’s ward councilors was an implicit fundamental assumption in their process and deliberations.
There is no hope that this point for the charter commission to redress this pivotal flaw in their foundational thinking.
It is a pity that a NO vote on the charter is the only way to avoid serious, self-inflicted damage to Newton government.
@Neil – They haven’t whispered it to me, they have said it at their public events. I would encourage you to go to one for each candidate to get to know them and all of their positions on city issues. Both are excellent public servants and in my opinion either of them would serve the city well.
I am sure that both Scott and Ruthanne don’t want to be caught up in a YES/NO charter campaign. I am sure that they both are hoping that the charter commission will come to its senses and retain the ward councilors in a simple, but important change in recommendations.
At this late stage, the only proposal which has any hope of getting a YES would be to shift to a 16 councilor format, by eliminating one at large councilor from each ward.
That would result in a proposal which a majority of Newton voters could get behind, as it improves the council in a smooth understandable manner. The NO opposition movement, which is currently growing rapidly, would fade away.
And it would ensure that the Mayoral race would not get distorted badly by the charter issue. And that the Newton community would not be fractured badly.
Wouldn’t that be great!
A city’s charter should last generations. The suggestion that we should ignore months of thoughtful deliberation by the charter commission because it would be inconvenient for our two mayoral candidates is silly.
Sorry that I did not respond over the weekend.
@Marti … yes, I feel that the people of the neightborhood should have a stronger say on who represents them, not simply someone’s address. Newton has one of the most mobile people in our population where around 25% of our residents move each year compared to the typical 10% in most communities. One’s address doesn’t necessariy equate one’s empathy for one’s neighbors.
I actually would agree with Rhanna Kidwell in having the 4 at large with no residence requirement. If you are at large, you’re at large! The residence requirement doesn’t seem to serve a particular purpose. (See above argument about residency)
Another proposal I had made a while ago but seemed to always fall on deaf ears is that if the Councilors that were meant to be elected to represent their neighborhoods were perhaps first elected by their neighbors before being voted on by the general election … we may have the best of both worlds.
I know some would argue that “no one” comes out to vote during the preliminary elections. But, at least a neighborhood would have an opportunity to vote on who represents them before the whole City decides for them. That way, it would take more than 150 people to “nominate” a candidate to represent them.
Jim – You raise some interesting points.
As to your fist point, we’ve had significant discussions about what belongs in a charter and what should be accomplished through ordinance or other means available to the city council. The charter sets up the structure of the government, the council and school committee set up procedural rules.
The current charter has an excellent example of an item that doesn’t belong there: it caps that the amount that can be spent on school maintenance at 2% of the school budget. The only way to deal with the situation this item creates is to pretend it’s not there. As it is, many sections of the current charter are no longer in compliance with state law. We don’t want a charter that either collects dust because it’s no longer relevant or includes sections that are unenforceable.
The three-year term is a very appealing compromise. Unfortunately, state law prohibits holding municipal elections at the same time as a state or national election. Typically towns have 3-year terms because their town meetings take place in the spring, so it makes sense to hold elections at around that time. Most people would agree that holding municipal elections in the spring in Newton would result in a much lower turnout.
Greg,
I’m certainly not for ignoring the months of thoughtful deliberations, quite the contrary. I am advocating for keeping the things they actually deliberated about.
The plain fact is that the charter commission did not deliberate about ward councilors: their role, their distinction from at large councilors, their effectiveness in past decisions, their special role in their wards, etc., nor did they take input on what voters thought on the issue before jumping to their very early straw vote.
There is a distinct chance that all of the good part of the charter commission recommendations will be thrown away by a NO vote created by the elimination of the ward councilors.
I remember the Newton North project where one could say that there were endless meetings, plenty of deliberation, but key factors were not given nearly enough attention, including the siting of the building, the school building experience of the designer, the student capacity of the building, the realistic cost of the building and even the width of the hallways. Lots of deliberation does not mean that the best outcome is arrived at.
I think that the elimination of the ward councilors will prove fatal to a YES vote effort.
And that would be a great pity.
Oh, Geoff. More silliness. What evidence do you have to suggest that this commission “did not deliberate”?
This charter commission deliberated, held public hearings, engaged in conversations here, in coffee shops, houses of worship, on sidewalks, on the pages of the TAB, etc. etc.
Look, disagree with their conclusions if you like. But don’t impugn the reputation of this commission by accusing them of not deliberating!
Greg,
I ,for sure, think that the charter commission deliberated. Don’t get me wrong,
But, I think that it is evident that scant attention was paid to the value of ward councilors.
That is a really serious oversight.
Precinct, district, and ward election of local officials is the bedrock of municipal democracy in Massachusetts. It is the foundation of town meeting which was the original grassroots democracy here. That local form of representation has been shepherded through many transitions in the detailed realizations of municipal government in the vast majority of Massachusetts cities and towns over the decades and even centuries.
Municipalities which have severed the connection to this real, local, essential root system of democracy have suffered, as powerful groups form and dominate local government, narrowing the talent pool and idea pool which is so essential to good government. Witness Lowell.
Democracy begins to trail smoke, and we all lose.
Fewer, more powerful councilors, drawn from a narrow pool of candidates, approved by powerful, organized groups in the city, dominate.
Every election race is starved of candidates by the dual entry barriers of tens of thousands of dollars and mature citywide networks needed to run successful campaigns.
That is where Newton charter commission would have us go.
Ward races are an essential element of a local, vibrant democracy.
That is the key element missing from the charter commission deliberations.
@Geoff from Framingham: Two thoughts:
1. You owe the Charter Commission an apology for inferring that they didn’t deliberate what the elimination of ward councilor means. Because, deny if you like, but that’s precisely what you did!
2. How is it more democratic when votes get to elect aprox. 2/3rd or 1/2 of their legislative body as opposed to being empowered to elect 100 percent of the their legislative body?
1. Point me to where they did their deep deliberation, as I missed it.
2. The ward councilor elections are like state elections, or federal elections, or all town meetings, or the majority of other municipalities in MA. All at large elections for representatives at any level is way outside normal (and wise) practice. If we applied Greg thinking to the state elections, all of MA would be voting for Ruth Balser, Kay Khan and Cindy Creem, not just Newton. At large elections are typical for the citywide, statewide and national leadership (modulo the electoral college idiosyncracy) – governors, mayors, …. But not for the representatives. Our democratic process recognizes generally, that locality matters. Each locale needs a voice and that is achieved through having each locale vote for its representatives. Having 8 ward councilors and some additional number of at large councilors would provide the best balance and best connection to best practices everywhere else.
More silliness from Geoff from Framingham! Please let’s drop that — often repeated — ridiculous argument suggesting that we should use Congress or even the state as a model how we structure our cozy, little municipal legislature.
Newton is 18.19 sq. miles. Massachusetts is 10,554 square miles. The U.S. is 3.797 million square miles. It’s silly to think a member of the US House should represent 3.797 million miles or a state rep. 10,554 square miles.
But less than twenty miles for all city councilors? That seems reasonable.
@Greg — You can define “deliberate: as “engage in careful consideration to reach a thoughtful decision”. We shouldn’t question that the commissioners have personally reached their positions thoughtfully.
If you also define “deliberate” as “confer formally”, then please provide evidence of that with respect consideration of ward-elected councilors in the commission’s minutes for their April 2016 and August 2016 meetings, or deliberate on providing Geoffrey with an apology.
<>
Kiss
and might there be a mayoral candidate platforming this simple solution? not yet.
Greg, if we look over the entire democracy landscape, we learn something!
Newton, in the current charter commission model, would stick out as a uniquely odd flavor of democratic practice. You can tell a kludge is emerging when you get a 4-5 split on the charter commission and this weird doubled up ward idea.
No one has yet advanced a sound argument why the ward councilors should be eliminated. Newton has for the longest time had strong neighborhoods and that has benefited the city greatly.
The charter commission recommendation to eliminate ward councilors would greatly weaken those neighborhoods, for absolutely no gain in some other area.
The neighborhoods need to fight back against this shift to centralized at large power which benefits no one in the city.
A NO vote will likely prevail unless the ward councilors are retained.
The charter commissioners should act quickly to get to a recommendation which they can all support on this issue, or the NO movement will rapidly grow and throw out their other reasonable recommendations.
It would be easy for them to start with the 8 ward councilors and see what at large ward-based councilors they can add. Adding 8 at large councilors, 1 resident in each ward, would be the easiest model to consider first. It would draw great support from city voters and achieve a very reasonable reduction of the council size. Such a model has no obvious flaws.
The charter commission recommendations should be as close to unanimous as possible.
It is achievable and would bring the city together with a great consensus, and would not roil the mayoral race.
If the charter commissioners do not embrace ward councilors, it is highly likely that another mayoral candidate will enter the race with a NO platform and upset the Fuller/Lennon match up. One of them could be killed in the primary and the other in the run off vote.
Both of those mayoral campaigns should lobby hard for retaining the ward councilors.
Scott especially should get a ton of flack from Ward 1 if he supports elimination of ward councilors, and that is his natural base! He started out as a Ward councilor!!! He walked the ward right at the start.
That’s the way we get new people onto the council!!!
He knocked on my door a long time ago and we chatted in my living room for 30 minutes and my wife and I both voted for him.
That how grass roots democracy works.
You can kiss that good bye if Newton goes for all at large elections.
I think Ruthanne gets this as well, so I hope she is lobbying hard for ward councilors to be retained in the final charter commission recommendations.
@Geoff from Framingham writes:
That’s just not true. You just refuse to listen to the those who are advocating for this change. On the other hand you already “kissed Newton goodbye” so I think it’s pretty nervy of you to be preaching how we should govern our city anyway.
Geoff – One of the arguments in favor of retaining ward councilors is that it’s much easier to run for that seat than for an at-large seat. Yet the data tells a different story. In 5 of the last 9 elections, no ward councilor had an opponent. At-large councilors are challenged at a much higher rate than ward councilors.
Now, one might assume that this is because the individual councilor is extremely popular. Yet when you look at election results, ward councilors receive a very high number of blanks, several receive more blanks than votes. That means many voters go to the polling place knowing that s/he will be voting only in municipal elections and doesn’t vote for the person who is supposed to most closely represent their concerns.
Some people love their ward councilors and others think they don’t represent their perspective or are unresponsive. The more relevant question is what qualities make for an effective councilor who can respond to individual concerns and make decisions that are in the best interest of the city.
I remember a time when Geoff Epstein promoted himself as the “data driven” candidate for School Committee. Geoff, Jane has just given you a data driven answer and one example of the ways the Charter Commission deliberated before reaching its recommendation.
So let’s stop the silliness.
But she forgot to proofread. “Voters go to the polling place… and don’t vote for the person…”
Jane,
Blanks in uncontested races are meaningless. A blank has the same effect as a vote.
In particular, a blank vote in an uncontested race does not mean that a voter does not love the candidate, it can just as well mean that they love their candidate but the vote is meaningless and therefore not cast.
However, if you look at the last election, there was a contested race in Ward 1 and there were only about 200 blanks out of 1100 votes cast. Not so bad.
So the data driven answer is that nothing has been proven in this blank driven approach.
There are huge numbers of blank votes in the at large races also.
How about developing some criteria to gauge the effectiveness of councilors and try to prove that ward councilors are totally ineffective compared to at large councilors.
Where is the detailed review of ward versus at large councilors?
This blank vote argument from the charter commission is full of holes. It reinforces the view that the charter commissioners never did take the ward councilors seriously.
Are there any other charter commission arguments against ward councilors?
Were there any sound surveys done of voter opinion on this matter of ward v. at large?
I have taken some time to read up on this and do some of my own research and think this through a little bit before opining (not my usual practice, but I am working on self-improvement). After pondering this for a while now, I have to say I don’t think this is a good idea from a process, policy or political perspective.
In Newton, the City Council redraws the wards and precincts every ten years, and there is a thorough, public process for doing so. Precincts have to have a certain number of inhabitants which is roughly equal in each precinct. Wards are used to determine eligibility for councilor and school committee. So, one of the considerations is always allowing incumbents to stay in their wards. When a candidate lives in the middle of the ward it is no problem, but if s/he lives near the border or moves it can get contentious. Those who have been around a while recall Alderman Parker buying a house which ended up being in another ward, and casting, I believe, the deciding vote when the City Council redrew the lines to keep him in the same ward. It was ugly. Now, take that situation and multiply it by four. The Charter Commission could add a provision to the Charter to have the Election Commission draw the borders, but that would probably not sit well with the City Council as it breaks with current law and over a century of tradition. Kicking the can down the road almost guarantees a total Charlie Foxtrot (if you don’t know what that means, ask Chris Steele, he can translate).
The Charter Commission itself could draw the districts in the Charter, e.g., by combining wards or precincts or both. But at this late stage of the game, the Charter Commission does not have the time or resources to do a thorough study that, IMHO, would be essential. Should we combine 1 and 2, or 2 and 3, or 1 and 7 for that matter? What is the premise for doing so, geographical, demographic, political, or other similarities or differences? These are all important policy and political questions that, in all candor and respectfully, the Charter Commission has not thought through and may not be the right body to decide, unlike either the Election Commission or the City Council. Up until now, I have thought that the Charter Commission has been very thoughtful, thorough and deliberate (even if I disagree with some of their recommendations, particularly term limits). But I think, with all due respect, the supporters of this change went off half-cocked.
Politically, this change is not going to win over those who want to retain ward councilors. And it makes people like me who were inclined to support the composition of the council question whether the process and product here is half-baked. The fact that the vote here was 5 to 4 gives me pause and should give the supporters pause as well. A change this major with some unknown ramifications should have a consensus and not a simple majority, not as a legal matter, but as a practical and political matter.* To be brutally honest (because that’s how I roll), this looks like a Hail Mary pass with only one receiver and six defenders in the end zone. Not even Aaron Rogers or Doug Flutie could make that work.
Look, I’m just one resident who also happens to be a Councilor. But for what it’s worth, I think this is a bad idea that wasn’t thought through, discussed or deliberated up to the very high standards I have come to expect and rely upon from this Charter Commission. Everybody makes mistakes, but it is not too late to fix this one. For all these reasons, staying with the proposal that has been on the table for the better part of a year–that is, keeping the four non-ward councilors truly at large without designating a district–would be the wisest course of action.
I regret being so harsh, but I sincerely hope the Charter Commission will go back and rethink this one and come up with something that has more support than a razor thin majority. Believe me, I’ve been on both sides of that one. Losing always sucks, but sometimes winning by a whisker only leads to further polarization and divisiveness.
*One need look no farther than the death of the filibuster in the Senate over a SCOTUS nomination this past week as to why that might be a bad idea.
Ted-This model was discussed at length previously. The district model is also used by communities in Massachusetts and in other states, so it’s not something that’s half baked or came out of nowhere. I don’t know what other members of the commission were doing in the days leading up to the March 29 meeting, but I was pouring over all the data, reviewing it through the lens of an accumulation of decisions.
Over the last year, and in the last four to five months, I’ve received an increased number of residents expressing concern about the at-large pool and asking why the commission didn’t go with the district model that provides assurance that the pool won’t come from one part of the city or interest group. In fact, during our panel discussion with councilors from other communities, the councilor from Worcester said in fact that the wealthier parts of the city were over represented in their at-large pool. I don’t know how we can or why we should overlook this concern.
My colleagues on the commission know that I’ve strongly preferred the district model because it provides equal representation throughout the city. I consider equal representation as a value and as a means of building trust that the local government will treat all parts of the city equally.
Of greatest concern to me were the comments from people who live in more affordable parts of the city. They expressed distress that their ward would never receive the extra representation. It may not be accurate, but it was their perception.
As for moving forward, Ouida Young and David Olsen have sent memos to the commission about how to proceed. In addition Bryan Barash has put together information about how other communities set up districts and steps forward and Josh Krintzman has put together scenarios to consider.
After many conversations with residents over the last year, it has become apparent that no one model has consensus. For whatever reason, this has become an issue that some people have very strong opinions about. The commission is divided on it, but rest assured, everyone has given this issue a great deal of thought and continues to do the best we can.
Done on my iPhone. Hope this makes sense.
Jane, I respect that you did your homework. But I still have to say that to change horses in midstream at this late date, without a strong consensus on the commission, without a clear plan on who decides how to draw the district lines and how, and with the inevitable political intrigue that will follow, it is a bad idea.
Potentially, if the Charter passes, in two years you could have 12 incumbent councilors vying for 4 seats if they all seek re-election. They are going to seek every advantage through the drawing of district lines during the two years before the Charter goes into effect. We see it in Congressional races all the time, where state legislatures Gerrymander to help the party that is in the majority and disadvantage the others. The Councilors are all going to pursue their own self-interest in the process whether the City Council or Election Commission draws the lines. This is going to be an incredibly divisive and polarizing issue for the City Council, regardless who draws the lines. You may solve one perceived problem, but I sincerely believe you are inviting a bevy of other ones.
I, too, read Ouida Young’s and David Olson’s memos. I don’t think their comments are inconsistent with what I am saying, and Ms. Young in particular goes to great lengths to say she is not commenting or endorsing the proposed change on the merits. This issue opens a whole can of worms, and the way forward is anything but clear.
If the Charter passes, the City Council is going to need to deal with divvying up the workload of a smaller Council and be forced to figure out whether and how to delegate the special permit granting authority to other bodies, which will be a major undertaking in and of itself. To add drawing district lines to the mix is going to bring everything to a crashing halt. Just two cents from someone who has been doing this for the last fourteen years.
And not for nothing, the “no” side already has 9 sitting councilors on their side with only 2 councilors plus two mayoral candidates on the yes side. The Commission also risks losing my support, which has already required me to let go of my enduring opposition to term limits. Do you really want to make the Charter that much harder to pass? Forget my endorsement. It might just lose my vote.
Bad math alert. I should have said 9 councilors and 1 mayoral candidate on the no side, and 4 councilors and 2 mayoral candidates on the yes side (although I do not yet see Ruthanne Fuller and Scott Lennon listed as supporters on the campaign website).
@Ted: Thanks, Ted. I thought you forgot about me!
@Ted: Do you really like the previously suggested pool of 4 at-large Councilors who could all be elected from the same Ward, possibly giving one particular Ward five Councilors?
Wouldn’t 8 at-large and 8 directly-elected Ward Councilors make more sense?
Just a note that while subject to a possible recount Framingham voted on 4/4 for a model with:
– 9 district (ward) councilors + 2 at large
– 9 school committee members all elected from and by their district (ward)
Originally, the Framingham charter commission had 4 at large councilors but were concerned that then 5 councilors out of 11 could reside in one district, too much of a power concentration. So they reduced 4 to 2.
Note the emphasis on district (ward) voted representatives. Only 2 councilors and the mayor will be elected at large. This ensures that each district will have a strong voice in Framingham governance, connecting strongly the traditions for election for town meeting, state and federal representatives.
These changes are very important, as at present in the dominant at large model for Framingham selectmen and school committee, the 5 selectmen all reside in 2 of 18 precincts and all school committee members reside north of Rt 9, where just 40% of the students live.
At large elections lead to concentrations of power which run counter to the best interests of any city or town.
That is why the ward councilors need to be retained in Newton at the very least.
It would be very simple to go to an 8 + 8 model, by simply eliminating an at large councilor from each ward.
@Amy, how could I forget you?
@Sallee, yes, I do.
@Geoffrey, it is hard to miss you when you just won’t go away.
Ted- The only issue where there’s consensus in the community is in shrinking the size of the council. On that I hear significant agreement – residents want a smaller council. If you vote against the proposal, you vote for a 24 member council for, most likely, the next 50 years. Your choice. But just remember – it took you 16 years to get accessory apartments to pass the current council structure.
Not for nothing that many councilors don’t approve of the proposal? No matter what, the proposal cuts the council in half. Did you really think we’d have the support of sitting councilors? I sure didn’t. Not for a second.
I remember several city councilors being hailed as heroes for compromising and changing their votes on the Austin St. project – at the very last minute. What happened to the idea that more time, more input, more thought might lead to a change of heart? In fact, I’ve had many conversations with residents in the last week who support the change, some of whom I had assumed were yes votes but admitted after the fact that they had planned to vote no.
Okay, Jane. It’s your funeral. I may no longer be on the Council when they have to deal with this, but I still care. This is going to go very badly, and I would rather risk not reducing the size of the council than utter chaos.
@ Ted
I am in Newton every week or so. Still have properties there to look after, and pay taxes in Newton. It is very interesting also to compare the two charter commission operations: Newton and Framingham.
There is much to be learned from the two efforts.
I really appreciate the virtues of voters in any given ward/district electing their own representatives. My firm belief is that at large elections, if dominant, lead to concentrations of power detrimental to good governance. Newton, Framingham and Lowell provide good examples of the at large down side. Framingham has moved to try to fix that problem.
@Jane
Just make the council 16: 8(ward) + 8(at large)
You’ll get a big YES in November!
Geoff: KISS. such a simple plan, will Amy pick up on it? equality, balance, and in the event charter rev goes down, will she pick it up as a theme of performance counciling self home rule petition?
Ted –
If the charter passes, the following two years will be unlike any we’ve seen in recent history, no matter what the composition of the council is. I see no reason why any particular composition of the council would cause more or less disruption. The “chaos” of the at-large pool hasn’t been pointed out to me many times. I’d prefer to think of it as disruption and that goes with the territory when you have a significant change in governmental structure.
Imagine the disruption that Framingham is about to experience as it changes from a town meeting form or government to a mayor/council, yet they took the leap. Remember – you wanted a city manager and rank order voting. The city manager would be a significant change and rank order voting would cause the total chaos you’re referring to. What we’re proposing is peanuts compared to what you wanted.
This will not be my funeral, Ted, and I’m not moved by the threat. If this city chooses to continue with a 24-member city council, then so be it. To present the choice as being between chaos and a romanticized view of how the city will adjust to a particular new structure just doesn’t add up. The minute we opened up the charter, it meant the city would experience a period of disequilibrium.
Sentence # 3 should read, “the chaos of the at-large pool HAS been …”.
@Jane — Thank you for engaging here.
With regard to council size, there are 55 municipalities in the State of Massachusetts that use a Mayor/city-council form of government. The commission has benchmarked the largest 20 of these, but did the commission consider all 55?
As things stand, the following 21 of 55 communities (38%) have larger councils on a per resident basis, largest to smallest: Greenfield, North Adams, Newburyport, Palmer, Easthampton, Amesbury, Gardner, Southbridge, Winthrop, Melrose, Agawam, Gloucester, Holyoke, Bridgewater, West Springfield, Westfield, Northampton, Chelsea, Barnstable, Marlborough, and Watertown.
On the other hand, if the city council is reduced to 12, Newton will rank in the bottom 22% in councilors per resident in the state, only to be outdone by Medford, Fitchburg, Lynn, Lawrence, Brockton, New Bedford, Fall River, Quincy, Cambridge, Springfield, Lowell, Worcester, and Boston.
Is it clear that Newton aspires to be more like the 2nd set of the cities than the first?
After May 3rd the community will be faced with a “smaller council or not” choice but, as Sallie has noted, until then the commission has the opportunity to adjust its proposal to a form that is more conventional and supported. In the regard, could one of the commissioners please comment on which existing city council, among the 55 to choose from in Massachusetts, does each of the proposal on the table most resemble?
Like most posters on this thread, I have been studying the Charter proposal including doing the research required to look for answers to the questions I and others still have about it’s providing resident representation and effectiveness.
I like most of the changes proposed but at this point I’m a no vote. I favor reducing the number of councilors but would rather keep 24 than change to an all at-large council. As has been pointed out some councilors may attempt to hold up the progress of special permits and policy decisions as happens in a democracy but I’m not convinced that eliminating ward representation is the solution to that problem, if indeed it is a problem.
Arguing that a Ward Councilor may not represent her/his entire constituency is a non-starter for me. Unless wards are homogeneous, and thankfully they’re not, this will always be the case. I disagree with my Ward Councilor on the development of multi use buildings and some other things but part of my ward agrees with her stance so she is representing my ward.
I think having one ward Councilor representing and voted for by every ~11,000 residents is more democratic than a centralized council voted on by all 88,000 particularly because of the economic differences between wards as I’ve said before.
I didn’t know much about the process and confusion resulting from redrawing wards every 10 years but after Ted brought it up, I did my due diligence and not surprisingly saw that he is right. Chaos ensued.
I first stood behind having 8 Ward Councilors and 9 at-large but now I eliminating one at-large Councilor from each ward is the way to go, giving every voter 9 councilors to elect.
It would be very useful if the charter commission went to the community on the size/composition issue and ran past the voters which model they would like.
Included in the set should be the model which simply reduces the current council to 16 with 8 ward councilors and 8 at large councilors.
It’s highly likely that the electorate would go for that as their top choice, as it is a really understandable, simple change which would achieve a reduction in council size, while preserving the heart of the current representation model.
It would be a great pity to see overreach in the charter commission’s efforts on composition ruin all of its sound efforts in other areas.
No one wants to have a big fight about this, so it would be great to see a more moderate move to a council of 16.
Time is running short, and many people currently manning the NO campaign would switch to YES if the ward councilors were retained in a council of 16.
Why not go for a sure win?
@Marti – Please take this as a compliment – Your post surprised and amazed me.
In this world where everything is so polarized, it is refreshing to see someone taking a nuanced view of the world. You have been a vocal advocate of the Austin St/Orr Bldg project, and by I would have guessed you were a yes vote (its almost predictable across the board). But you lead the way and showed to look at the situation practically instead through an ideologically tainted lense.
Bravo!
Marti had a 10 strike with her comment.
Having thought deeply on this, understanding the mindsets of the commissioners and critics, speaking ONLY for myself and for my desire to focus on other things this summer and fall, I would request the commission consider and vote on the following city council composition on Wednesday:
13 member city council consisting of:
8 ward-elected councilors
5 NAMED at-large seats without residency requirement (e.g At-large A, At-large B,…At-large E).
Specifically, candidates would need to specify and run head-to-head for a particular At-large seat and against its associated incumbent.
Benefits:
1. Advocates for ward-elected seats are happier
2. Advocates for allow the best candidates to serve are happier (6 seats available to any candidate).
3. Advocates for head to head match ups are happier.
4. Advocates for smaller council are happier.
5. Advocates for a more conventional council are happier.
6. Advocates for avoiding the dysfunction of pick-4/5 slates are happier.
7. Advocated for avoiding chaos of district definitions are happier.
8. Advocates for having a single ward-focused councilor to reach out to as 1st point of contact are happier.
That leaves some fears…
1. Those fearing that current status quo size/composition is correct.
2. Those fearing too much power concentration in one powerful ward.
3. Those fearing too much power with ward councilors
4. Those fearing this will result in much less advertising revenue for their blog.
Status quo will always be on the ballot as “No”. Can we agree fear #2 might be mitigated and balanced by fear #3? Some will say the NIMBY ward-councilors will never let anything pass, but can we really think we are going to elect a council this way that is that non-representative of the residents wishes?
There is some complexity and chess for a candidate choosing a particular at-large seat to declare for, and lack of comparable precedents, but I don’t see another path to meet requirements of all those involved. I don’t believe there are any cities that match the attributes of the current or previous commission proposal (beyond the at-large pool component) and neither should be submitted on May 3rd.
Greg — How about a V14 poll? Head to head – proposal above, current 4 district proposal, or (in deference to Mike S.) none of the above.
P.S. Benefit #9. Advocates for a simple ballot are happier (6 races to vote on rather than current 17 or proposed 12).
My take has always been to shrink the counsel, but to keep the current ratios the same. The ward councilors get put into wards double the size of current, so 4 ward councolors, 8 at large. Sadly, my idea didn’t pass muster. That’s ok.
Look, lots of folks attach value and meaning to their ward councilors. I get that, and I respect that. I happen to think my ward councilor (Emily) is terrific sometimes, and not so terrific other times. Many of us are still very upset about the Cabot school issues where we felt abandoned by Emily. (and for those that don’t believe me on that, just ask parental folks who attended any of the Cabot meetings that cost us six more months at Carr). If I had a question or needed help, at this point I’d probably ask Jake, which is rather shocking to me as I think about it, because he is new and because I was lukewarm on his candidency. But he has been responsive, and when it came to the Cabot School issues, he at least listened. He’s also at-large.
My point is that some of us attach great value to ward councilors, but many of us don’t. That doesn’t make us power hungry types willing to rip away local control. I think most of us just want to try a new model, and this is the one we’ve been presented by the commission.
But reading the above thread and other threads over the past few weeks let’s also be honest about what is happening here for the most dedicated folks on this blog. Is it an accident that the vast majority of folks who were against Austin Street, against Orr Block, and against other development projects are very much FOR ward councilors over all else? Or the opposite, that the pro-development or pro-affordable housing side is for these changes? We’ve just picked the same sides in a new battle.
For me, this was never about those issues. I think govt in Newton is broken in a very real way. The city council is filled with well meaning and dedicated public servants. Who largely can’t get anything done. 16 years to get accessory apartments? 10 years for Austin Street? Yes or no, our council is a morass. That can’t seem to ever get to yes or no.
I’ve always thought that started with the poor pay. It should be better compensated so that ordinary folks who care about the city can afford to dedicate the time to the job it needs. And the other issue was the bloated size. Too many meetings, with too many speeches. What kind of maniac volunteers for lengthy meetings, where little gets done, for little pay? But the issues matter, and get more urgent as time goes on, even if the council seems more focused on plastic bags and naming conventions than zoning rules. That isn’t a dig, even if it sounds like one. I get the passion on both issues. But I find it remarkable that we can’t get anything done on the latter.
Anyway, to Jack and others who keep pushing for more ward councilor power by keeping the ward councilors at 8 while shrinking the at-large representation, aren’t you just as guilty as what you accuse those that like the charter commisssion proposal of doing: namely grabbing power? I don’t particularly want the ward councilors controlling more of my life. If they do, I want to be able to vote them out.
I wonder if the ratio had been kept the same if we’d be getting the same petty banter and sniping as we’ve seen on other threads?
Like Marti, I’ve given this a lot of thought. I still think size and poor pay are the main issues (and the last isn’t a charter commission issue). At large vs. ward has never been my political fight. I also can’t get worked up about it, for the reasons noted above. But what I am certain about is that local government can be done better, and is done better, elsewhere. I’m willing to try a new model, even if I don’t agree with it 100%.
You go away for a day, and look what happens! And I’m off again for a few hours, but do want to reassure people that chaos will not ensue with the district model. The districts will follow ward lines so there is no need for city council to be involved in the process. By state law, the city council sets ward lines.
Interesting comments after just a brief skimming.
Geoffrey – The charter review process is clearly outlined in Mass. State law.
To answer just one question asked in a previous post: how did the commission decide on the benchmark communities? It’s difficult to find comparable communities and that complicates the process. Voters in each municipality choose which form of government they prefer and it doesn’t necessarily relate to population or demographics. Amesbury with a population of 16,000+ is a city, while Framingham with a population of 68,000+ was a town (until this past week when a proposed charter changed it to a city)
Amesbury has a mayor and city council and Framingham has had a representative town meeting form of government. I use these two communities as examples of how difficult it is to find comparable communities. When I think of a “comparable” community, Brookline immediately comes to mind, but it has a representative town meeting form of government, so it doesn’t fit in the mix. The communities you find on the list the commission used are the 20 largest cities, excluding Boston.
As a public school teacher, I’d just like to say that if I actually grabbed power, I wouldn’t know what to do with it.
@Jane
I think your last comment was actually addressed to Jack.
If the Commission makes a smart and thoughtful last minute change to go with 8 Ward elected and one elected at large from each ward (this makes 16 total), I would support passage. I’d even lobby for it.
It would mean an almost sure win for the Commission, it’s an obvious solution, and would take virtually no explaining. It would put head to head matches as the norm, and it would retain localized democratic participation – including a reasonable path for new candidates.
But as it stands right now…. there’s no possible way to logically support eliminating Ward Councilors – our most localized and directly accountable public servants.
Must. Vote. NO.
@Jane — I understand your point. It is hard to identify good comparators, but I think bench-marking only the 20 largest cities skews things a bit. Newton has a resident/councilor ratio of a smaller 40,000 person city, but there are few places in Newton where you feel you are in a “city”. You walk your dog ,or run an errand, and you run into a dozen people you know and the shopkeepers know you. I really like that about Newton’s villages. As pointed out above, the cities that fall just below us in residents/councilor ratio feel more similar than those above with the proposed council size.
My more specific benchmark question is which of Massachusetts’ 55 city councils resemble the current proposals in size, composition, and seat attributes?
@Fig — I am in favor of Orr Block redevelopment — I’m not attached to the building, particularly since Newtonville Camera supports the project. I do find it very difficult to judge the size, scale, local impacts, as well as the implications for the zoning precedent down the Washington St. corridor. As a resident, I don’t want to have to worry about it, but I do want a council with diverse and representative viewpoints that does.
I’m comfortable the current council does that on a range of issues, and that an 8we+8alwr composition or 8we+5alnr would as well. The concern is that a 100% at-large council — homogeneously garnering 50%+1 of city-wide votes — may not. We may as well just elect mayors and let them appoint a council.
Note that the norm in Massachusetts is majority ward-elected and these cities somehow manage to work through their special permit process.
Jack, most of those mayors have far stronger roles. We have a weak mayor system, strong counsel system.
As for your support of the Orr redevelopment, the devil is in the details on that nugget of info. Do you support the proposal by the developer? If so, you’d be the exception to the rule, like Marti. If you support some sort of development but not the large scale one proposed, that isn’t exactly the same thing…
On a side note, I didn’t hear Newtonville Camera supports the project. That’s interesting to know.
@Fig – note in the example you gave about Cabot School, Susan Albright and I were in agreement that we wanted to see if it would be possible to site the gym in a location that would maintain the view of the historic building we had voted to preserve. So it was not a ward vs at-large issue, it was simply a difference of opinion – ie Susan and I had one opinion, you had a different opinion. The difference is that if you or anyone else wanted to unseat one of us as a result of our position on that issue, you’d have a much easier time unseating me rather than Susan, because the rest of the city simply doesn’t care about the siting of the Cabot gym, so non ward 2 residents wouldn’t vote on that basis whereas ward 2 residents would be more likely to. And that is one of the key points I think people should think about when deciding their position on the charter change – do you want to have someone who is structurally incentivized to care more about your viewpoint? It does NOT mean your ward councilor will always have the position you want, because that would literally be impossible, due to varying positions of constituents, but do you want to have someone who HAS to care about the viewpoints of her ward if she wants to be re-elected? Or would you rather have a system where someone can tick off her own ward time and time again but still be re-elected because the city is so big and other ward voters won’t know or care, as long as she isn’t ticking all of them off too.
@Fig — To be clear, I am simply not attached to the Orr building itself or the associated properties. If the land owner wants to redevelop the plot by right within existing zoning and with support of tenants, I am personally OK with that. It would probably look better. It does mean a regrettable loss of naturally affordable housing and office space.
But once we go down the path of rezoning, special permits, variances on top of the rezoning, and give backs to the city, we need a council that will consider, represent, debate, and balance the diverse varied interests and concerns of the city and those impacted directly or indirectly, negotiate hard with developers, and arrive at the best outcome for all involved.
With absolutely no disrespect to the elected charter commission members, we probably could have elected just one of them and had the same process, debate, and outcome with respect to ward-elected councilors that we had with nine, and that would be a concern with an 100% at-large city council.
Jack,
Every community I’ve lived or worked in has had a village concept (Brookline, Somerville, Andover), but they’ve had different forms of government. Brookline has a representative town meeting, Somerville has a mayor/councilor, and Andover has an open town meeting. It’s not as unusual as Newtonites seem to think.
Our government isn’t set up along village lines. It’s set up along ward lines that are adjusted every 10 years after the census is completed.
In my opinion, you shouldn’t need a fancy last name and deep family pockets or a political establishment behind you to win a contested election in this city.
For years, “at-large” voting schemes have been tirelessly studied and debated, and there are generally three commonalities: 1) They are worse at representing minority communities, 2) they increase the costs of campaigning, and 3) they neglect geographical representation.
Put simply, I want us to live in a community that better represents all residents and creates a level playing field where ideas win over money. By taking the extreme step of eliminating all ward representation in Newton, whether their intent or not, the Charter Commission seeks to create a system that is almost guaranteed to do the opposite of what I believe most of us strive for on a moral level.
The premise of leadership is to effectuate change. Let’s move forward, not backwards. For a good illustration of this point, I’d encourage all to read: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/why-whites-control-lowell-city-government.
Just a note on the scale of effort required for at large races.
The last 3 genuine independents (me, Steve Siegel, Margaret Albright) who actually succeeded in election campaigns for the Newton school committee had to run at least twice to build sufficiently large voter networks and all incurred substantial personal debt due to the difficulty of raising money for at large campaigns, if not connected to the big money political networks in the city.
Candidates supported by the entrenched political powers in the city generally succeed on their first run and have easy access to campaign funds.
The effects of established political networks on at large races is hugely detrimental to the good governance of Newton.
Note that the well recognized difficulty of mounting at large campaigns against established political networks also results in almost no independent candidates.
The entire current leadership of the Newton school committee gained their school committee membership with no contest. That is an especially egregious situation.
If the school committee members were ward based and ward elected, the quality of the school committee would significantly improve. But that is for another day. I’ll report on how that switch goes for Framingham!
re: my question above – “Which of Massachusetts’ 55 city councils resemble the current proposals in size, composition, and seat attributes?”
As the commission does not appear to have this information at hand or on their website, and Wednesday night is likely last possible window for a change, I went ahead and compiled data on the 56 Massachusetts municipalities that use a city council form of government (including now Framingham):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qd9kJC4D5IZrH7JGkbaGdr24HJv2JXSQ29XulnjkC8w/edit?usp=sharing
The data shows 84% of Massachusetts city councils have ward-elected representation. Excluding larger municipalities, 87% have ward-elected representation — nearly 9 in 10.
Of the 84% of municipalities that have ward-elected representation, 83% of those have MAJORITY ward-elected representation.
For 13-member councils with ward representation, the average composition is 8 ward elected – 5 at-large. The most common is 9 ward-elected and 4 at-large.
For a commission that began by studying model city charters and benchmarking data, it is odd that absolutely no aspect of the current proposal is matched in a single one of the Massachusetts 55 communities using a city council form of government. None use at-large with ward-residency. None use at-large with ward-residency and at-large with district residency. None are the same size. The only commonality is the small minority (14%) of municipalities that exclude ward-elected councilors.
Jack, thanks for putting spreadsheet together. Very interesting.
Jack – The state of MA defines 6 possible forms of government for cities:
Plan A – “Strong mayor” – Mayor and a city council
Plan B – “Weak mayor” – Mayor and city council, with the mayor having no authority outside the council
Plan C – “Commission” – Mayor and commissioners.
Plan D – “Council-manager”-City council of seven or nine (one of whom is the mayor), and a city manager
Plan E – “Council-manager”- City council of seven or nine (one of whom is the mayor) and a city manager;
Plan F – “Partisan mayor-council” – Mayor and city council, the councilors being elected partly at large and partly from wards of the city, with political party primaries.
Newton has a “Strong Mayor” form of government which differs significantly from the other forms of government that include a mayor or a council. In some cities, the council elects the mayor who serves primarily in a ceremonial role.
As I’ve stated before, it’s very difficult to find comparable communities so it made sense to look at those cities that were comparable in size.
One correction to above, it is nine municipalities (16%) with 100% at-large voting, rather than 14%. One of them is Lowell: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/why-whites-control-lowell-city-government/
The question is which of these communities have a strong mayoral form of government and are of comparable population and this spreadsheet doesn’t include that information. A strong mayor is elected by the citizens and a weak mayor is elected by the council.
From the National League of Cities:
“Most ‘strong’ mayors are in the mayor-council form of government and are directly elected by citizens to that office. Most ‘weak’ mayors are mayors in a council-manager form and are elected from within the city council.
Characteristics of a ‘strong’ mayor:
-The mayor is the chief executive officer, centralizing executive power.
-The mayor directs the administrative structure, appointing and removing of department
heads.
-While the council has legislative power, the mayor has veto power.
-The council does not oversee daily operations.
Characteristics of a ‘weak’ mayor:
-The council is powerful, with both legislative and executive authority.
-The mayor is not truly the chief executive, with limited power or no veto power.
-The council can prevent the mayor from effectively supervising city administration.
-There may be many administrative boards and commissions that operate independently from the city government.”
@Jane
It seems to me if we have a “strong mayor” elected at-large, that’s all the more reason to have Councillors elected by ward.
Also, I understand that there are different types of government from the state standpoint, but from the voter standpoint the question is always “who represents me?” “Who speaks for my interests?” (and who can I hold accountable) – It is easy to feel a disconnect from officials elected at-large and turn to those elected locally. I know that when I lived in Brookline I was more likely to reach out to one of my town-meeting-members than to any of the selectmen.
As a voter I want someone who’s local. I can see a council with 8 from the wards and some number at large (or hell, do it by precinct pair and have 16 from the 1/2 wards and some at large) so I have 2 races on my ballot – the local one and the at-large one with all of the at-large. This gives me local representation, a simple ballot, a smaller council, and positions the at-large councilors to challenge the mayor if needed.
I don’t think that the form of government affects the feelings of the voters; and I think that if we included cities with town-meetings the sheet would show an even more overwhelming use of locally-elected representatives.
@Jane — What @Anne said. The stronger the mayor, the more the more the need for balance from a council elected in a manner other than 100% at-large. I didn’t think to add the mayor-type to the sheet when clicking on those 56 city council pages, but happy to give someone edit rights to add it if it will help you reconsider :-).
Can anyone point me to the comprehensive discussion the charter commission had on the role of ward councilors? I still think they never reviewed this topic properly, but I am not sure I have complete information. I asked for this once before on this thread and got no response.
The discussion must exist in some form in the audio recording and in the documents they reviewed and produced.
I remain hopeful that the charter commissioners will include the retention of ward councilors in their final recommendations which would greatly improve the prospects of a YES on the charter in November and not have the Mayoral race roiled by the position candidates take, if ward councilors are up for execution.
I was merely commenting on Jack’s data. He listed all the cities and some of them have a distinctly different form of government from Newton’s and aren’t comparable in terms of representation. The six forms of government are named and codified in state law.
This is where I see the situation right now: a very vocal group of people favor retaining ward councilors while another very vocal group are advocating for the at-large pool. A smaller but quite vocal group prefers to maintain a 24 member council. There’s a group that doesn’t believe that the at-large pool will provide equal representation. Then there’s the pretty large group in the middle who don’t understand what the level of upset is all about but want a much smaller council. Who knows where they’ll land in November.
I go to as many well-attended events in the city, in part to support candidates and in part to hear from people who don’t belong to either of the first two groups (there were 4 events just last week). In addition, I make an effort to speak with people who have different opinions from mine to find where the common ground might be. I’ve been doing this for a year now – last summer, Jeffrey Pontiff and I skyped for an hour and a half while he was in England and I was in Maine!
All this is going on while the substantive changes that will move Newton forward and take steps to maintaining a secure financial future for the city are in Article 5 (Financial Procedures) and Article 7 (Planning).
@Jane: Are you saying or suggesting that wealth and race disparities only exist depending on the mayoral form of government? For a variety of reasons, how you answer this question is very important, so please both give it good thought and provide your supporting evidence.
@Geoffrey: I too can’t find the information that you’re looking for. Bryan Barash was recently at Jake Auchincloss’ office hours, where he was advocating passage of the proposal, and even in person I couldn’t get a clear and concise answer on this topic. Someone has to be able to provide clear and convincing evidence given how comprehensive the Charter Commission process has generally been.
@Tom Davis
Exactly.
I have looked through all of the charter commission online documents and have found nothing of substance on ward councilors. Nothing!
I had though that maybe some discussion was buried in the audio tapes, but somehow was never summarized and translated to document form, but the fact that Jane Frantz has not directed us to specific tapes where the discussion was had, reinforces the impression that there was in fact no thorough review of the ward councilor role in Newton government, with data on ward elected officials from across the state.
Further, there appears to have been no review of the possibility of switching school committee members to ward based elections. That switch is worth considering and is what just happened in Framingham.
In Framingham, all of the school committee members live north of Rt 9 while only 40% of the students live there. Huge inequity in representation. In Newton, it is not so obvious but a ward based and ward elected approach should have at least been considered.
The lack of consideration of ward based and ward elected officials in the charter commission’s review of Newton governance, leads to the inevitable conclusion, that the charter commission had a built in bias from the start, to eliminate all ward voted representation. It is a certainty that the charter commission itself, if elected by ward votes, would have had a dramatically different membership and outcome.
The charter commission, as it stands today, plans to visit the worst effects of at large elections on Newton.
We may well join the ranks of Lowell and Ferguson where the pernicious effects of at large elections have been well demonstrated!
@Geoff-
I am also questioning whether a substantive discussion of the role of Ward Councilors was ever conducted.
It certainly was never conducted in any community meetings or forums, which is precisely the type of venue where it would have made the most sense to discuss it and get a sense of the importance. In the Ward.
It certainly does make it easier to consolidate power when you don’t actually ask the people you’re taking the power FROM how they feel about it.
Council size is not as important as retaining influence over your own village. Your Ward rep is your #1 most accessible elected official. Vote NOT to get rid of them. Vote NO on this ill-conceived proposal.
I’m sorry, Tom, but that was a leap too far for me. I’m not sure where you came up with that conclusion from my statement. I was merely outlining the various forms of government that state law outlines and that it’s difficult to use data from communities that are very different in the form of government or population size.
@Jane: I see. So do you agree with me that “at-large” voting schemes increase wealth and race disparities in local government?
On that note, what type of analysis has the Charter Commission conducted in regard to how its proposal would affect representation in Newton? I could be missing this point of information, but I ask as I’m yet to see or hear any such discussion.
Relevant to this general topic, here’s another pretty good read: http://richmondconfidential.org/2014/11/07/has-at-large-voting-outlived-its-usefulness-in-richmond.
Tom- No I do not. I think at-large voting ensures that all voters can hold every elected officials accountable for his/her votes and actions. In a recent mailing, a ward councilor said she was “beholden” only to the ward (12.5% of the voters), yet she takes votes that affect 100% of the city. In my book, she cannot be held accountable for votes that affect 87.5% of the residents under the current council composition.
The district model will provide equal representation on the city council throughout the city.
@Jane.
Yes. It follows then that all town meeting members across MA should be elected at large, changing the entire model for local representation in town meeting! What completely off base thinking.
And, I just can’t wait for state representation to go at large so that all MA voters can decide whether Newton should be represented by Ruth Balser, Kay Khan and Cindy Creem. After all they, at present, are “beholden” to Newton voters and, really, we need to have voters from all over MA to vote on their fitness for office to make sure they are really accountable.
If ward voters are not smart enough to elect ward councilors who will both speak for their ward and further the larger interests of Newton, then Newton voters are not smart enough to elect state reps who can speak for Newton interests and further the larger interest of the state.
I think that the charter commission is advancing an opinion on both Newton voters and ward councilors, when it pronounces about the dangers of locally voted reps.
It’s such a clear demonstration of the fact that the charter commission from the get go decided to ax ward councilors and is now grasping at straws when the curtain has been pulled back and their prejudice revealed.
And, speaking of that ward councilor, which must be Emily Norton, please note that she does not confine the content or view of her newsletter to just Ward 2 matters. She is a good example of a ward councilor who is accountable to her ward voters but totally gets the larger Newton picture and conveys it in that very newsletter and acts on it, as she represents her community well on both ward and citywide matters.
And further, being a key member of the Sierra Club team, she has a state view, a national view and global view. Not some parochial tunnel vision rep that the charter commission warns us we should be terrified of.
This idea that ward councilors are dangerously parochial and adverse to the broader interest of Newton is a wild, baseless claim.
Just look at the ward councilors Newton has benefited from across the years and how well they have served us.
@Jane: I understand your personal opinion – that is abundantly clear. However, as someone who was elected to serve the residents of Newton on the Charter Commission, you have a responsibility to ground your assertions in fact. As such, please cite to me specific examples, from the past few years and of a city of similar size as Newton, where a city enacted an “at-large” voting scheme which increased minority and/or lower-income representation within their local government.
Furthermore, I’d ask you again to answer my previous question: what type of analysis has the Charter Commission conducted in regard to how its proposal would affect minority and/or lower-income representation in Newton? I genuinely hope that the answer is not “we didn’t do any.” If this was not something that was considered by the Charter Commission, for record purposes, that would be pertinent information.
How come the charter commission meetings are not being live streamed in this crucial last month? Also, never any video of the meetings? Parlous! Audio is so tedious.
All of the charter commission meetings should have been video taped. It is done elsewhere. Why not in Newton? Why has the charter commission been uninterested in broad dissemination of its operations?
@Jack – Thank you for taking the time to compile the info. It’s stunning that the Commission went so far out of the norm.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qd9kJC4D5IZrH7JGkbaGdr24HJv2JXSQ29XulnjkC8w/edit?usp=sharing
@Tom
You are right on the money.
It is patently clear that the charter commission omitted crucial considerations from its process, so its work product is fundamentally flawed.
It is vital that the commission acknowledge that they omitted serious consideration of ward councilor issues in their deliberations and take immediate remedial action.
The remarkable fact is that by looking through the charter commission process, you can prove that the charter commission left this critical area out and that if this is not remedied, the NO campaign will surely broadcast this critical error across all of Newton.
“Charter Commission ditches ward councilors on day one”
“What were they thinking?”
I wonder what is going on at their meeting right now?
Is anyone tweeting or live streaming on YouTube?
The commission just voted 5-4 to revert to original proposal (Chris Steele changes original vote)
Great to know that the charter commission has such divided/wavering support for one for one of its pivotal recommendations.
It seems reasonable that any recommendation which does not have a strong consensus within the charter commission membership, should be eliminated from the final recommendations.
Did the commission mention, address or opine on the ward councilor issue?
Did they recognize the fact that they have not addressed the ward councilor issue in a sound and thorough manner?
Time runs short.
As far as I’m concerned, the decision is final.
Geoff – I understand that a lot is going on in your new community of Framingham. Have you become involved in the process of changing from a town meeting form of government to a mayor/council? It must be fascinating.
It’s really time for people on Village 14 to question other members of the commission. These issues are someone else to defend.
OH FOR HEAVEN’S SAKE GEOFF EPSTEIN!
Will you give it a rest already with the non-stop blathering about how the commission didn’t think about the value of ward councilors? Disagree with the decision all you want but these nine people are NOT idiots. And they haven’t been deliberating from under a rock!
Of course they considered the value of ward councilors. Heck it’s been the number one topic of debate here and in political circles across the city for many, many, many months now. The commission made a decision that you — and many others disagree with. Maybe this charter will not pass because of that decision. But it won’t be because, golly gee wiz, no one explained to them the value of ward councilors.
GEOFF YOU DON’T LIVE IN NEWTON. YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT NEWTON HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THEREFORE YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Seriously, stop it already. It’s bloody obnoxious.
@Jane, You don’t have to be the sole person explaining the Charter Commission’s decisions. We’d welcome other members participation here.
@Jane — Thanks for engaging and for your service. It is unfortunate that the debate on the charter now needs to go “Yes vs. No” rather than how to improve it. My final comments to the commission tonight are below:
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/updates/will-newton-join-the-2 percent
Wow Greg’s getting crabby again, could it be because Geoff hit a nerve? Maybe because he is absolutely right that the Charter Commission spent zero time actually deliberating over the idea of eliminating ward councilors? Which would explain why no one has been able to find any evidence of deliberation in the minutes.
Greg while you’re in such a bad mood, this would be an opportune time to remind everyone that I’m not listed as chair on http://www.newtondemocracy.org. Or should I say why yes, I am, but I hid it, so you have to look through EVERY PAGE to find my name! And forward the site to your friends so they can look for my name too!
Gail – Thank you. It’s for others to explain and I hope they will.
@Tom – thank you for sharing that article. For those who didn’t read it, you should. Especially any members of the Charter Commission who consider themselves progressive. At-large elections came about in that city as a way to quash the power of newly arrived immigrants.
And Jane you should read it too, before you say things like “I think at-large voting ensures that all voters can hold every elected officials accountable for his/her votes and actions.” From the article,
Emily-Why would I think that one quote from a mayor in California should influence my thinking? In fact, it was an action on your part that led me to believe that all city councilors should be held accountable to the entire city for their votes. Though you live in Ward 2, you took it upon yourself to try to upend the Zervas School building project. Because I live in Ward 5, I was not an am not able to hold you accountable for that vote.
As you have said, you are “beholden” only to your ward, despite the fact you vote on issues related to other areas of the city. That’s not how any councilor should approach the job.
Perhaps you’re unaware, but I’ve worked with immigrant students and their families for years. It’s my life work and I understand the needs of the immigrant community quite well, though I’m always learning. However, it’s most definitely not an issue to collect political chits.
As I mentioned, it’s now time for other members of the charter commission to defend their vote. I’ll be bowing our for a while.
I can certainly empathize with Jane feeling overwhelmed by the weighty task of defending and explaining every aspect of the commission’s recommendations.
But it’s worth noting that our commissioners have been limited by how many commission members can comment here because of the way they’ve been advised to follow our Open Meeting Laws. As a result, I don’t believe we’ve ever had more than three commissioners comment on any one thread.
Now I’ve always questioned why the OML should apply to a public forum like this blog, but I respect our commissioners’ collective decision to play it safe.
But once the commissions work is completed at the end of the month, I would assume all nine commissioners will be free to engage. Yes?
Someone please correct me if I have that wrong.
But not commenting does not mean they’re not deliberating and reading the comments here. And rumor has it Jerry has the webcam footage to prove it!
@Jane
It has been very interesting following the two charter commissions in Newton and Framingham, as they have followed quite different approaches and come to starkly different conclusions and yes, I did argue as hard as I could for YES on Facebook and in the local newspaper:
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/20170328/letter-vote-yes-on-new-charter-for-local-democracy-to-work
The big difference was that the Framingham charter commission thoroughly reviewed and deliberated on the importance of voters in each precinct of the town having a voice in electing their representatives.
First, they recommended merging the 18 precincts in the town into 9 districts and then, after much deliberation on best practices across Massachusetts, recommended that each of those districts elect their own representatives to both the council and the school committee.
In their initial deliberations, the only at large elected representatives were to be a further 4 members on the council and the Mayor. But, then concern grew about the concentration of power which might be caused by 5 members of a 13 member council living in the same district. So they cut the at large council members from 4 to 2 and we will have an 11 member council with just 2 at large.
So the Framingham process stands in stark contrast to the Newton process, where the value of ward elected representatives was not considered, as can be clearly shown from the meeting proceedings, the documents produced and the inability of the charter commissioners to point to any substantive deliberations on this issue.
In fact, the Framingham charter commissioners were quite puzzled at the Newton process, as they had thought that Newton placed a high value on its neighborhoods.
I think that prior to this, in the last 20 years there were 2-3 attempts to change the Framingham charter, all of which failed, so changing the charter is not so simple. Even with an outstanding charter commission and a failing town meeting democracy, the YES vote just prevailed in Framingham.
Given this perspective and the very problematic recommendations of the Newton charter commission eliminating ward councilors, moving all elections to at large and opening Newton up to further concentrations of power with 5 out of 12 councilors able to live next door to each other, the chances of a YES in Newton are quite dim.
It’s a pity that all of that Newton effort will come to nothing, when they could save the day by simply retaining the ward councilors.
Of course, switching the school committee races from at large to ward based is way to advanced a notion for the Newton power elites to allow.
@Gail – Earlier when the CC had voted to form districts you said – “This is a game changer for me.”
If Jack’s reporting is accurate, and the CC reverted back to At-Large election, does it change the game back for you?
@Neil P: It does. I’m voting no. The foolishness of this decision by five Charter Commission members is staggering.
Folks, I started a new thread here.
Although I disagree with both Jane and Emily on many issues, they deserve recognition for communicating with voters and being generous with their time. It is a shame that other elected officials in Newton do not follow their lead.
The district idea was an improvement. Although I do not want to eliminate ward-elected councilors, I like term limits and a smaller council. My intention was to vote on the last proposal. My attraction to the district idea was not based on the notion of diversity or representation. Rather, having elections where voters choose between two people is important. The mind works by comparison. Elections are a way for new ideas to be disseminated. The provide a way for candidates to say “This is what I believe in,” and for voters to hold them accountable in future elections. Pools do a horrible job producing information and holding individuals accountable. If my understanding is correct, and we are back to the high-school-student-council-style pool election, I don’t think I will vote on the Charter.
It is ironic that the current leadership of the council got their first experience as ward councilors. Scott was a ward councilor for the longest time and Cheryl still is. Further, the last president, Lisle, was and still is a ward councilor.
So ward councilors have been the dominant source of leadership for the council in recent years.
Ward councilors provide an easier entry point, than at large, for first time candidates, and so, retaining ward councilors actually would keep open an important channel for the community members to join the governmental fray. Fresh ideas matter. New blood matters.
We should note choke off that channel lightly and certainly not without unanimity or close to it on the charter commission. And some actual data and deliberation on the matter!
The model of 8 at large and 8 ward councilors, still has the greatest appeal for removing the major flaw in the charter commission recommendations.
However, it would take a great deal of courage for the charter commissioners to recognize that this change should be made for the better governance of Newton.
If they did do this, they would be remembered for a long time, as a quite remarkable charter commission.
It is not an open meeting law violation for charter commission members to come onto this blog and explain the thinking behind their decisions or advocate for their recommendations. That would not amount to deliberation.
The following would guarantee no OML problem:
Each of the charter commissioners could simply write a blog entry on the elimination of the ward councilors and then disappear off the blog. That would mean no interaction at all with other charter commission members.
Or, they could do what Jane did (which is much appreciated) and come on one at a time. They could each come on and comment for half a day and then go off, to be followed by the next one. No discussion. No deliberation. Just connecting one at a time with the public.
Again, I don’t expect this idea to fly as the commissioners fear debate on ward councilors.
Digital interaction with the public is also problem for them.
This is another difference between the Newton and Framingham charter commissions.
Whenever I emailed the Framingham charter commission with questions, several of them got back to me within an hour and I got great feedback and information. They were very engaged and very informative.
I sent a number of emails to the Newton charter commission and never got an answer back.
Did anyone here ever email the Newton charter commission and get a reply or have an email conversation with a commissioner?
@Councilor Norton: I don’t think transparency is funny, shame on you for thinking that it is when it applies to you but not apparently when it applies to others.
Geoff, I have emailed Jane questions, and she quickly and thoughtfully responded. She has been helpful.
@Greg: You’re correct, we’ve been very careful to follow the OML, but our understanding is that once the Commission submits our final report, there will be nothing left to deliberate. I think we will be able to participate more fully at that point.
I hope we all can continue to respect the commissioners, their service, and the perspectives they brought to the table. I tried to convey that personally to as many of the commissioners as I could last night. As I mentioned last night, this is a policy disagreement.
With regard to ward councilor deliberation, I think the minutes of the 3/29/17 meeting capture the most substantive statements around the basis for some of the commissioner’s opinions:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/82152
There are strong counter-arguments to be made against the vote count issues cited, but I think its fair to say that won’t change the charter submitted on 5/3, so they can wait. These are things a commission with more diverse biases would have debated in early 2016 and resolved to a better outcome.
A big thank you to Karen Manning for transcribing these extended meetings in such detail and saving the city the expense of farming it out. A heroic effort.
@Greg #StopTheSnark
@Greg
When I served on the SC there were no OML violations and I was very vigilant on this issue as the SC had a rather suspect past on OML.
Also, I once was in an executive session which was heading for an OML violation. David Cohen agreed with me and the meeting was terminated.
So no OML violations on my watch!
I was a very careful student of this.
However, you might look into the recent palace coup in the SC where it is hard to imagine that Setti and the 4 who sided with him to oust Matt Hills, could have orchestrated that without having met and discussed the move out of the public view.
In my view, it’s almost certain that an OML violation happened there, which is a real problem. The current SC leadership were a party to that.
Yes, Greg please #PleaseStopTheSnark. I reread the thread you linked and noticed these comments you made about the subject of the post.
“It’s important to know what’s broken before instituting a fix.
As others have said, prove to me that this is a real problem or potential problem and I’ll enthusiastically support it.
I’m wondering if you can answer my original question/request which is to provide specific examples of the problem you are looking to solve?”
During the Charter Commission’s deliberations many commenters have asked those same questions about the elimination of Ward Councilors as well as asking the commissioners to divulge their discussions on whether or not to keep ward representation.
So … it seems that one point that needs clarification is what constitutes Ward representation. I have often encountered the answer that Ward representation is being preserved by having residency requirements.
For me, one’s residency does not guarantee Ward representation, but election by the Ward would. So, that means Ward Councilors elected by the voters also in that Ward, preserve Ward representation, but an at-Large councilor who simply lives in a particular Ward … may or may not represent said Ward.
So, residency requirements for at-Large Councilors does NOT constitute Ward representation to me and that is why I do not support the current proposal. That is why I *do* support NO residency requirement for “at-Large” councilors. The constituency is who votes for the person, not who lives near the person.
One thing I greatly appreciate is Jane’s engagement on this blog.
At least, we know what her views are and so have garnered at least one view on the ward councilor issue. I don’t agree with it, but it is honestly laid out and can be assessed and tested for validity.
We need more of this and I hope that the other charter commissioners respect the community enough to lay out their views here as well.
Thanks Jane. Much appreciated!