Newton’s Charter Commission completed its work on the proposed new charter for the City of Newton. This proposal will go before voters in November.
Read and comment below. (But actually do take the time to read it.)
Here’s the final version of Newton’s proposed new charter
by Greg Reibman | Apr 28, 2017 | Charter Commission | 170 comments
Interesting. This post has been live since this morning. But not one comment yet.
I guess we can assume that everyone is happy!
Great job and (apparently) well-done charter commissioners!
With the charter behind us, is it the time of year to start our annual thread about rogue swimmers at Crystal Lake yet?
@Greg: Funny man. Were you feeling lonely? It’s OK, I’ll chime in to make you feel better 🙂
No, very few are happy with it. I’m pretty sure you know that.
In fact, the majority of people I spoke with attending this morning’s mayoral forum are against it.
Loss of ward councillors remains a non-starter with this voter.
Charlie, I think the vote will be closer than you think. No idea if it will pass. It makes a lot of good changes. If the ward councillor elimination is a non-starter for some folks, I get that, but there are lots of folks who don’t care a hoot about who their ward councillor is, but care about the other changes.
It will be interesting to see how the mayor candidates come out. Amy is a no I’m told. Not sure about the others. But if it was so unpopular Charlie, wouldn’t all 3 of the major candidates be a no?
Lots of issues out there for folks to focus on. Sometimes the most vocal group is not the largest group either when it comes to the vote.
Happily, in a few months we won’t have to guess!
@Fig: Both Scott and Ruthanne have publicly come out in favor of the charter recommendation.
I repeat my question and comment from the beginning of the process: ” What’s wrong with the Charter now?” Newton is one of the best places to live in the country. The form of government surely had something to do with it. Why make drastic changes in it that would undermine the very positive qualities of the community.
“If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”
I am sort of curious about the changes that apologists for the Commission refer to. The only thing that seemed useful as a Fail-Save for the Future was recall. And that was removed in a futile attempt to perfect language. The only thing necessary there was a very high standard of number of voter signatures.
I have a lot of respect for the Commissioners who I knew from their prior distinguished careers and I respect all the Commissioners for their hard work on this. But I must regretfully that the Charter they’ve brought forth would damage the city and I strongly urge voters to reject it.
Brian Yates
@Brian Yates – ” What’s wrong with the Charter now?”
The voting public has clearly expressed their desire (twice) to reduce the size of the council. Enacting that expressed desire is just basic democracy.
As for – Newton was voted best place to live by some magazine, therefore status quo is always the way to go, that’s a formula for never changing anything.
I think there is very little public disagreement about reducing the size of the board, the disagreement is over how it’s done, not if its done.
Brian –
As you know, state law supplants the city charter and over 45 years, changes in state statutes have replaced a number of sections of the city charter, making it a dated document. The school committee article is one example. It was written before the Ed Reform Act of 1993 which changed the role of the committee substantially; therefore the current charter contains inaccurate information that is no longer applicable to any Mass. public school. This is confusing at best.
Is it possible for a resident to dig through the 200 pages Ed Reform Act to find the updated information? Sure. But unfortunately, it’s the most unreadable document I’ve ever come across. Truly dreadful. So the proposed article includes the essential responsibilities of school committee members in 6 bullet points from the Ed Reform Act. Every resident can easily access that information locally. I use this as just one example of how an updated charter can be helpful to residents.
The current charter also includes a stipulation that no more than 2% of the operating school budget can be used for maintenance and repairs. That became impossible to adhere to, so everyone just ignored it – pretended it wasn’t there. Is it a good idea to have a city charter with sections that people can just ignore?
In addition, I suggest that residents compare the Financial Procedures Article (#5) in the current charter and the proposed charter. The proposal codifies best financial practices, including an independent audit. The annual budget forecast must include a 5-year forecast, as well as a budget proposal for the “ensuing” year. The current charter just includes annual budgets only with no requirement for long term planning.
This same article outlines specifically what’s included in the capital improvement program as well as levels of accountability for it that aren’t found in the current charter. As we all know, maintaining infrastructure isn’t Newton’s strong suit. Unless you work in a Newton public building, you may not have a sense of how much is broken, but much of our infrastructure is in serious need of attention. We’re making progress, but that progress needs to continue. The proposal ensures that the city attends to infrastructure needs on an ongoing basis – deferred maintenance would be and should be a thing of the past.
This may seem like geeky stuff, but changes such as these can keep Newton on sound financial footing no matter who is in the corner office. They are no small matter.
Perhaps most importantly, the proposal includes a 10-year charter review committee to ensure that it continues to stay current with state law. It would also allow the city to make changes to the charter without going through a 5-year signature collection. If something isn’t working, or updating is needed due to changing times or for whatever reason, the proposal includes a means for that to occur.
Newton’s a great city – a real gem. I want to see it remain so.
Dear Jane,
I do work in City Hall many nights and some days. I frequent current city buildings like the Waban Library Center and the Auburndale Community Library that were about to be abandoned by the city until the Board of Aldermen (now City Council)_pushed back by passing my budget amendment requiring that the libraries’ collection remain in place, giving these village assets and buildings to rally around. This is only a small measure of what the Council/Board has contributed to the city and that the Commission appears to be ready to dump for vague reasons like” effectiveness” and” efficiency.” that have not been documented to any significant degree.
I would respectfully suggest that the infra structures problems that you cite are a product of state fiscal policies and the short-sighted practices of the two branches of government you have left virtually untouched in a futile pursuit of governmental practices that have not produced better communities than Newton.
No, Newton is not perfect, but a lot of current problems can be traced to the obliteration of grassroots institutions like elementary schools and branch libraries forcing citizens to fill the gaps left by their now neglectful governments. The updating that you cited could have been done by one or more home rule petitions that the sponsors of the referendum questions in state and national elections were unable or unwilling to offer. They preferred a full blown assault on the governmental structures that had stood Newton in good stead for more than a century. If the Charter is approved to my profound dismay, the best thing about it will be the chance to undo it in ten years. Of course, it’s better not to make the big mistakes in the first place, than to hope to resurrect the best qualities of the city from the institutional wreckage that the Charter will leave, despite the best hopes of its advocates.
Yours ruefully,
Brian Yates
Councilor Brian Yates,
Thank you for your contributions and I fully agree with your comments. Democracy is not efficient. For democracy to be effective and just, the process require lots of communication with local representation.
If we wish to have maximum efficiency, we only need to elect a dictator; one opinion to resolve all issues. I don’t believe our city charter is broken, and these proposed changes only appear to take us into a less local representative process with less representation.
I can only hope that all concerned will continue to be active in our city needs and changes.
Respectfully, J.Pacheco
If the charter conflicts with state law, those portions don’t apply any more, and an amendment process, or a revision to fix them, would make sense. As to the size of the council, we keep hearing it’s too big, but I’m not sure why. In any case, the proposed revision, turning all seats into “first across the post” at-large seats, some with residency requirements, does not enhance democracy or diversity of opinion at all. It does away with some existing diversity, that of ward councilors.
Overall it appears that the main objective of the new charter is to make it easier for developers to get big projects approved over neighborhood objections. That’s “efficient”.
If the charter commission wanted to have a smaller council and have true diversity of opinion (which is not “efficient”, as it creates more debate on contentious issues), it could have adopted the Cambridge model, city-wide ranked choice. That lets minority interests have a say while not limiting anyone by where they live. It also meets Jane’s theoretical objection (to having local constituencies).
Again I am disappointed that the Charter Commissioners saw fit to eliminate ward-elected councilors. I disagree with the reasoning that because a ward-elected counselor, in your opinion, held up a decision on a special permit, school or policy before the City Council then the fix is to elect all councilors city wide. Slowing down the process means diverse opinions are heard on the subjects.
Democracy is messy and is only effective if all parts of the city are represented. A true representative of the economically, environmentally and societal diversity of the wards is elected by that ward. The entire city doesn’t have to agree on who makes the best rep for the other wards. They bring the viewpoints of the ward to the table when the council is in deliberations for what is best for the city as a whole.
I am fine with not voting on the reps for other wards because I don’t know who would best represent them and I don’t need to have such a tight control of the process. Democracy works. Reducing the number of city councilors will help move the process through with fewer voices.
Listening to the voters and their representative may hold up the process but when has the City Council been swayed by a ward-elected councilor alone to the extent that the majority opinion did not pass?
President Trump lambasted the rules of the legislature for holding up his policy changes calling them “archaic” and “bad for the country,” calling democracy “a rough system.” He critiqued the constitution for allowing his power to be thwarted by the justice system.
The rebuttal to his assertions is that democracy is a process thank goodness – as it is here in Newton. That process is in danger of turning into being efficient rather than effective.
In fact, I was assigned the responsib did look into rank order voting and found that it was not well received in many communities and had a lot of problems associated with it (difficulty counting votes). In fact, I had two people sending me information for an against the concept. They were both adamant in their viewpoints.
This next part is particularly embarrassing because I’m 100% Irish. One man was named Terry Reilly and in my effort to respond to local input, I engaged in a lengthy email exchange thinking he was the owner of a local pub. He inundated me with studies so I finally offered to have coffee with him, to which he replied that he lived in Oregon. As it turns out, Jane O’Connor Frantz had missed that he didn’t have an O’ before Reilly. Do you know how many times this happened to me in my life? I took my husband’s name to get away from this problem – only to discover that most people spell Frantz as Franz. Whatever. Just a little distraction.
The studies I read contradicted one another, appeared to be agenda-driven, and the model didn’t appear to be a good fit for Newton. So that’s the answer to the question.
Quite simply and totally: What Marti said. Every single word.
“Perhaps most importantly, the proposal includes a 10-year charter review committee to ensure that it continues to stay current with state law. It would also allow the city to make changes to the charter without going through a 5-year signature collection. If something isn’t working, or updating is needed due to changing times or for whatever reason, the proposal includes a means for that to occur.” –
Interesting. I don’t think that is what was said at the League of Women’s Voter meeting on Sunday. I could have sworn someone said that smaller changes could be made with a 10 year review – similar to the types of changes the City Council could petition for home rule petition – but big ticket items like the structure of government – in this case, elimination of Ward only elected councilors- would need to go through the whole election process again.
Could someone confirm?
Sorry that I have been silent on this, but I have been so depressed about national politics that I haven’t been responsibly outspoken on the charter commission’s failure. I would agree with “downsizing the board” but would do it by eliminating an at-large councillor in each ward, not the ward councillor. I am not at all impressed with the serious lack of exploration or examination by this charter commission. Their role could have included recommending a city manager vs. an elected mayor. Or, having representation reflect increased population in wards, much as the House of Representatives shifts based on population. Or even looking at re-examining ward boundaries based on population growth. No such thinking, due-diligence or public discussion. Instead, they attacked probably our purest form of local governmental representation. Ward councillors earn their stripes locally with real involvement and expertise on local issues. When I think of how my ward councillor, John Rice, showed up after a tree had fallen on my house, cajoling the power company to look after my neighbors who were without electricity, I genuinely get “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”/Capraeseque feelings about the role of ward councillor. They are the ombudsman of their wards and the first call their constituents make because after all, they’re representing the ward, not the city at large. They can actually get elected based on their merit and local involvement, not the money they raise. With campaigns becoming more expensive and easy money increasingly coming from uber-rich real estate developers and people who are looking at a short sighted profit motives vs. long term impact– the ward councillor system protects the interests of common citizens and homeowners and those whose lack of wealth and influence shouldn’t mean that they are not represented. We need more local people representing local interests to be able to step up without having to go into personal debt to win an election. We are already overly represented by the elite, out of touch leisure class of Newton. We need to create a system that takes the money out of our local politics so that elected officials represent the greater good and maintaining a diverse, education- and opportunity-focussed community, not the short-term profit motives of their donors.
First Marti’s great insightful comments and now again: What KarenN said, every single word. Most especially the fact that only those with deep pockets will run and thus will most likely win, NOT necessarily the best qualified for the job.
Letter in the Newton Tab today:
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/letter-to-editor-former-alderman-makes-case-for-ward-elected-councilors
Hi Karen, welcome to the discussion. The commission did seriously debate the issues you mentioned. We decided not to recommend a manager form of government at the same time as recommending a major change to the city council.
The other point you make about ward lines is actually incorrect. Ward lines are redrawn by law by the city council at every census. There is, in fact, a shift based on population: The wards are equal in size every ten years.
I attended the Newton Conservators annual meeting last nite, interesting how many are closet ‘no’.
So, the Charter Commission is now resorting to a distortion of the facts in order to try and sell it’s ill-conceived proposal.
In an email sent out by Commission member Kidwell the phrase “…retaining ward representation…” is used in an apparent attempt to make people feel more comfortable with voting yes. The word “retaining” is a direct implication that what now exists will still exist. .
This is a blatant and reprehensible misrepresentation of the facts. True Ward representation is NOT being maintained.
It is being eliminated. To say or imply anything else is a flat out distortion.
One can only hope that the TAB or any public media source calls them on such language.
I strongly encourage every voter to read both the yes and the no arguments. Discover the facts. And to the “yes” folks, I would only ask that for the integrity of the process, you tell the truth.
Vote NO. A smaller Council is not worth losing your local representation.
.
Agree with Charlie and Karen!
@Charlie: Ward councilors voted on at large are ward representatives. You don’t like the method of election, and that’s fine. But you don’t get the sole right to decide what our residents consider representation.
If one thing has been clear to me from all the conversations I’ve had, it’s that people feel very differently about how they want their ward to be represented.
The Charter Commission is being disingenuous at best, misleading at worst.
In Newton the term “ward alderman” and now “ward councilor” has been understood to refer to councilors elected ONLY from within the ward.
The fact that they are trying to elide these meanings speaks volumes.
The Women of the Golden Circle (WGC) are banking on voter ignorance which is insulting beyond being dishonest. Sales technique has become one of desperation, formulating in a ‘what if’ proposition linking major platform position for the new chief executive.
From Newton’s current charter: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70720
It not only a matter of understanding but of definition.
…councilors at large, shall be nominated and elected by the voters at large
… ward councilors, shall be nominated and elected by and from the voters of each ward,
Bryan — would it be reasonable to ask for Yes group to not misuse this terminology in their materials?
@Bryan- It’s not about you or me. It’s about everyone.
“…retaining ward representation…” would be interpreted by almost anyone in Newton to mean that a ‘yes’ vote would mean keeping (“retaining”) the ward representation we currently have. The word “retaining”, I believe, is intentionally misleading.
It also sounds like a phrase that was tested during the “yes” side’s call out research. It apparently tested well.
If you feel your argument for gutting the Ward Councilors is strong, then be truthful. Deception is not welcome here.
That’s right, Bryan — no one gets the sole right to decide what our residents consider representation. But in my view, representation in a legislative body depends on voting. Ward representatives are elected by their wards, and City representatives are elected by the city at-large.
In the proposed revision to the Charter, mere residency in a Ward is offered as representation of that Ward, but there’s no local accountability in that proposal.
I would not want a Republican majority across the U.S. voting Rep. Joe Kennedy III and Sen. Elizabeth Warren out of office. I think the same principle applies at all levels of representative government.
Disingenuous, misleading, a distortion, misrepresentation?
Under the proposal, every ward will have a representative. That is ward representation.
Today, 2/3 of city councilors represent a ward and are elected citywide. The proposal retains that feature.
The proposed charter retains ward representation. Saying the proposal eliminates ward representation is a great Vote No rallying cry but is not true.
Under the proposal, every ward will have a representative who is familiar with the people, the neighborhoods, the local city resources such as parks / fire stations, local traffic and pedestrian issues, local businesses and business owners. That councilor can ensure that local issues get addressed.
I think it’s up to the people in the Ward to decide whether or not a particular Ward representative is “familiar with the people, the neighborhoods, the local city resources such as parks / fire stations, local traffic and pedestrian issues, local businesses and business owners” and whether or not local issues are getting addressed. Mere residency in a Ward does not ensure that a Ward Councilor appropriately represents the interests of the Ward.
This flies in the face of long-time common acceptance of the phrase “Ward Representation”. Myself, my neighbors, my family, my immediate street and, I daresay, everyone I have known in Newton for over all my decades living here, think of ward representation as meaning elected SOLELY by the ward. At-large or representing a larger block that combine my wards and involve the city as a whole voting for that representative is NOT ward representation as everyone knows the term to mean.
I have NEVER thought of my school committee representative as beholden or representative to my ward because the city as a whole votes for him/her. And it has been an equally useless exercise in direct representation as this would end up being.
This reminds me when I was a teenager and once phoned a so-called friend for help. I asked him if he “could come pick me up” as my car had broken down. He said he would. Two hours later, I called him back as I thought he would be picking me up. He said, “Oh. You meant pick you up TODAY?”
He knew exactly what I meant. He was just splicing words and/or omitting them for his benefit.
Amen, Bruce!! Mere residency in a ward does not ensure that a councilor represents the interests of the ward, or is responsive, or is good at the job of councilor. Similarly, the manner by which a councilor is elected does not ensure that he or she represents the interests of the ward, or is responsive, or is good at the job of councilor.
Some ward councilors are very responsive and work hard to understand the needs of the ward. Others are not. The same can be said for councilors who are elected citywide to represent a ward.
This is the most compelling reason to downsize the city council. With 12 members, there will be much more accountability for the job of city councilor. Voters can actually know which councilors are responsive and what they stand for.
@Bruce. Me thinks that Rhanna misunderstood what you were really saying.
Annnnnd, once again the math doesn’t add up.
If there are LESS people representing a LARGER share of the population, the diffusion of responsibility increases by the very nature (both human and otherwise) of that representative being able to WORRY LESS about what one person says than if the pool that person came from was smaller.
There are some councilors now who are more responsive than others. This change will ensure a large tilt towards an even greater naturally occurring wider lack of responsiveness. Not only is it simple math, it’s simple human nature.
I agree that intentional or not, the use of “retaining” ward representation” is very misleading. Some folks may think that residency is enough, but it is clear from this conversation that not all think that way, meaning a distinction is in order. As I have stated before, I think there is a huge difference between true ward representation and a mere residency requirement.
If the proposed charter retains ward representation on the city council, what does it eliminate?
It downsizes the city council from 24 councilors to 12.
If I were not a political junkie and more of a normal person, when reading in the Charter Commission materials that the proposed charter “retains ward representation” I would assume the current charter definition of Ward Councilor is being retained. Maybe I would take the time to research more – maybe not.
The point should be unambiguously educating the voters to understand the differences between the current charter and the proposed charter. The verbiage should be clear and concise so the voter isn’t required to “assume” anything. No voter should have to realize after the election that what they thought was being retained isn’t.
The representation being retained is what has been traditionally called ward councilor-at-large. In the current charter, this definition means councilors elected at-large with residency requirements and those are being retained.
The proposed charter reduces the city council to 12 councilors all elected at-large consisting of 8 councilors with residency requirements and 4 without. Try that.
An at-large elected councilor is not “ward representation”. At-large councillors must win votes from voters across Newton, not just among the much smaller citizenry of their own ward. That means, hypothetically, that a resident-candidate who was absolutely reviled in their own ward and didn’t get a single vote could still be elected citywide to “represent” their ward in the City Council. Residency does not equal representation as we have come to know it in Newton. In the alternative-fact- Kelly Anne Conway-type language spin of the Charter Commission, defining at-large elected “ward representation” is like defining State Senator Cindy Creem’s scope as “Newton representation”. Sure, Cindy Creem lives in Newton. She considers it her hometown. You could definitely say that she “represents Newton” and “Newton’s interests” and is highly knowledgeable about Newton issues. But by virtue of the fact that she must also win votes from Brookline and Wellesley, and Newton’s interests may not always be the same as Newton’s and Wellesley’s, she more accurately represents the people who elect her at large. So, her role is very different from Kay Khan’s or Ruth Balser’s. The latter can absolutely alienate the interests of the voters of Wellesley on something like say, a roads project or the location of a waste dump because they don’t report to voters outside of Newton. That’s a very basic tenet of democracy. You’re beholden to the people who can re-elect you (or not). In today’s Newton, that means that hypothetically, if one ward was getting particularly slammed with McMansions or big developments , the representative who lives in the impacted ward, but is elected by all of Newton (and has to raise money from business interests to actually get elected) is not empowered to represent the specific, narrow interests of their ward if it goes against more powerful citywide interests. As I said in a previous post, ward-elected councillors (do we need to clarify this language so that it can not be represented as “alternative facts?) are the purest form of representation in Newton. Ask anyone — on the City Council or the School Committee how much it costs to run an at-large election vs. a ward election. Look at the numbers of people who have won the majority of their ward in a School Committee or BoA race, but not won the seat. Look at how many unopposed elections we have had for School Committee in recent years. Eliminating ward councilors will not enhance democracy or representation in the City of Newton. It will just concentrate more power in the already powerful hands of the citywide political elites. Again, reduce the board by eliminating an at-large seat in each ward, not ward-elected, ward-representing, true ward councilors.
@Marti, the full sentence of my email said:
The configuration of the proposed city council is a mix of old and new:
-retaining ward representation—each ward will still have a city councilor, elected by voters citywide; and
-adding 4 “unrestricted” councilors who can live anywhere in the city.
What Doug and KarenN said….in a nutshell.
Jane and Rhanna, to be more specific — if you describe the proposed charter as retaining ward representation, how would you describe the 8 (currently referred to as ward) representative positions that will be eliminated under the proposed charter? How would you fairly characterize what is being taken away?
You and others here have made many arguments as to why you want to eliminate ward reps from the council and move to an all at-large system. Better to make those points than to adopt nomenclature that will confuse the average voter.
Kathy – I was actually just responding to your specific question.
Bruce, Charlie, Mark and others are right: Residency alone (with at-large voting) does not provide the same degree of “ward representation” at our current ward councilor system does.
On the other hand, it is (to use Councilor Norton’s words) “disingenuous at best, misleading at worst” for her group, newtondemocracy.org to claim that our city council under the new charter would be less democratic than our current system.
Under the current charter, we each get to elect about 2/3rds of the council.
Under the new charter, we would elect 100% of our councilors.
By every definition of the word, the new system would be more “democratic.”
Elections, like life, is about choices. I personally would prefer the more democratic choice, even if it means sacrificing the purer version of ward representation
trying to argue logic with the emotional is like arguing with a dining room table. – all politics is local. ‘No’ is No vembre.
And what universe of councilors are being eliminated? How would the Charter Commissioners describe them?
Executive campaign strategy teams are already discussing ‘what then’ scenarios if the revisions are denied by voters. Interesting momentum tangents are possible, all moving forward with a better way.
I don’t believe it is ever “more” democratic to strip away a layer of direct representation.
Example: Town meeting is the most directly democratic form of structure.
Localized Ward-elected Ward representation would be next.
A smaller Council is not a good enough reason to kill that off.
Voting NO makes perfect sense.
Rhanna and Bryan — You have made the current charter available on your site. Open the document, hit control F, search for “represent” and report back on what you find with regard to Ward Councilors and Councilors At Large:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70720
The position of “Ward councilor” is precisely defined as as such they are “representing an area” and are elected and replaced by “the voters entitled to such representation”.
I think it is reasonable to ask that the charter commissioners and the “Yes” organization cease misusing the term in promoting the charter.
http://www.newtondemocracy.org
@Greg — Over 97% of the municipalities in Massachusetts include representatives elected directly by ward or precinct, and in the vast majority of those cases, those representatives constitute the majority of the legislative body.
@Rhanna — If the future council ends up with a ward with five residents on the council, will those residents be getting five times more representation of their local issues than the other seven wards?
Amy – The Charter Commission doesn’t “describe” anything. The proposal defines the composition of the council.
Charlie – With the current charter, I’m not able to register my displeasure about the votes/positions of 30% of the council on Election Day. We may define democracy differently, but to say that allowing 100% of the voters to weigh in on 100% of the councilors who make decisions that affect their lives isn’t democratic simply flies in the face of reality.
That you don’t like the composition of the council in the new proposal doesn’t make it undemocratic. To others, it is more democratic. This is a difference of opinion and perspective.
@Kathy Winters, The proposed charter retains ward representatives who are elected citywide. It eliminates ward representatives elected by a single ward.
@Jack Pryor, By that logic, it is reasonable to ask that the Vote No Campaign cease saying that the proposed charter eliminates ward representation.
My Newton Centre neighborhood is split between wards 2 and 6. Imagine an issue in Newton Centre affecting traffic, safety, and economic development…and a councilor elected only by Ward 6 is taking the lead on the issue, who doesn’t answer to the NC residents who are in Ward 2. How is that democratic?
In a city of only 18 square miles, our problems and resources are all inextricably linked. I live in ward 6, but I can (and frequently do) walk to wards 2, 3, 5, and 7. Anything in those wards that impacts traffic, safety, bike and pedestrian issues, economic development, etc., will have an impact on my daily life. I would like for those wards to be represented by a dedicated councilor, and I would like to be able to vote for the councilor from those wards who can make decisions affecting my daily life.
“I would like for those wards to be represented by a dedicated councilor, and I would like to be able to vote for the councilor from those wards who can make decisions affecting my daily life.”
Someone who is elected in an area of say, 3,500 people is more beholden and likely to listen to one’s issues than someone beholden to a city-wide 80,000 people. Especially when within that 80,000 people are powerful interests with the deep pockets necessary to tap into for mounting a larger,more expensive city-wide campaign.
Again, simple math, simple human nature.
I draw unicorns, rainbows and little ponies for a living but find that the real world is decidedly different. It’s a constant disappointment.
Greg just re-spun the messaging quite adroitly and while I don’t agree, it is an honest representation of what is actually being proposed. I’d venture to guess if the Charter Commission A-B tested R. Kidwell’s messaging vs. Greg’s in your next professional telephone survey, Greg’s spin wouldn’t be interpreted as dishonest and misleading. In theory, this voting for 100% view enhances democracy. But in actuality, it diminishes the strength of representation on ward-level issues. On both a state and national level, Americans are represented by a House and a Senate. Everyone in a state or district can vote for the Senate, but more local representation is guaranteed through the House of Representatives. I think that there is a reason for this system — to weigh local interests with the greater good (and just as possibly, the greater bad). The current Newton system is, in offering both ward and city-wide representation, a microcosm of the larger legislative bodies that characterize American Democracy. American Democracy always offers both forms of elected representation as a form of checks and balances. As people have said before, it isn’t the most efficient, but it is the fairest and most functional. Eliminating ward councilors is equivalent to saying “let’s eliminate the House and just vote for a Senate.”
Rhanna, Jane and Bryan; You get credit for engaging on this. Your peers on the CC should buy you drinks.
However, A ward residency requirement is not the equivalent of a Ward Councilor. Different constituencies (the people they owe their jobs to). BUT YOU KNOW THAT. Stand up for what you’ve created. It is intentionally misleading to say that the revised charter “retains Ward representation.” You know it (please, stop the embarrassing denials). You know that Newton voters like the concept of Ward Counselors and are twisting yourselves into pretzels to confuse the point and justify the new charter.
I received an email from another member of the commission who stated it this way, “Ensuring local representation through geographic requirements on the majority of City Council seats.” Less misleading than “retains ward…” but it’s still B.S. and misleading.
You owe it to the city to present your proposal in a clear, honest way. It’s a very bad sign that the spinmeisters are at work on this. Stop Mau Mauing Newtonites!
@Rhanna — the commission’s proposal doesn’t include the word “represent” with respect to councilors representing wards as the current charter does, so I think its accurate to say that you are removing local representation. It only references area councils as “representing” residents.
Again to my question, will the pick 4 slate councilors not be representing their own ward as much as the one with residency requirement? And if that is the case, will potential issues with power concentration not follow? Case in point, see the current debate developing in Lowell. One of only 9 of the state’s 351 municipalities lacking ward representation.
http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_30973204/signs-clear-debate-lowell-highs-future-is-fierce
Neighborhoods boundaries may be split across wards, but each ward councilor has 1 or 2 village centers to deeply understand and represent.
The NO campaign has tried to convince people that there is no ward representation. This simply isn’t the case. Every time we argue that there is, we are very clear, as Rhanna stated earlier, that every ward will have a councilor who lives there, but is voted on at large by all of the people of the city.
A key aspect of our proposal is that every ward has a representative who knows their neighborhood but is elected by the entire city, yet every voter gets a say in all of their elected representation. I strongly believe this will work very well.
I understand that the no campaign has a vested interest in convincing people that ward-at-large seats are not really representation. If you’re asking me to accept their framing of the debate, sorry, but you’ll have to make your case on your own.
If the councilor lives in the ward but is voted on by the city as a whole, then it does not matter where they are geographically located, they are beholden more to every voter in the city than those in the immediate area where they live. As someone else pointed out, it will be entirely within the realm of a continual reality where someone is despised by those immediately surrounding where they live and YET REMAINS IN OFFICE DUE TO BEING ELECTED AT LARGE. So those people do not have representation of their interests.
Just because I drive down Newtonville Ave every day I would not presume to have the conceit that I totally know what people living there, a good three miles from my house, have for their immediate concerns.
@Mark: If you really believe that to be true (and I don’t) then why do you feel qualified to produce TAB editorial cartoons about matters outside of West Newton?
BTW, I wrote the comment above before I saw today’s TAB. I loved the latest Marderosian cartoon. I’m definitely going to hang it up at the office.
@Mark: I disagree, I think it gives them a familiarity with my community while representing the entire city. Can you point to an example of a continuously re-elected despised councilor despite the fact that we have had 16 councilors and 8 school committee members elected this way for many many years? I don’t think that happens, I think the system works quite well. I think the straw man argument doesn’t have a basis in our actual experience in Newton.
Furthermore, you presume that just because someone lives near me, they understand my immediate concerns. I don’t find that to be the case. I want to elect people who care about my issues and show a commitment to them, I don’t care which part of the city they live in.
@Bryan
Naming names as you’re suggesting would veer this off-course, especially since some of them are no longer here to defend themselves, but I’m sure you’ve heard as well as I the rumblings of constitutes of at-large councilors who would ignore phone calls from those around them and yet remained in office one election after another because larger factors than pleasing a motley few were in play.
@Bryan — Representing and knowing a ward means more than just residing in it. It means being attuned to and actively listening to the needs, concerns, and viewpoints of the ward residents. For example just this evening I had a conversation with a resident as part of the charter debate that I wouldn’t normally interact with. He helped me see there is third side to a very local issue that I had thought knew had only two sides!
Our resident Councilor At Large holds his office hours in Ward 3 and Ward 6 to connect with the whole city. I don’t have a problem with that given his role– I find him responsive and accessible enough — but over time his focus and awareness are going to be necessarily and naturally diluted across the concerns and priorities of 88,000 residents, and the new charter won’t change that. It will just remove the local voice and representation provided by WARD COUNCILORS.
@Greg. Fair question.
I see a difference between editorializing and being satirical about situations vs. presuming to lead people on an issue by representing those people. Both involve research, study time, thought and occasionally offering a solution, but the former points the way with hopefully further discussion, the second declares to KNOW the way.
That’s why, in the end, I’m finding this thread highly educational. It’s great learning and honest back and forth. I sincerely appreciate the efforts of the people elected to the commission. In their own way, they’ve “drawn” their thoughts too.
@Mark: I will say that one thing I have really come to appreciate is that even when I disagree with you (or your cartoons), you’re here to discuss and debate your point of view.
I agree that representing people involves research, study, thought and solutions, as well as leadership and an ability to get to know your constituents and their concerns. My experience is that the councilors who care about the issues I’m passionate about come from all across the city and are more attuned to my views based on their own research, community interactions, experience and passions far more than their street address.
If residency equated with representation, then all at-large councils with district residency requirements would not be vulnerable to challenge under the Voting Rights Act. But they are, because at-large systems can be used to suppress representation of minority voters concentrated in a particular district.
The proposed charter may be more democratic, but more democracy isn’t necessarily a good thing. There are pitfalls with majority rule. Many voters want more emphasis on the “representative” in representative democracy.
Of Newton’s 33 elected officials (not counting area councils), 8 are elected by district. Not a huge percentage, but still a meaningful check on majority rule. That goes away under the proposed charter.
Terry’s right. Defend the proposal on its merits, but let’s not obfuscate the tradeoffs.
@Mark Maderosian,
As far as “at-large councilors who ignore phone calls from those around them and yet remain in office…” This only happens when the councilor remains unopposed year after year. It also happens with councilors elected by one ward only when they remain unopposed.
The charter commission looked at 22 years’ worth of elections history, during which time 176 at-large seats were filled. We found 9 instances of a candidate finishing in the top 2 in the citywide vote while not being in the top 2 in the home ward.
During this time period, only one individual has twice won the seat while not finishing in the top 2 in the home ward.
Both Amy Sangiolo and Ted Hess-Mahan won their seat initially while not finishing in the top 2 in their home ward. In all subsequent elections, they’ve been in the top 2 in both. In 2005, Greer Swiston finished in the top 2 in Ward 3 but finished 3rd citywide. In 2007, she finished in the top 2 in both and unseated an incumbent. In the other 4 data points, the person who won the seat but not the ward either won both in the subsequent election or did not run again.
@Rhanna: Did you also look at how much it cost for a newcomer to win a contested at-large seat vs. a ward-only one?
“The charter commission looked at 22 years’ worth of elections history, during which time 176 at-large seats were filled. We found 9 instances of a candidate finishing in the top 2 in the citywide vote while not being in the top 2 in the home ward.”
@Rhanna
How many of those 176 at-large seats had more than 2 candidates in the running?
@Karen: We did. Our data showed that in Newton, there’s no clear distinction between the cost of a ward and an at large election. I believe the statistic was that most campaigns fell in the $5k – $10k range regardless of district size, although I don’t have the numbers right in front of me at the moment.
Looking forward to the charter discussion on NewTV this evening. Who will be representing the YES side?
@Bryan: With all due respect it is patently absurd to suggest the cost of running citywide is the same as running in the ward. I spent ~$9K in my contested ward election, Jake Auchincloss spent ~$30K in his contested citywide election. And it’s not just the money – with a job and kids I was able to knock on the door of every likely voter – no one with a job and kids would be able to do that citywide. Is that what we want? Only the rich and those any other life constraints can be elected?
@Rhanna-
What about the data (and logic) that shows having no true Ward representation strongly tilts things toward those who have the most money and power, weakens power for those of lesser financial means and makes it very possible that 5 out of 12 Councillors could be from just one wealthy Ward? An inconvenient truth?
No matter how you slice or spin that, it’s just plain “wicked bad”.
.
When really bad ideas crop up, enthusiastically voting NO is the right answer.
@Bryan-
Seriously? You can’t possibly be saying that running in a Ward vs city-wide is the same effort, cost, or dynamic.
Is this just desperation to put out “positives” regardless of facts? ’cause it literally makes no sense whatsoever.
In my own ward 5, the difference between a ward and at-large race was made dramatically clear in the election of first-time candidate Bill Brandel as ward alderman in 2007. Angier and Zervas parents joined together to organize the successful defeat of a long-time incumbent with whom they had significant disagreement. It was real, grassroots democracy in action—local mobilization for local representation. Even though the end vote was 1,138 to 483 (I looked that up!), I have never been part of any political campaign in Newton that was that energized. The organizers literally didn’t have enough signs for all the volunteers that had shown up to hold them at the polls. Kids were involved and got a real feel for democracy in action – even making their own campaign t-shirts. It was, again, like my experience with Ward Alderman John Rice when a city tree hit my house and downed power lines during a big storm, Capraesque. Could Brandel have been elected if the only seat was citywide? NO. We don’t have to theorize about that. In the following election, Brandel decided to run for alderman at large (endorsing John Rice for the ward seat.) Brandel was defeated – even with the extra-added advantage of the increased awareness and name-recognition that came from being elected alderman. Residency isn’t representation if you don’t, as a ward, have the power to vote out the single councilor on the CC who is (in theory, but not by means of how they are elected) representing you, as citizens in ward 5 did in 2007.
In general, grassroots democracy doesn’t happen as easily when you have to water the whole lawn equally, not just a smaller part of it. We should be fostering this kind of locally-driven, financially accessible, not beholden to big campaign contributions, and humanly do-able (for people with jobs and families) ward-elected democracy in Newton. We have all seen the terrible effects that raising campaign money has had on our larger democracy. Let’s not vote away genuine local representation and one of the last vestiges of financially accessible democracy.
@Karen: Your example of the Bill Brandel/Christine Samuelson Ward 5 election is a convincing one. Really it is. However, in telling the story, let’s not forget to remind folks that Brandel lost to a very compelling challenger, Deb Crossley, who won that at-large contest also on the strength of a energized, grassroute, effort.
Also let’s not forget that under our current system, unseating an at-large incumbent has been hard not simply because of money or the number of doors that need knocking but because you typically needed to run against two incumbents or at least two others. That requires an entirely different strategy. Under the new charter, these will become one on one contests and a much different ballgame.
@ Greg
I guess you can define practically anything as “grassroots support”, but I generally think of it as not having the backing, resources or endorsement of established political or other institutions. You don’t need to win over the League of Women Voters, The Newton Dems and the citywide political elite kingmakers and their influential email blasts to win a ward seat. You just need, maybe the committed pull of two PTOs, possibly some smattering of side groups like Little League teams that really care about a local issue or maybe don’t like, for instance, that their representative has gotten too cozy with RE developers in their local area. As I recall, Crossley had the support of Newton’s citywide institutions (both organizations and individuals). The establishment was pretty much annoyed by Brandel and saw him as an upstart. I googled a bit to find the actual vote count in that 2009 ward 5 at large race but couldn’t find it. What I did find was a blog by Ed Prisby that reminded me of the talk of the time that Brandel didn’t campaign hard enough. In Newton, does that mean that he didn’t make campaigning his full time job? As the blogpost that you yourself wrote about the Auchincloss race, it’s detailed that Auchincloss raised $30,00 and had a campaign effort that knocked on 14,000 doors, made 7,500 phone calls, sent out three mailers and printed 250 lawn signs – with 1 out of $4 coming from outside Newton. Neither JA or Setti Warren had jobs when they campaigned for their first winning elections. Is this what we want the bar to be raised to in 100% of our elections? How would we get an Emily Norton or a John Rice under such a prohibitive system? Here’s that post you wrote:
http://village14.com/2015/11/11/auchincloss-this-is-what-it-takes-to-unseat-a-longtime-incumbent/#axzz4gn8rIMi3
@Rihanna and @Bryan – Please post the link to the data from 22 years. You had referenced this previously, and did not provide any link when asked.
I have searched for this on CC website and its not there. This is transparency 101 – if you have it pl do share. And also, please share in the original excel or google docs, not pdf format.
When I conducted analysis of just last election data, significant % of contested seats had the councilor losing the ward, but winning the city.
Pl. share the data.
The Charter Commission has been very good at keeping their data and information posted on their website. Documents that they may be referring to can be found here: http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/chartercommission/documents.asp
You’ll have to scroll to the specific Article for particular documents.
Amy’s link brings you to the documents page; scroll to Article 2. The first three documents are titled Appendix A, B, and C. The data is from 1951-2015.
“The lawsuit against Lowell also alleges that its political system has had adverse impacts on the city’s minority communities.”
“Outreach to communities of color, including translation services, is lacking at all levels of government,” the complaint states. “City services and amenities are unequally distributed. Minorities are significantly under-represented in city jobs—including in the Lowell Police Department and in the Lowell Public Schools—and minority students face achievement gaps and disparities in school discipline.”
In her capacity as a member of the Charter Commission, @Rhanna voluntarily put on the record a statement which reads: “There is no wealth distinction in Newton between councilors elected by voters citywide vs. the ward only.”
Given the lawsuit that Lowell is now facing, my question is: Would the proposed Charter move us in the wrong direction re: equal representation? In answering, please keep in mind the fact that Newton’s proposed Charter brings us much closer – although not all the way – to Lowell’s City Council structure.
For those interested, you can read more about the situation in Lowell at: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/politics/lawsuit-challenges-lowell-at-large-voting.
It’s interesting, because Emily made the same accusation yesterday about Lowell being similar to Newton in a listserve email. If this means the NO campaign is trying to equate the charter with racial injustice, that is really disappointing and lowers the level of debate I’m hoping we are going to have as a city about how best to govern ourselves.
The fact is, this situation is not equivalent to Newton, because we don’t have majority minority wards or even close to it. In fact, in Newton it’s the opposite: our minority population is spread throughout the city, which is why the Commissioners, including Reverend Heywood who spoke forcefully to this point, believe the proposal will bring more minority representation, not less.
Instead of saying that the proposal hurts democracy or minorities, propositions which are on their face false, can we have a serious debate about what kind of representation would be best for Newton moving forward?
@Bryan, the point is that at-large only representation benefits the wealthy and powerful, which is why so many communities across the country are moving AWAY from it. In Lowell that is expressed in race, in Newton that will be expressed in economic diversity. With 4 at-large seats coming from anywhere in the city, we could have a situation with 5 councilors all coming from the same part of the city such as Newton Center or Waban.
The point is that you are trying to make a claim about how our system will work in Newton based on an alleged pattern of systemic racial inequity in Lowell that does not exist in Newton.
Bryan — Note how Lowell’s demographics have evolved over time (just since 1980) without their council reflecting it….
http://lawyerscom.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Lowell-Voting-Rights-Case-Fact-Sheet.pdf
Jack – I’ll have to think about that, it’s an interesting point you bring up and we do want a system that is designed to stand the test of time.
My initial reaction is that without evidence to suggest that this is likely to happen in Newton in a concentrated geographic area that will be underrepresented, I don’t see that as a reason to reject a proposed system that I see as having significant benefits.
@Bryan: It is in fact very well documented that increasing at-large representation often if not always leads to a decrease in minority representation. Without getting distracted by your attempted spin, I’d prefer to ask you a simple question. Can you name more than one municipality – in the entire country – that eliminated ward representation and saw a correlated increase in minority representation? Given that this is clearly a staple of your argument in support of your proposal, surely you have data to support your claim.
Furthermore, as you know, there are many ways in which to define minority. In Newton, not only do we have significant economic diversity (which is the thrust of my argument), but our racial diversity has also grown considerably. To ignore these facts as they relate to this discussion – which to the best of my knowledge you have done – is irresponsible.
Moreover, in response to Jack, you write “My initial reaction is that WITHOUT EVIDENCE to suggest that this is likely to happen in Newton in a concentrated geographic area that will be underrepresented, I don’t see that as a reason to reject a proposed system that I see as having significant benefits.”
In your own words, for those of us who oppose the proposed Charter based on well established historical facts, we need additional evidence that’s specific to Newton. However, to date, I’ve seen zero evidence proffered by supporters of the Charter proposal to combat the well established fact that increasing at-large representation often if not always leads to a decrease in minority representation.
Rhanna has made the claim that “There is no wealth distinction in Newton between councilors elected by voters citywide vs. the ward only.” If you can present us with evidence to combat what history has taught us, I’d bet that many voters could be persuaded to support the proposed Charter.
So where is it?
@Bryan – can we agree that under the current system, it is impossible for 5 councilors to all reside within Waban, and under your preferred system, it is possible for 5 councilors to all reside within Waban.
It is possible under our current system for six councilors to live in Newton Highlands. Just sayin.
“…increasing at-large representation often if not always leads to a decrease in minority representation. ”
Right on Tom.
With regard to Rhanna’s ““There is no wealth distinction in Newton between councilors elected by voters citywide vs. the ward only.”
Rhanna, you know that’s not true on the face of it. I’m sure you can name the wealthier wards and the less wealthy wards.
The Charter is for the long term. And it should protect against the possibility of a Balkanized Newton. I know, it sounds extreme, but it has happened to other cities in Massachusetts.Without some form of Ward/geographic representation the future Newton runs the risk that some wards will be run over.
*At-Large with residency requirement means that the whole city is a constituent, not the ward of residence.
@Bryan or@ Rhanna: Can you point to the document(s) that reviews the racial or economic distribution within the various wards that you used for consideration of your proposal? Sorry – I’m sure you have it on your website, but it’s late and I just can’t find it.
Amy – Most often the commission used a common set of data and research to inform discussions, but individually we used our life experiences in Newton as well, because data without context or analysis can be misleading. Also, as has been said often, our discussions were spirited which is another way of saying that individual commissioners saw the data from different perspectives. The discussion were also extensive (thorough, long – use whichever word you like) which is why it’s important to refrain from taking one comment out of context.
Bryan has the data by ward and that’s where the issue lies – in looking at wards as a whole. One does not need to be a PHD social scientist to understand that economic differences exist in the city. However, if you look at the data by ward, economic differences tend to even out. For example, two precincts in ward 1 are north of the Pike and two are south. Combine the data from all four precincts and the results will be different from data taken from each precinct. The economic differences in the four precincts are clear and apparent, and that’s the problem when the focus is on the ward. Similarly, wards 2, 3, 5, and 8 are economically diverse within precincts and neighborhoods.
So does ward representation favor the wealthy? Even that differs within each ward. The answer for ward 1 may be no – all three councilors live in one precinct north of the Pike, within a stone’s throw of one another. The answer for ward 4 may be yes. All 3 councilors live in one precinct south of the Pike in a section that might be considered wealthier than the other three precincts. The answer isn’t clearly certainly isn’t cut and dried.
Wards are a political construct that divide registered voters into fairly equal groups. Are they helpful in determining economic distribution? I’d say no according to my experience living and working in Newton. However, comparing accumulated data by entire wards does tend to make the city look less economically diverse than it is in reality. This discussion has focused on wards, not precincts, so you need to keep that in mind.
@Jane: I’m just looking for the data. Is it posted or can you post it?
This from Bryan: “Data is available by zip code (https://www.incomebyzipcode.com/search or http://massachusetts.hometownlocator.com/zip-codes/) and by census block group (http://www.city-data.com/income/income-Newton-Massachusetts.html). It was data he used to determine that income inequality doesn’t align with ward lines which is an issue that’s been overlooked in this discussion.
As I mentioned, the nine members of the commission come from different perspectives and may arrive at different conclusions when analyzing data.
Economists often use residence value as a proxy for wealth. Using Zillow and the Newton Tax Assessor data, I collected residence values for all councilors. The data are dramatic.
The average Ward Councilor lives in a residence that is 40% less valuable than an At-Large Councilor. The median value is 49% less for the Ward Councilors. The Councilors in Ward 7 have the most valuable homes, while councilors in Ward 1 has the least valuable. In fact, the ward 7 councilors’ homes are, on average, 5 times more valuable than the Ward 1 Councilors’.
Everyone can interpret the data as they see fit. Frankly, I am not frightened by a wealthy council. That being said, this seems to support the notion that at-large races are more expensive than ward races. More expensive races frighten me.
Full disclosure. I currently don’t know how I will vote on the Charter. I have gone back and forth many times.
Jeffrey – Maybe you should analyze the data regarding the $500.00 Contributions some of our Ward Councilors have accepted from Developers and Special Interest Groups. They may be living in less Expensive homes but they are clearly making up for it in taking in 500.00 donations .
Joanne – you do realize that campaign contributions are not personal income, right? And that the TOTAL donated over many years to any of the ward councilors is so minor that it would not make up for anything, even if it were?
And Tricia do you realize that Ward Councilors are not normally given $500.00 donations ( all at once – not over many years) from developers from the Same Company and Special Interest Groups. Yes it is all legal . But normally $500.00 donations are given for a State election or Mayoral Election and even at the Mayoral level you will see lots of $100.00 donations.
And many on the NO side are worried that the Ward Councilors are not getting a lot of money to run City Wide but what I am finding is that the Ward Councilors are getting more money than some of the At Large Councilors.
This thread has wandered too far off course. These are the two major changes in the proposed charter:
1. The city council is downsized from 24 councilors to 12. The size of the average city council in Massachusetts is 10.
2. It puts term limits in place for the mayor and the city council and maintains the current term limit for the school committee.
@Jane
1. The charter removes Ward Councilors. The average city has them, in fact 84% of Mass cities have them. Only 9 of 351 (2.6%) lack Ward Councilors or direct town meeting representation. The change in composition is more significant than the change in size.
2. The charter introduces 4 seats without residency requirements, removing the current balance in the council.
The conversation around finances is important, as it impacts both how campaigns are won, perceptions of unbalanced influence, and the financial perspectives that Councilors bring to their roles.
Jack – You state an opinion as fact. In my opinion, downsizing the board is the more significant decision and that’s why I voted yes to approve the proposal..
@Jane — Sorry, you and I are just characterizing what we see as the major changes in your proposal.
Here is a good newscast on the Lowell situation on WGBH today. Newton may not be Lowell, but why are proposing to move to role model a city council composition that is going extinct?
http://news.wgbh.org/2017/05/19/local-news/listen-lowell-residents-sue-city-over-local-election-rules?utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_term=20170519&utm_content=905131321
“There are very few now that have an exclusively at-large system. It is a trend that has been very clear over the past decade, where many jurisdictions, either because of court order or otherwise, are moving away from exclusively At-Large. Many have a combination where there are some districts and some At-Large and a balance”
You’re right – Newton is not Lowell. And yes, we think different aspects of the proposal are more significant than others.
As I’ve mentioned, in my opinion, downsizing the city council is the single most significant change in the proposal. It was the issue that residents highlighted most often (by far) in my conversations over the last 18 months.
I have to agree with Jack that the elimination of Ward representation is a more significant issue than the size of the council. Perhaps that is an opinion, but it is the opinion that informs my “NO” vote.
I have seen the Lowell comparisons- trying to compare on the basis of racial makeup – or even economics, which might be a better comparison- is beside the point that a city of our size will see localized voices lost if we go to a no-Ward-Councillors model.
Downsizing is a significant change- one that I’m not certain is necessary, but is worthy of discussion- but again, I do not feel it can hold a candle to the ward-level disenfranchisement.
@Jack — We don’t have an all at large city counsel of the type Lowell has in our proposal. We have 8 guaranteed ward representatives, elected at large, and 4 at large with no ward residency requirement, as you know.
For a variety of reasons I’ve already articulated, I believe the Lowell comparison is inappropriate and diminishes the debate. I really hope we can get back to the substance of the issues.
Bryan, you can’t be suggesting that Lowell’s problems with minority representation would be solved by adding a residency requirement to their at-large council. It isn’t about where the councilors live, it’s about who elects them. Majority rule makes it less likely that minority voices will be heard.
Kathy asks a fascinating question. I look forward to Bryan’s answer.
I went back to the real estate data. Remember that ward-elected councilors have residences that are 40% less valuable on average than at-large councilors. The median is 49% less valuable. How does this compare for school committee members who are elected by-ward-at-large? If Kathy is correct they should be as wealthy as at-large councilors. If what (I think) Bryan is implying is correct, they should be as wealthy as ward-elected councilors.
School Committee members live in homes that are, on average, 8% more valuable than at-large councilors. The median SC member’s home is 9% lower. So, it seems like SC members have similar wealth as at-large councilors, while ward councilors tend to be less wealthy. Good job Kathy!
I am suggesting that Lowell’s problems with minority representation have nothing to do with what will happen in Newton.
We have people of color and people who are economically struggling in Newton, but they live all over the city. Direct ward representation doesn’t empower people in Newton, it disenfranchises them.
What will best serve the people of Newton is a highly competitive system where races are frequently contested and every candidate running for office will have to ask for the vote of every resident. I hope the NO side can articulate why they believe the current less competitive system where incumbents rarely face challenges and stay in office for decades is preferable.
@Bryan
“Direct ward representation doesn’t empower people in Newton, it disenfranchises them.”
That’s a strong statement.
Were you honest and transparent about your views when you ran for the Commission? Or did you hide them?
Bryan, I guess I misread your response to Jack as suggesting that the addition of residency requirements would somehow improve Lowell’s system as it relates to minority representation.
Geoffrey’s numbers certainly suggest that Newton’s current system is more likely to promote diverse economic representation than an all at-large system. (I also appreciate that as any good Professor, Geoffrey is adept at reframing people’s questions to make them seem much smarter than they are!)
The proposed charter would result in head-to-head races for all positions. That’s a plus. But adopting a system where 51% of the voters can control 100% of the seats creates potential for suppression of minority views. I can’t get past that. I’d rather stick with the current system and maintain some check on majority rule.
Bryan, you state that “Lowell’s problems with minority representation have nothing to do with what will happen in Newton.” I put away my crystal ball after 2016. I don’t know what Newton will look like in 10, 20 or 30 years. I don’t know how good Newton’s majority will be about making sure minority views are adequately represented. I do know that the percentage of non-whites in Newton quadrupled since 1980, and that Asian-Americans represent the most rapidly growing segment. I also know that the level of diversity varies among different sections of the city, as illustrated in the 2014 Dukakis Center Report on Demographic Trends and Housing in Newton. Let’s not switch to a system that could create problems down the road.
It does seem like a huge leap in just a couple of meetings to go from “being totally open minded” as a candidate…to being completely committed to eliminating direct Ward representation.
I think the technical term for not being forthcoming with a true agenda is a “hidden agenda”.
Proudly and enthusiastically voting NO.
Kathy – The 4 at-large seats are not head-to-head elections. The four candidates receiving the most votes win the election.
Doug – Our opinions definitely inform the decisions we make when we vote. However, opinions are not facts and we need to keep the distinction in mind as the discussion of candidates and the charter evolve.
@Bryan – I have two major concerns with the proposed system:
1 – Under the new charter it’s possible for 5/12 of the council to reside in one ward (four at-large + one ward resident), just one member shy from 50%. That’s a potentially large change from the current configuration where each ward is fixed at 3/24. I think it’s fair to compare this to Lowell, even if we don’t have the same demographics there’s still a legitimate concern that power ends up concentrated in one area.
2 – Under the new charter it’s possible for a ward resident councilor to be elected without a single vote from their ward. I keep seeing the argument that ward councilors had too little accountability outside of their ward, doesn’t this just result in the opposite issue? I could theoretically run for my ward’s position, focus 100% of my effort in the other seven wards and win since it’s at-large. I could still win even if I loose the vote within my own ward. In that situation does the ward really have representation?
I agree that the current council is too far on the inefficient side, and a reduction in size would help to alleviate that. I’m not convinced that completely removing ward elected councilors is the way to do it.
@Jane – thank you for posting the data on a different thread, that Rihanna and Bryan had referred (link below).
Verdict – 3 Pinnochios
The claim made by CC – The chance of a Councillor losing the ward, yet winning the city is extremely rare. After analyzing 22 years of data, 9 occurrences of a candidate winning the home ward but not winning city.
In other words, you are engaging in conspiracy theory when you say ward electorates will get disenfranchised.
THE FACTS –
Yes the data is true (but irrelevant). But lets go along. In 6 of the 9 races, the Ward winner #2, was city wide #3 – and 3 out of 9 races #1 ward winner was #3 city wide (that really surprised me).
RED HERRING –
This is a misleading irrelevant piece of information. Under the proposed charter, only 1 councilor will be elected by every ward. So why would I even care about the 6 races, where ward #2 came at #3 city wide? It is as relevant as Dallas-Detroit game to Patriots-Falcons Super Bowl. It is irrelevant!
The 3 races where Ward #1 came city #3 are relevant but represent only an extreme case.
MORE RELEVANT FACTS- Well first lets just acknowledge – this is a new form of city elections, so you will just never find the perfect data. However, you can look at more “relevant data”.
It becomes important to look at person winning #1 most votes in the ward, wins #2 most votes in the city. This is MOST closely associated w the proposed scenario. Much more than what the CC and its consultants used above.
Looking at just the most recent election with 4 contested races (I don’t have resources at my disposal to look at more data), the Ward #1 (i.e won the ward in new proposal) was City #2 (lost the race) in 3 out of 4 races.
#disenfranchised_electorate in 75% cases
VERDICT – 3 Pinnochios – The CC did not lie, but used the data in misleading way.
This is THE REAL ISSUE. Ward electoral voices will just get squashed, and eventually die. If someone has better way of explaining, pl do so.
Sources:
http://village14.com/2017/02/17/draft-version-of-the-newtons-revised-charter-is-approved/#axzz4hranu7po
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/79289
@Bryan — You can’t have it both ways — if residency=representation, then one ward can get 5x more power and representation than the rest of the city with your proposal. If they are representing the whole city equally, then they are not representing residents at the village-level. Please pick one.
Re: Lowell
Newton is different. We support a welcoming city ordinance despite our police department already acting appropriately. We fight voter ID laws despite few of our citizens lacking IDs. We support environmental efforts like recycling, solar, and plastic bag bans despite the small dent we can make in the global situation. Perhaps residents don’t agree with all of the above, but I think those with progressive values do? Shouldn’t our city council role model a progressive best practice (ward-elected representation mixed with at-large)?
Electing 100% At-Large does not give minority viewpoints a voice –that is the point of the Lowell situation. Voters pick 9 from an 18 candidate ballot, and the strongest minority pick is not going to beat out the 9th name on the recommended slate. Ranked voting methods could be implemented to achieve that end if the commission could have given them more than a few minutes of consideration.
Newton has had strong ethnic enclaves in the past and has pockets of economic diversity today. The fact that current ward lines don’t align well with these it not reason to dismiss the merits of village-level representation.
See today’s editorial in the globe for more background on the history of Lowell’s council
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2017/05/21/lowell-should-dismantle-majority-rule-system/fOjJKiGgNGLFBzD0P6BTCP/story.html
A side note from the Globe editorial. “… a recent sanctuary city proposal got short shrift before the City Council.”
Here is a full summary of the debate the welcoming city ordinance got in Lowell in February:
http://richardhowe.com/2017/02/07/lowell-city-council-meeting-february-7-2017/
The public hearing opinions on it were diverse, but the representation and deliberation was one-sided and captured fully in a paragraph.
“Councilor Elliott moves to refer the petition to the city manager for a report and recommendation. Councilor Milinazzo says he has great faith that the city is already doing this, but he would not support an official sanctuary or trust city designation. He says Lowell is a welcoming city. Councilor Mercier supports the motion but wants to speak on the petition. She says her ancestors were immigrants and she has no problem with them. There’s not a flag raising ceremony that she does not support. But I have a problem with the word “illegal alien.” Says “illegal is illegal.” She says she has never received a phone call from someone who is afraid to report a crime. She said Lowell is already a sanctuary city because the police don’t ask for green cards. Says this trust ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. She criticizes the petitioner (a UMass Lowell professor) for not coming to the defense of the Perkins Park residents who were nervous and scared when UMass Lowell bought their building. Councilor Samaras says he cannot support this motion for many reasons. He supports the concept of this. But he can’t support it because it would polarize the city. It forces people to take sides. Mayor Kennedy says that the city council has a long standing policy on not taking a stance on national issues because no one really cares about the position of the council. Motion (to refer to city manager for a report) passes.”
This is among my favorite rationale: “Councilor Mercer never got a received a phone call from someone who is afraid to report a crime”. I wonder why she never got that call?
Caller: “Hello City Councilor Mercer, I am afraid to report a crime”
City Councilor: “Why?”
Caller: “I am undocumented.”
City Councilor: “What is your address? We’ll send an officer right over to deal with that…”
Caller: “Deal with what?”
City Councilor: “Trust us, we have an established practice…”
To their credit, the Lowell City Council did give the welcoming city ordinance a paragraph of public deliberation, which was more than the Ward Councilor role merited on 4/13/2016.
Here are the November 2015 Lowell City Council Election results:
https://www.lowellma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/500
I don’t know why we’re talking about Lowell when we’re all in agreement that the two cities are very different communities.
Neal – Election results dating back to 2001 is on the city website.
Jane, I agree that the Lowell comparison is not exactly on point, but it does help illustrate the pitfalls of an all at-large system. Are there other cities in MA (or even elsewhere) that have a similar structure to your proposal that have consistently produced socioeconomic diversity on their councils representative of their populations? Is that something the CC looked into?
“Direct ward representation doesn’t empower people in Newton, it disenfranchises them.”
Wait, what? That makes absolutely no sense to me (and yes, I think I know what you might be getting at Bryan, but.. still taking a hard pass on that logic.
@Jane- I believe Lowell was used as an example by certain members of the Commission when trying to justify the amazingly ill-conceived idea of going to an all at large system in Newton. Seems awfully relevant. Or maybe just awful.
The more we learn, the more voting NO makes sense.
Breaking News — As it turns out, based on latest ad from the Charter Commission, the new charter preserves both ward representation and geographic diversity.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BysZP1gxJGFmU0xISHhKMktVWm8/view?usp=sharing
Thank goodness — the last version I read had eliminated Ward Councilors and village-level representation and allowed five councilors to live next to each other on same the street. Can you send link to this new charter? My link must be to an older version — Thanks
The newly proposed charter is more democratic than our current charter in that it allows every voter to have a say about 100 percent of our city councilors, rather than about 2/3rds. But both are democratic to various degrees.
Our current charter offers a purer form of ward representation than the proposed charter because only the residents of the ward vote on the ward candidates but the new charter also has a ward residency requirement. So both offer ward representation to various degrees.
Some voters may prefer the more democratic choice. Others may prefer more representative choice.
Re: Jack’s post.
Ward residency is not the same as ward representation. Being at-large means that you have no obligation to represent the ward– as long as voters outside the ward support you. At-large means you represent the whole city, not the ward. The Commission can’t this both ways.
This feels very dishonest. I’d ask Commission members to comment on this, and commit to clarifying the language. The charter should win or lose on the merits, not because people were confused about it what entails.
@Greg
I agree with you, except that at-large is city representation, not ward representation. Its an important thing that should be clarified.
Its a choice, and people should be clear on the choice.
You guys are splitting hairs. There’s a residency requirement in both charters. One is more representative than the other. Both both are representative. Over and out!
@Greg — Still waiting for response on the democratic nature hypothetical 2-person Reibman family council.
Believing that current proposal assures both village-level representation and geographic balance, constitutes an act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct. Hmmm, where have I heard that definition before….
Living in a ward doesn’t mean you’re representing it.
Or in other words, some wards may just be more equal than others… hmm, again sounds familiar.
The proposed charter requires a ward residency requirement for eight of the councilors. Lowell has an all at-large council with no residency requirement.
@Jack – thank you for posting that ad. That is incredible. As in, incredibly dishonest.
If charter commissioners think their plan is so great, they should sell it on its merits – not try to mislead people. We have enough of that in Washington DC right now.
@Jane
“The proposed charter requires a ward residency requirement for eight of the councilors.”
That is clear language.
“Preserving ward representation” is misleading.
Lowell currently has six white councilors from their wealthy Belvidere neighborhood while the proposed Newton charter limits us to 5 from a neighborhood, perhaps a couple more if the ward boarders are drawn well, correct?
@Jack-
I know you’re trying to be lighthearted about it, but it really is just deceptive advertising in a HUGE way – on fundamental terminology as understood by the voting public.
Its fine to disagree on policy, but voters should all be calling on the members of the Commission to put a halt to the misrepresentations. It puts into question the credibility of the Commission’s decision making process if this is how they are choosing to allow it to be promoted.
Under the proposed charter, there is no guarantee — not even any incentive — for a Ward Councilor elected primarily by others to be representative of the wishes of the voters in the Ward in which the Councilor happens to reside. Residency doesn’t imply representation.
An imperfect but illustrative analogy: Lt. General Thomas Gage and John Hancock were each Governors of Massachusetts — each required to reside in the colony. But what a difference! The former was selected externally (appointed by the Crown) while the latter was elected locally. The analogy is imperfect because these were executives, not legislators — and being appointed by the Crown is not the same as being elected primarily by voters in other Wards of the city. But we can still learn from the comparison. Internally selected Hancock was representative of the colony’s residents, and externally selected Gage was not.
@Greg- The question of more…or less democratic is a classic red herring.
It is clearly less representative than what we have now. Misrepresenting it makes it even worse.
Vote NO.
Less ward representive. More democratic. End of story.
‘Yes’ is feeling the popularity of ‘No’ so much so they are resorting to spinmeistering. To say the ‘Yes’ is ignorant of the popularity polling on ‘No’ would be an understatement. Truth will ultimately prevail, enhancing voter participation.
This is a matter of opinion and personal experience. If you have a great
councilor-by-ward who sees it as his/her responsibility to represent you, then you have great representation. The same applies to the current structure, or any structure for that matter.
No Jane.
They may see it as their responsibility to represent you– and everyone else in the city too.
A elected official represents those who vote him/her into office.
A ward representative implies they are elected by ward.
A city representative-by ward is a more accurate term. (you chose similar words in your post)
There is no cost to being more accurate how this is being described. There IS a cost by being less clear.
Get this right. Do the right thing.
“If you have a great councilor-by-ward who sees it as his/her responsibility to represent you, then you have great representation.” That’s true.
And if you don’t have that, then under the current charter, your recourse is to mount a Ward-level campaign. I’ve seen that. It’s a thrilling demonstration of democracy at work. But under the proposed charter, your recourse would be to mount a City-wide campaign to achieve better Ward-level representation.
@Bruce: I agree with you 100 percent. I’ve seen it too.
Here’s where I struggle:
1. I’ve also seen ward electeds totally disrupt things that I believe benefit the greater good with no recourse to vote against that person.
2. I want a smaller city council and this strikes me as the best way to achieve that without giving ward specific councilors even more power to achieve No. 1.
@Greg: When I was young, I was taught an important lesson, which is that the world doesn’t revolve around me. Had I been raised to believe that everything was about me and my own perspective, I most certainly would have fallen subject to my circumstances.
Though completely unpersuasive to me, you’ve raised some valid points throughout this debate, which I appreciate. However, your latest argument that “I’ve also seen ward electeds totally disrupt things that I believe benefit the greater good with no recourse to vote against that person” goes to my point that sometimes it just isn’t about you.
Look, we all see the same set of facts differently. That is part of being human as our perspective on things is dictated by our unique experiences. But to suggest that we should eliminate ward representation on such reasoning, especially when it is in fact very well documented that increasing at-large representation often if not always leads to a decrease in minority representation, just doesn’t add up.
@Tom: When did you stop being young?
In November, Newton voter will be voting on a new city charter based on the recommendations given in the Newton Charter Commission Report. We are only given two options: YES or NO. We are given a choice to vote for all the recommendations as proposed by the commission or to vote for no change. This proposal is a rewrite of our charter. As voters we are not allowed to cherry pick the charter report items that we like.
But on close examination of the many changes in this charter report, we may notice that most of these recommendations can be individually approved by the elected councilors in their normal duties with the involvement of Newton citizens rather than go thru a rewriting of the charter. This seems like a logical approach to getting something right.
But there is one issue in this new charter that cannot be resolved by our councilors. That issue is a great concern to all and it needs a formal city vote. This would be a major change to our local form of government. Most cities do not have this report’s recommended form of government. No State government has it, and our Federal government does not use it. In our case, this recommendation is to change our democratic representation from having one local ward councilor elected from each ward to having no local ward councilors [ in simple terms: To change from having local representation to not having any local representation ]. The number of councilors is not the real issue. This change would have all the councilors elected as councilors at large. In essence, your ward may never have a local representative. Most likely, only the wealthier wards will have the most representatives. So a minority group within a ward would virtually have a minimum or no chance of having a voice in Newton. Also, a candidate from a less wealthy ward would need to over-come the financial challenge of finding supporters throughout the city, since they cannot just depend on their local ward to be elected.
We have a political term for the type of political official who would replace our current local ward representative, as seen during the reconstruction period in the confederate states after the civil war: That representative was called a Carpet Bagger- A political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections. I think this recommendation is analogous to requesting us to allow a carpet bagger candidate into each ward here in Newton in lieu of a true local candidate representative. The issue isn’t just about the carpet bagger’s qualifications and how efficient they are. I believe that the majority of the local ward constituents want a representative that is locally vested in their concerns. It is personal, and it is in each constituent‘s backyard and their local neighborhood.
I believe this representation needs to be a democratic process. Democracy is not efficient. This usually requires neighborly involvement, compromise and dialogue with our local representative. This process usually requires more time to reach a consensus. Let’s get together in our common areas (village squares, village events, city hall, meeting houses, etc.) and discuss our concerns. Hopefully, we may resolve some issues and set forth plans to correct our shorts falls for a better future.
Our current charter has served us well for a very-very long time with only a few changes. I’m a believer in the idiom “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” I cannot think of a nicer city near us which has as many citizen features – I admit it, I am biased, because I live here. And that’s also why I moved here over 40 years ago.
To put things in the correct perspective: The problems that we are having with our Newton city government are not with our current democratic ward representation, but with our executive branch and the associated administration of planning and development.
To protect our current democracy, I believe we all need to vote “NO” to any change to our charter, since that is the best option given to us with this report’s recommendation. And we need to advise our current councilors (local and at large representatives) to vote on those other report changes that would be beneficial to the citizen representation of our city.
@Greg
You’re getting to the heart of the matter, which is great.
Democracy is not efficient.
It appears that you’re comfortable making our government a bit less representative in order to better achieve the “greater good.” As long as the government shares your definition of “greater good” that works great. Its rarely that simple.
A specific example. The Mayor’s report on affordable housing makes the point that certain parts of the city are too expensive for affordable housing projects to be feasible. One reasonable conclusion is that to enable the most affordable housing in Newton, we should spend our resources in lower cost-areas of the city, to maximize the number of units for a given spend. Other could reasonably believe that from an equity and diversity standpoint, affordable housing should be spread throughout the city– ensuring that all are sharing the burden on growing traffic, growth in school enrollment that increase class sizes, etc.
Which is the greater good? Is it really that clear? (actually curious on your answer to this as an aside)
I do get the arguments in favor of keeping the ward councilors. All things considers that would be my preference though I don’t feel passionately about it as many folks posting here do.
For those who think the elimination of ward councilors will be the end of democracy as we know it, I’m curious why the longstanding lack of ward representatives on the School Committee is not an equally egregious slight against democracy.
@Jerry – I’ve long thought School Committee members should be elected by ward, as Framingham has decided to do in their brand new charter. It took Margaret Albright 3 runs to be elected, and she is an standout School Committee member in the breadth of her knowledge, her demand for excellence and her compassion for children and families. Many people would not be willing to go through the arduous experience of a citywide campaign three times, in which case we would not be benefiting from her service. At-large seats make it harder for the non-connected, non-wealthy to run, and when they run, to win.
@Jerry – Answer is quite simple – its the scope of impact.
SC’s work is limited only to schools. There are enough checks through highly qualified and paid administration as well as regulations who ensure certain minimum standards. Besides, theoretically I have a choice. I can always move my children in private or parochial schools.
CC impact will affect my every day – commute, crowding in schools, budget deficit etc. My only option will be to move out of Newton if I dont like the side affects of an aggressive building agenda.
@Jerry
What Emily said.
SC system is similarly flawed.
I don’t think the group overall is that great, and we’ve suffered from a connected set of individuals, with seats “passed down” from one to the next. At-large races favor the wealthy and/or politically connected.
For Margaret Albright to take multiple rounds to win when she’s by far more qualified than most SC members is the problem that needs fixing.
Jerry,
It’s because nobody knows what the heck the school committee does. Until they fix potholes, no one cares.
Greg Reibman writes: “Less ward representative. More democratic. End of story.” Reminds me of the old tag line for Miller Lite. Sorry. I’m really not my ready to settle for watered-down, low-calorie local government—even if it means putting up with a sometimes unattractive, but highly protective layer of fat.
The messy, sometimes slow and process-driven (especially on real estate issues, which is — in case people haven’t realized– why charter reform is suddenly so urgent when people have been talking about “downsizing the board” for at least the 18 years that I’ve lived in Newton) BoA/City Council form of government is, as many have well-argued, far from perfect. I would, however, state with much conviction that what we have now still carries a $30k per election (vs. $9k) pre-charter reform reality. Instead of fixing this, the new charter puts even more emphasis on city-wide seats, ensuring that winning office will become even more expensive, time commitment-intensive and donor-dependent, all the while losing the built-in protections of ward-elected representation. (May I suggest that “ward-elected representation is more accurate than the deceptive propaganda of “ward representation” being bandied about?) The Jake Auchincloss vs. Emily Norton $30k vs. $9k example of funding also illustrates the increasing standard profile of victorious at-large Newton candidates (including mayor): Not working, campaigning full time and supported by either wealthy interests, unearned income or a rich spouse. Do I want rich professional campaigners representing me (a la Trump, Bloomberg and Romney?) or earnest, civic-minded parents with demanding jobs and kids whose futures depend on the excellence of our public schools because the prospect of private schools doesn’t exist in their family budget? Give me everyday, median income normal people to represent the interests of the overwhelming majority of Newton voters that have neither the time nor money to do what it will take to win election in Newton under this new charter. This proposed charter that makes the “top 4 vote getters” living anywhere our City Councilors means more watered-down “citywide” positions and lack of accountability to voters in more development-vulnerable areas. We’re looking at wealthy-ward power cluster government –potentially funded by real estate developers and NIMBY wealthy homeowners that could, for instance, keep “affordable housing” out of affluent areas or concentrated in “accessible village centers” vs. Chestnut Hill and Waban.
For all you no supporters: Does it bother any of you that you pay (percentage wise) the same for all 8 ward councilors (including bene’s) and they vote for things that affect your daily lives, but you don’t have say as to who gets into 7/8 of those positions. I pay for all the councilors salary equally, I should have a right to vote for or against who fills those positions.
Also to you no-voters: How many of you honestly would support the charter changes if it weren’t for the ward representation issue?
If the SC model was flawed, why didn’t any of you make any noise about changing the model?? This is where most of you lose me. If the SC model was so bad, you should have been lining down the streets during the charter commission meetings to complain about it. But it didn’t happen. Emily says she has been opposed to it for years, as far as I know, I haven’t heard her complain publicly about it regarding the charter. It’s only when it directly affects her position she makes noise (no offense Emily). Everyone should have been yelling about it during the past 18 months and maybe the commission would have taken a second look at this. But as far as I know, you all sat silent and now you don’t like the results.
I never really thought about this issue until the charter commission brought it up. It actually ticks me off that so many councilors get elected and I have no control over that.
Thank you Charter commission for looking at this.
@Tom: Does it bother you that Kay Khan gets to vote on things that affect your life but that you have no say in whether she gets elected?*
*By donating money, plenty of people are influencing elections of candidates they can’t directly vote for
Hi Tom — As we discussed on the NCLR facebook page ( https://www.facebook.com/newtondemocracy/), I think of myself paying for councilors the same way I’m voting — 8/8th of my Ward Councilor’s pay, 0/8th of the other Ward Councilor’s pay, and 1/8th of each Councilor At-Large’s pay. Do you see your congressional tax dollars going to 1/435th of Joe Kennedy’s salary or all of it?
I trust that the residents of the other wards are going to support the Ward Councilor that looks out for the interests and qualities of their parts of the city, and thus keep the city as a whole excellent. Why be so distrustful of your fellow citizens picking councilors and for elections at the village level?
The school committee composition question is a good one. Basically this Commission made it crystal clear a few weeks into their process that they were 100% for 100% At-large elections. Why would anyone try to argue for a change to Ward-elected school committee members when they were 100% dug in on eliminating that feature from the council one day 1?
Its just sad that spiting some CC who voted against something, is at the root of this new Charter. I wish the new proposal was based on something positive, or more aspirational.
I truly believe we are better people than this.
Emily,
You are comparing apples to oranges.
Maybe I’m wrong, but the last time I looked, Kay Khan doesn’t get paid through our property taxes…she is not on the city payroll. We have an opportunity to make changes in municipal government, which does not pertain to Kay Khan. If you want to make changes there, you stand out for signatures and you do the necessary legwork and we can talk about making changes to her position, but until then, lets stick to the councilors. OK?
As I said in previous postings, I firmly believe comparing the SC to the City Council is totally apples to oranges. Whether I like the fact that SC members are voted at large or just by ward is so beside the point – they are two different entities. For example, the SC is concerned just with the schools. Yes, the schools have an impact on the city at large, but not to the degree that the City Council does.
Additionally, any arguments for changing the charter based on the SC model fails for me and is a total non-starter. The school committee is THE perfect example of what will happen if the charter proposal for only at-large voting goes through: Concentrated blocks of group mind-think, total go-along-to-get-along herd mentality and worse, sham meetings where the decisions have been determined beforehand. Because of the fact that they’re a closed group means the people that run for the seats are hand-picked by their elite supporters to get what they want and no outsiders need apply. THREE times it took Margaret to win! And I know of many other qualified candidates who ran but didn’t stand a chance. Word of advice to advocates like Tom: Drop using the SC as an example. For this citizen, not since 1974 has there been a more entrenched, miserable bunch and it can be traced to not being more directly accountable. I’ve said before that their foot dragging on the late school start times for YEARS is utterly unforgivable. I’m with Mr. Striar on this. They need to leave and using them as a positive example is grating.
Ban shredded minds, make Newton grate again!
@Tom – As someone strongly leaning towards No:
-Not really bothered by the pay percentages for ward councilors. The way I see it every person in the city gets to vote for the same number of councilors – 16 ward resident at-large and one ward. No one gets to vote for multiple ward councilors and no ward has more than one so it ultimately evens out.
-A smaller council maintaining some level of ward-elected representation would be an easy yes. I think overall the model we have works but is too inefficient. There are other ways to reduce the size without completely removing ward-elected councilors.
At the Program and Service committee meeting this past Monday, 14th of August, to my amazement these councilors struggled with the format and content of the charter ballot question. Currently, this committee has not resolved their ballot questions. Several committee councilors were concerned the question appeared to be misleading and biased. Several councilors had issues with the wording in this new Charter. This item continues in another session in the near future.
I’m hoping for an unbiased ballot description in the city flyer. This Charter vote flyer which is distributed to the voter is composed of write-ups from several groups. The city’s legal department writes the summary section. So if you think that this is an easy issue, I think you might be overlooking the complexity of this document. This is our city’s constitution, which is called the Charter. It is the heart of what we are as a city. It has survived for many decades with very few changes- These prior changes seem to be minor changes in comparison to this major revision. So why change something if it is not broken?
This charter commission could have proposed that the current Charter was adequate and that they could have proposed individual docket items for the various issues such as the all At Large councilor seating vs. the current mix of At-Large and Ward councilors, the number of councilors, etc. As Councilor Baker pointed out in this Monday session, many of these changes can be handled though the normal council docket-process. Some of these Charter changes have financial implications. Why not let the full city council review these issues as docket items? Then the approved changes will be codified into the current Charter.
I was at the final review which was open to public comment before the final report. And in summary there was a significant amount protesting about the loss of local ward representation as being proposed in this new charter. I spoke out again this point. The Charter Commission chose to ignore this issue, and in this final open public dialogue made it very clear that they had quickly decide very early the revision deliberations that this was not a critical issue. And further noted that they were unanimously favored the all At-Large councilor representation for all Newton residents.
I’ve not read any sound logic from the prior submitted comments that can persuade me to rethink my position.
A “NO” vote retains the existing Charter.. I’m voting “NO”
I’m having trouble following this.
Why are current city councilors involved in shaping the charter language?
@Greg: They don’t, something the clerk explained to them repeatedly. Still, they requested we review several aspects of our report and ballot language, which we are planning to do on Wednesday.
@James: You seem to be confused about how this process works. The Charter Commission did not have the option to propose individual docket items. That’s not how a Charter Commission works, it is a process heavily delineated by state law.
To clarify what’s going on with the council further: They technically have to take action to finalize the ballot, but by state law they have no ability to change the question. The Commission is committed to creating a fair and unbiased question, with just factual information about the major changes, something I feel we have achieved in the version presented to the council.
The “No” group has one request for how the charter commission describes the changes in their objective summary:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/83754
Rather than say “eight members representing wards” for the council and school committee seats, it would be more objective and accurate to say “one member from each of the eight wards”.
No one on the proposed council or school committee represents the ward they reside in. They are elected by and represent voters city wide.
This request was made at the last charter commission meeting but the commission voted 8-0 to retain the language above.
Newton legislative experts: should the charter pass, is there a way to amend aspects of it before a 10-year review? Can a citizen petition create that change?
@Kevin: Yes! The charter can be changed at any time through a home rule petition of the city council.
“The charter can be changed at any time through a home rule petition of the city council.”
Exactly. Looking forward to it! 😉
Thank you Bruce Henderson for all comments.
I agree. We need to retain our local ward representation.