I’m excited to report that Charter Commission Chair Josh Krintzman has pulled papers to run for councilor at-large from Ward 4.
I think Josh would make a great city councilor. He’s smart, articulate and level-headed. He’s also a strategic thinker who is passionate about this city. My impression is that to be an effective chair of the Charter Commission.
Professionally, Josh is director of government relations for the Commonwealth Care Alliance. He also served as Deputy Council in the Mass. State Senate.
I look forward to hearing his reasons for running.
Is that councilor at large with ward residency or councilor running rampant citywide with rabid canines in hot pursuit? Wanted 1 dog catcher citywide, please apply at the corner office.
Great news! Josh will be a thoughtful and energetic addition to the Council.
One question Josh: What is your voting constituency? Ward 4 or the entire city? When held to the fire, do you side with neighbors or the voters throughout the city?
Charter mishagus aside, I’m a big fan.
This is great news! Josh will be a good addition.
Looking forward to learning more about Josh. It’s great to have more candidates running.
Terry, it says he’s running for the ward 4 at-large seat.
Yes, Marti. And my question was to point to the CharCom’s bunk theory that At-Large with residency requirement is equal to Ward only Councilor.
@Terry: Ward-at-large is not equal to ward only, they are different forms of ward representation. Ward-at-large IS a form of ward representation, a form which works very well for our current city council and school committee, and a form which will serve us well on a smaller city council.
@Bryan: It works well for our current city council BECAUSE we also have WARD ONLY representation too!
could it be they are running in circles chasing their tails? We need a big net on a pole. I’m running for dog catcher.
@Amy: I disagree. I don’t think you need a ward councilor to be an effective ward-at-large councilor. Can you explain why as a ward-at-large councilor you believe you are unable to adequately represent your ward without a ward only councilor?
I would also ask if you think the school committee members are unable to adequately represent their wards?
Councilor at Large Sangiolo is right. John Rice has made it possible for Councilors Crossley and me to pursue our interests by doing a superlative job of representing the grassroots needs of Ward Five, including making it the only ward with three Neighborhood Area Councils and then working closely with all three. I like to think I have the soul of a Ward Councilor and I value enormously my interactions with the residents of Ward Five , butI’m enough of a realist to know that I couldn’t fill the gap that the loss of a Ward Councilor would mean.
It should be made clear that the Ward Councilors are being wiped out, the Councilors at Large cut in half, and a new class of total at Large Councilors established..
As far as I know, the Charter Commission has not analyzed what would happen to the existing work load of the Council. It seems likely that one of the three separate committees (Land Use, Zoning and Planning and Finance) would have to be dropped. Land Use is the most likely candidate with its powers dispersed to an non-elected body like the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board. This should be made explicitly clear.
As to what happens to the three P Committees, Public Safety and Transportation, Programs and Services, and Public Facilities, it seems like that one of them will have to be eliminated as well with the other two committees taking on the burden and probably extending their meetings at least another hour every two weeks or cutting the oversight and input into the city agencies.
If any of the advocates for the new Charter can point out where I’m wrong and demonstrate that in fact the Committee structure of a smaller council will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Council rather than transforming it into a rubberstamp for any administration, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Congratulations Josh! Best news I’ve heard all day.
Thank you, Brian, for laying out the overlooked consequences of a reduction in the number of councilors. Eliminating ward councilors is such a bad idea that the total reduction in number has not gotten as much attention.
Geez, Brian. I am glad I am not running. It sounds like the Newton City Council is turning into Game of Thrones.
Brian Yates- In response to your statement that some of the committees would need to be eliminated with the smaller council, why wouldn’t each committee in a smaller city council just be smaller?
This has made my day! Josh will be very able to meet the needs of Ward 4 and the City like all current Councilors-at-Large. As I have said before, Council Sangiolo has done this better than most and Josh would have big shoes to fill for Ward 4!
To answer Andrea’s question, When you wipe out one third of the Council, you need to either wipe out one third of the work as in giving Land Use to an unelected board or pile the work into the remaining committees. The only reasonable way to make committees smaller is by cutting the number of wards, which is not proposed,
@Bryan: You say that Ward at-large is a “form which works very well for our current city council” We have 2 at-large and 1 ward only for each of the 8 wards. That is what is working well. You then say that Ward at-large is a form which will serve us well on a smaller city council – yet the majority of the communities you and your fellow Commissioners looked at have WARD or DISTRICT ONLY representatives as well as AT-LARGE, right? So you’ll have to forgive some of us who question the rationale for your recommendation.
I believe every Ward should have a seat at the table and a strong advocate for their needs and concerns. Just like the City of Boston, MA which has 13 members – 9 elected by District – 4 elected at-large, the City of Somerville, MA which has 11 members – 7 elected by District – 4 elected at-large, the City of Worcester, MA which has 10 councilors – 5 District – 6 at-large (1 is mayor), the
City of Springfield, MA – 13 councilors – 8 by ward – 5 at-large or the City of Waltham – 9 wards – 6 at-large – just to name a few.
I’m just curious. Given the ratios of representation in other Mass local governments that Amy notes, was there another scenario for “downsizing the board” that was given serious consideration?
If I may interject – the members of the charter commission do not speak with one voice. As pointed out in the final report, we rarely had unanimous votes and our discussions were “spirited”. If a member of the commission chooses to post here, s/he does so as an individual, not as the voice of the charter commission.
Bryan – I speak only for myself, but what I hope the council will “drop” is the time spent on issues such as the discussion about whether the President should be impeached (docketed for June 7th). We elect a Congressman and two Senators to work on issues at the federal level. Newton residents expect and deserve a city council that’s focused on local/regional issues.
As an aside to a thread about the entry of a new candidate, I fully support Josh’s candidacy for the Ward 4 city council seat.
@Amy: You didn’t answer my questions. Which aspects of representing your ward required the addition of a ward councilor for you to complete? How were you unable to represent your ward without one?
And do you believe the school committee members elected ward-at-large cannot effectively represent their wards?
@Bryan
LOL Bryan. I don’t think you’ve answered anyone’s questions on the rationale for removing Ward-only representatives.
And now YOU’RE going after Amy?
Can you give us several examples where Ward-only representatives were counterproductive?
How specifically is Ward-at-large better than Ward-only? Looking for specific examples not hypotheticals or generalities.
You’re the one proposing changes to the Charter, its time for you to start giving answers.
A ward councilor from another ward who votes against a project or an issue that affects my daily life is “counterproductive”. Why should I not be able to vote against that councilor in the next election?
@Paul: I’m not “going after” anyone, this isn’t personal in any way.
We’ve been very clear about why we included ward-at-large councilors over ward-only councilors. We deliberated this in open meetings for hours both during the decision making process and as we wrote our final report. All of our reasoning is laid out in our final report. Since you appear to be suggesting that we refuse to engage directly on this blog, please forgive the long list, but this is right out of our final report:
In deciding whether these ward-based councilors should be elected citywide or only by the ward,
we considered the following:
– Newton’s long-standing tradition of having a majority of councilors elected citywide is
important to preserve the sense of one city. Currently, two-thirds of our city council and
our entire school committee are elected from the ward by voters citywide.
– Voters have more influence over the actions of the council when they can vote for all
councilors.
– As a city of 18 square miles and 88,000 residents, issues such as traffic, safety, and
economic development affect all residents, so councilors should be acting in the best
interests of the whole city.
– City councilors who answer to all voters are the best way to ensure that our villages are
uniformly supported and thoughtfully integrated into the whole city. Newton is
comprised of 13 villages of unique character that are a source of pride and enhanced
sense of community for their residents. They create a beautiful and varied cityscape
connected by Newton’s common infrastructure. The villages vary dramatically in
population and size; they do not align with our voting wards or precincts.
– While Newton once had a racial enclave, today racial and other minorities live throughout
the city. Minority candidates running citywide are able to garner support from minority
voters across the city.
– Newton’s school committee is comprised of eight members elected citywide with a ward
residency requirement. Each member represents special issues in his or her own ward, but
is responsible for the school system as a whole. This model has worked well for our city.
– Councilors elected by ward only have been elected with fewer than 550 votes but make
decisions affecting the whole city. Councilors elected citywide require almost ten times
the number of votes to win election.
That’s theory, Jane.
Newton is a pretty good place as it is. You need more than a hypothetical idea to justify significant changes to our structure.
Actual examples.
Specifics.
Details.
Data.
@Bryan
You didn’t answer my questions.
Please read again.
Looking for specifics. Not generalities.
We shouldn’t be making significant changes to our charter, without a clear understanding of what problems we are trying to solve.
Newton has done great for 100+ years with the existing system. Any changes have unintended consequences that could be detrimental. We aren’t a failing city desperate for change, but a shining example of a city in the US. That’s with the current system.
The burden is on those desiring change, to make the case, using specifics, on what we gain by making these changes.
Actual examples.
Specifics.
Details.
Data.
@Marcia Johnson — The Yes organization quotes you as saying “charter reform is an opportunity to support the ward councilors..”. You were an Alderman at Large for many years. Was the term “Ward Alderman” (now Ward Councilor) interchangeable term such that you would routinely use it to refer to this as your title on the board?
I’m glad to see Josh throw his hat in the ring. He’d make a great councilor.
On the charter commission issue I want to add some context in this discussion. This whole debacle falls squarely on our elected officials. Back when I ran for Mayor in 2005 , I went door to door, after taxes their big issue was the size of the Board. I know that’s hard to believe but it was absolutely true. They were upset at the Mayor (who they voted for) for not taking their vote seriously. I am referring to the 2 votes where the electorate voted by a 2:1 margin (70-30) to reduce the size of the Board…..a very clear mandate. I promised myself that before I leave this city, the city will have an opportunity to create a smaller board. I tried to go through the board. through homerule petition, many of our elected officials said don’t worry we’ll cut the size through home rule. Lo and behold nothing happened. I believe Rick Lipoff spear headed the process twice and the board refused to allow it go to the state. They blocked the will of the people!!!! After starting the signature drive I then tried to get an item through the board to create a committee to take a look at what the Board actually does. Actually piggybacking on the research that the CAG had already done. The Programs and services committee just burried my request. The programs and services committee at the time was chaired by Marcia Johnson, then in the second go round by Amy Sangiolo, it’s probably some where in that committee right now…I haven’t heard about it in 4-5 years.
The work I requested would have laid the groundwork to determine what responsibilities the Board could have given to city hall or other committees.
Personally, I’d like to know where both Councilors stand in the charter issue and if their position on this issue had anything to do with burying my request.
There is definitely responsibility that can be passed along…ie special permits to other people.
The Board (now council) is solely responsible for this situation. In this issue you have decided to oppose the will of the people at every turn. Enjoy the situation you all created.
This is my last thoughts on this issue:
Most of the Councilors have been obstructionists on charter reform and cutting the size of the council from day 1. They find a narrative to fill their need, today it’s ward representation tomorrow it’ll be something else.
How do I know this?? Easy, during the charter commission meetings, we never heard any kind of outrage from the councilors that the school committee should be elected by ward. If they honestly believed what they say, there would have been pressure on the commission to take a look at how the SC got elected.
Don’t be fooled by this facade. We’re so close to cutting the size, if we don’t do it now, based upon history we won’t have another chance at this apple within our lifetime. Just vote your conscience and don’t be fooled.
@Bryan: With all due respect, you didn’t respond to your statement leading up to the question.
First – thank you Marcy! You served the City in an exceptional way and I applaud all that you have done for the City to advance City goals and needs and I sorely miss having your thoughtfulness on the Council. But when it came to certain issues, you had to look at the City as a whole – in part – maybe it was because you were elected at-large, that were not necessarily in the interests of your Ward. I get that. Sometimes, I have to do that as well. But that’s where the Ward Councilor comes in. To be that advocate, that voice for the residents who are DIRECTLY IMPACTED by a decision.
I think I have been a good representative and advocate for all residents across this City. Currently, I am the only At-Large City Councilor that puts together a weekly newsletter and has a website that posts all of the City Council meetings and meetings of other City Boards and Commissions and posts school committee and school department information (when available) – (go to amysangiolo.com to subscribe) to keep Newton residents informed about what City government is up to because of my commitment to open and transparent government.
I rely on my Ward Councilor to leaflet our neighborhoods , to alert them to meetings or to send out notices, to meet with our local neighborhood groups, to attend meetings and schedule site visits where land use issues are concerned, and to be in the neighborhood to hear what issues are of particular concern to them. And on those occasions when we disagree because I think the interests of the City outweigh the interests of my Ward, our Ward Councilor provides that balance, that advocacy, that voice for our Ward. And to me, that is what local representative democracy is all about.
Bryan, you asked about the School Committee. I rarely hear from my School Committee Representative. As mentioned above, whenever the School Department transmits information to the Council, I make sure I post it on my website and my newsletter so that folks know what’s going on. When I need specific information about a school issue, I usually contact the Chair of the School Committee. I’m not sure what issues are necessarily ward centric these days. Back in the day, the burning issue for this Ward was focused on redistricting the Williams School community to Newton South and imposing bus fees on this community – given that we were forced to commute to a school at the other end of the City. Also, if I recall, there was a lot frustration with the School Committee in the past because they all seemed to be voting as one- very rarely would there be any divided votes or dissent – as if all decisions were made prior to the public meetings.
@Tom: Your docket item was referred to the Long Range Planning Committee. I don’t remember what happened to your specific item, but I do know that the item regarding what CAG recommendations should be implemented was voted No Action Necessary by the members of that Committee. There are several ways to reduce the size of the Council. Rick Lipof and Verne Vance both recommended reducing the Board by getting rid of 8 of the at-large members – not the Ward only elected members and as I listed above, many other communities have smaller Councils but maintain District only elected reps. It’s too bad, we cannot pick and choose which recommendations of the Charter Commission we approve or disapprove. And Tom, in all of your years of advocating for a reduction in the size of the Board, I do not recall you recommending getting rid of Ward Aldermen and I have not heard the call to get rid of Ward Councilors from the general public.
“I rely on my Ward Councilor to leaflet our neighborhoods , to alert them to meetings or to send out notices, to meet with our local neighborhood groups, to attend meetings and schedule site visits where land use issues are concerned, and to be in the neighborhood to hear what issues are of particular concern to them.”
These details are helpful.
So to the commission members: Do you think these neighborhood-oriented contacts are important? Do you expect ward-at large representatives to continue these neighborhood-oriented activities, even if 80-90% of their voting constituents reside in other wards?
Did the group consider this?
Bryan – I think School Committee members elected at large does hurt their wards. Look at the Technology Budget and playgrounds – for years we had wide disparity with some schools having superior technology and others all computers over 10 years old. We have wide disparities between our schools that are rarely discussed, in academic achievement, facilities, tech…
I think the citywide elections for SC members helps hide this.
Amy, Thanks for your response.
Your right, I never advocated for this issue, even when I ran to be on the council. Had I been on the council there is no doubt there would have been a more thorough discussion on this issue. BUT, these are the 9 very thoughtful people who the voters selected. This issue obviously was brought to the attention to atleast one of the Charter Commissioners and they researched the idea, discussed, benchmarked and did their due diligence and they were transparent during their proceedings (more than any other commission) and I believe they were open minded throughout the process.
Amy, we can disagree on issues, but we can agree on one thing: No document this size will ever, ever be perfect for everyone. We can always find things wrong. If reducing the size of the Board is your main issue (and it is for many people) this shouldn’t be a game-changer…that just doesn’t make sense.
Correction:
even when I ran to be on the charter commission (not council).
@Tom: For me, the most important issue is protecting the voice of the residents and ensuring that each Ward has a seat at the table. The Commissioners could have explored many other options to reduce the size of the Council but their main issue has been on elimination of Ward only representatives and for me, that is a game changer.
@Amy: That’s incorrect. Our main issue has been a thoughtful rethinking of how a smaller, more effective, more responsive, more easily understandable city council could be composed. The idea that ward councilors are somehow needed as part of that solution was not something I ever heard while running for the position. In fact, most of my conversations were along the lines of, “just cut the council, I don’t care how you do it.”
We did explore many options for reducing the size, you just don’t happen to like the one we selected. The ballot question asks voters whether the proposed charter should replace the current charter, not which type of councilors they wish to be on a smaller council. I would love to be able to let the voters decide that, but that’s not how the state law works.
Finally, please don’t mischaracterize our intentions. There was no effort to eliminate ward councilors, there was an effort to reimagine our city council, and the solution we landed on consists of ward-at-large councilors and 4 at-large councilors.
I’m pretty far from shy about talking with people and I did NOT hear one single person ever used the words “…cut the council, I don’t care how you do it”. People in Newton are way too smart to say something like that.
What I DID hear was “…if you’re going to cut the size of the Board, cut the 16 at large down to 8.” Many people saw value in being able to run head to head…and have a smaller board at the same time.
Fast forward to today: A smaller Council is not a good enough reason to wipe out the time-tested and very successful Ward-elected Ward Councilor structure..
Vote NO.
I’m wondering how many more CC members will pull papers. Moving targets for sure requiring a keen ability to maneuver in adversity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjAe35iSwG4
In the course of our work, the charter commission has found no other city or town in the U.S. with more that one representative per ward. (Overwhelmingly, city councils in the U.S. offer low pay and part-time work.) Why does Newton need two representatives per ward when all other cities make do with one?
Or are the people arguing that we need councilors elected by one ward only suggesting that the 8 of our 12 councilors should answer to one ward only? Having 2/3 of the council elected by only 1/8 of the city would be a far more radical change than what the charter commission has actually proposed.
@Jack I am not sure what you are asking. So let me try and clarify.
Yes, I was At-Large. I did not refer to myself as “Ward” Alderman. However, like all ” at-large” councilors, I did work at the ward-level and the city-level and this will continue with the new charter. No one will lose any representation. I believe that with the new charter, I would gain representation. There are those who are currently ward-only, like Cheryl Lappin, who has similar positions to me would become someone for whom I can vote
As I have previously stated on V14. I would like the opportunity to place a vote for all current councilors who have the title of “Ward”. They do things that I like and things that I do not and I want to have a say in who gets a seat at the table.
I have a question I have not read answered or debated, (it was brought up on this thread,or perhaps another):
Time. I ask this not of the commission folks necessarily but has anyone considered the time it will now take to represent a segment of the population under this new proposal? We have 24 people representing 88K worth of citizens. We’re cutting that in half, down to 12 to represent the same number.
Recognizing that out of the 24, some are more engaged than others and devote more time to their duties, but we will still have only half that amount of reps, and still again with varying degrees of commitment out of that 12, which leaves even less room for someone to take a nap during meetings. That nap with only 12 now has more of an impact on the quality of the governing taking place.
I recognize that all 88K worth of people aren’t having an issue every day that needs resolving but truly, how would this work, effectively doubling someone’s workload? I hear tell of tales of councilors receiving emails and phone calls constantly. Won’t that now double? Also lead to a greater concentration of only taking care of those with the deepest pockets too?
@Tom
I would like to correct what was attributed to me” The Programs and services committee just burried my request. The programs and services committee at the time was chaired by Marcia Johnson”
To clarify….former Alderman Parker and I conducted a survey of the then Board of Alderman regarding how we could be a more efficient and effective body and it was the Board’s choice to not take any action based on the outcomes of that survey. When Councilor Lennon and Councilor Lappin became President and Vice President respecitvely, they did take up two of the suggestions which was to integrate the work of the Post Audit and Commnity Preservation Committess into the six standing committees. However, we did try but without much success.
You are correct the Board, as a whole, had no interest in reducing its size. Efforts were led by Councilor Lipof, former Alderman Verne Vance and I think Councilor Ted Hess-Mahan.
I’m constantly amazed by those who would like Newton to be more like other cities. When the reality is most other cities view Newton in comparatively high regard.
We’ve been doing it right.
Change can sometimes be good.
But this isn’t one of those times.
Voting NO on a bad idea is the right choice.
Mark-
First of all, the size of the council puts the us within the range of councils in the vast majority of communities in the nation. These are communities that “get things done” and are democratic entities.
With 12 councilors, residents have a much better chance of knowing which ones are fully engaged in their work. With 24, it’s too easy to slip through the cracks.
The city council will need to prioritize where it spends its time. Should the council forego issues such as the recently docketed item to recommend that the President be impeached, and instead spend that time focusing on local issues? I hope so. Should the council spend 2 and half years debating leaf blowers? That was a grueling process for the residents and landscapers who had to attend multiple meetings and hearings.
Look through the council committee dockets. Are there items that the staff should/could deal with.
As for councilors who only take care of residents with deep pockets, I can’t wait to campaign and vote against that crowd. Right now that’s not an option for 7/8 of the city.
@Marcia — You are quoted as saying “For me charter reform is an opportunity to vote for WARD COUNCILORS WHO DO GREAT THINGS FOR THE CITY who I cannot current vote for”. If you can vote for a councilor in another ward, they are not a Ward Councilor, they are Councilors at Large. Cheryl and her seat will disappear, so you will not vote for her after charter reform. She could try to run for an At-Large seat, but its a different ball game.
The quote is confusing, and is being used in a misleading way by Yes.
@Bryan: Sorry – I must have read too much into this from your March 29th, 2017 minutes: “Rhanna put together the feedback data and has been able to review. This commission has had unanimous agreement since Day 1 that the whole council should be elected at-large”.
Hi Marcia,
Our recollection is different, but you’re probably correct and I’m probably wrong. My recollection was that when my item was first discussed you were chair (I think we both agree on that) and P & S decided to NAN the item because it was towards an election year and you were planning to go to another committee and you felt then, that the new committee would best be served dealing with it. I know nothing about a poll of the Board or anything else. That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Amy,
I’m glad that something happened on the item, but that was roughly 5-6 years ago (whenever you first became chair) and I haven’t heard a word from Long range planning to tell me there was going to be a discussion on the matter.
This instance proves to me that the Board at this configuration doesn’t work. It’s too bureaucratic and things can get lost. Over the years, I have heard many similar stories from people.
I just do want to state that even though I don’t feel the Board as a group doesn’t work, I actually like everyone on it. I will hate to see some go.
Marcia and Amy I like both of you very much and I hope you understand this is not personal and never has been personal.
Jane wrote: “what I hope the council will “drop” is the time spent on issues such as the discussion about whether the President should be impeached (docketed for June 7th).”
That issue is on our docket because the City Council received a 50 signature petition requesting it, so under our city charter we are required to hold a hearing on it.
If you don’t want the City Council taking time on issues brought to us by 50-citizen petitions, you should have recommended removal of that provision from our charter.
I happen to favor the citizen petition provision myself. But I’m a sucker for local democracy!
:-)
@Bryan/Rhanna
Could you please address Amy’s post? (Thank you for your research, Amy)
Bryan’s minutes clearly contradict any statements that the Commission was open-minded about the retention of Ward Councilors….at least not after “day 1″….which leaves all the rest of the days.
Seems like it might be really tough to spin that one.
This makes it even easier to vote NO.
This thread has wandered pretty far from its original announcement, that Josh Krintzman has pulled papers to run for City Council. As someone who attended almost every meeting of the Charter Commission, I certainly understand everyone’s interest in thoroughly debating the merits of the proposed charter – it’s fascinating stuff! – but again, as someone who attended almost every Charter Commission meeting, I’m sorry that more attention isn’t being paid to this good news. Watching Josh chair the Commission, I’ve come to very deeply appreciate his thoughtfulness, his steadiness, his hard work, and especially his ability to crack a joke three hours into deliberation, which can feel like a glass of water in the desert (and should be a relevant skill for a City Councilor). Perhaps, oh V14 powers-that-be, we could have another thread about City Council candidates, as this one seems to have gone pretty irretrievably down another road?
@Josh: Congratulations! I look forward to talking with you about your goals and aspirations for the City and what you see as big issues for the Ward!
@Bryan: You stated: “Finally, please don’t mischaracterize our intentions. There was no effort to eliminate ward councilors, there was an effort to reimagine our city council, and the solution we landed on consists of ward-at-large councilors and 4 at-large councilors.”
I responded by citing to the March 29th minutes of the Charter Commission which states: ““Rhanna put together the feedback data and has been able to review. This commission has had unanimous agreement since Day 1 that the whole council should be elected at-large”.
Do you or your fellow Commissioners have a response?
Here is an audio clip of the statement Amy is referencing:
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/we-had-100-percent-agreement-on-day-1
While I do have obvious concerns with the process Josh led, and key aspects of his leadership (for example not enumerating any Ward Councilor options in his presentation when council composition was revisited in August 2016), he took on a very difficult and somewhat thankless role, and was organized, respectful, and sincere. While we have different visions of the council that will best serve the city, I appreciate his commitment to public service.
Josh chaired the meetings. He did not create the process or lead the research and discussion of the individual articles, and he is no more or less responsible for the city council proposal than any other commissioner. The commission worked together to design a thorough, transparent process and to divide up the work of leading the commission through the study of the articles. We all own the proposal equally.
Howard Haywood and I led the research and discussion of Article 2, the Legislative function (I was not the “Article 2 author” as stated on the No website). At our April 13 and April 27, 2016 meetings, Howard and I led the initial deliberation of Article 2. The deliberations were informed by 2 panel discussions with current and former city councilors from Newton and other cities, and a public hearing dedicated to feedback on Article 2. The Newton panel included ward and at-large councilors. In addition, the deliberations were informed by this research and discussion guide: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/74391
Page 7 of the guide lays out 5 alternative city council models, 3 of which contain councilors elected by the ward only.
At the April 13th meeting, informed by all of the above, we went around the table and each commissioner gave their initial thoughts on the composition of the city council. At that point, each commissioner stated a preference for allowing all voters to vote for all councilors.
We revisited the city council composition at 4 additional meetings for a total of 9 meetings on this topic. While we discussed different models, no one ever proposed adopting a model with ward-only councilors. This is the point I was making in the quote.
This use of a 2-sentence, out-of-context quote from a 17-month process is bizarre. The No side is trying to demonstrate that commissioners were elected with a hidden agenda, didn’t take public feedback into account, or didn’t really deliberate in good faith. Those claims don’t hold up when the whole process is considered.
Our meeting schedule is helpful to understanding the process: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/73214
@Rihanna still waiting for the 22 years of voting data that you claimed to have analyzed.
I really hope Newton doesnt go down the path of making unsubstantiated statements. We had enough of those coming from DC.
@Rhanna — OK, Article 2 co-lead, rather than author. Titles matter — in that vein I think it would be better if “Councilors at Large” are not referred to as “ward councilors” nor residency as representation.
As you confirm, April 13th, 2016 was DAY 1 of discussions on council composition: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/75057
Commissioners agreed 100% (without need for debate) on eliminating Ward Councilors and direct-elected ward representation in their initial statements and never put them back on the table. That is the point that Amy was making. People should not question whether you listened to input or question whether you proposed a council that you don’t believe is best for Newton.
Re: Josh — I am just trying to sincerely complement Josh as much as I can given the policy and outcome disagreement. In particular I was shocked in the August 24th, 2016 meeting to see his well-prepared graphical PowerPoint presentation (which doesn’t seem to be in the archive) not include the 8-8 ward-councilor/councilor at-large option, if only for discussion/completeness.
and at that moment supporters of retaining Ward Councilors felt 100% unrepresented….
Neil – These are the documents that provide the Newton’s election history for the last 51 years:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/76059
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/76060
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/78011
I don’t know how to turn them into links, but it’s easy enough to copy and paste the URL into your computer.
@Rhanna — Just one other note. I don’t agree this was an out of out of context quote from 1.5 years of deliberation. This was your opening statement in the pivotal commission meeting after the preliminary report public hearing, which led into the most substantive discussion the commission had on council composition.
I would also like to complement Rev. Haywood. He was very transparent in the early commission meeting as to the biases he recognized he had on the issue, and he also shared his personal perspectives as a long time resident and his specific concerns with his ward councilor model as part of the final discussion around the district at-large vs. pick 4 models. I only wish a debate had surfaced them earlier so they could have been discussed further.
@Jane — The problem is getting the data inside pdf documents back into spreadsheet form for analysis. It doesn’t paste back into original cells and the data has to be manual typed again, but where it is available it is certainly better than it not being available at all. Again, complements to Karen Manning for her herculean work on transparency and transcription.
@Tom — I thought you had a comment on this, but it seems to be missing now? I think you identified the one point both side can agree on.
@Greg — still looking for whether the proposed hypothetical two-member family council for your home would be more as democratic and representative? Do the parents know better? Again I think we have to focus on the norms and best practices of legislative branches when assessing degrees of democracy.
And again Greg, please see if we have a swing voter left on V14 left to swing. It would have been great to debate the issues with a different audience in a rare opportunity we had on NewTV “Common Ground” on Thursday night, but unfortunately few day noticed we both received left “Yes” without a representative to field (maybe we needed a larger commission :-). No was left fielding two representatives who had never seen the inside of a TV studio, and thanks to cable cutting, who have been spared seeing the output yet.
@Jane – thank you for posting the link, but they have NO relation to the UNSUBTANTIATED claim that @Rihanna and @Bryan have made multiple times.
@Rihanna said “the charter commission looked at 22 years of elections data during which 176 at-large seats were filled. We found 9 instances of a candidate winning the home ward but losing the citywide contest (and the seat).”
This is the data I am looking for. NONE of what you shared speaks even remote to it. Pl. point me if you can.
BTW – I looked at data from last election and found that in 3 out of 4 elections, the winners of ward and city votes were different. (link below)
http://village14.com/2017/02/17/draft-version-of-the-newtons-revised-charter-is-approved/#ixzz4gzygwfUn
Neil-that’s the raw data that we used to review several articles and issues. I’ll look up the data you refer to and provide the link.
@Jane – Thank you. The raw data is the best.
I am a data driven person, hence every piece of data convinces me to vote NO. Maybe your data will convince me to rethink my decision.
Neil – I am as well, and like to dig into the raw data. I used two other sources extensively: the city’s elections history on the city website (it dates back to 2001 and is user-friendly) and the OCPF website (also very user-friendly).
Jack,
Deleting posts is an act of desperation (lol).
Neil – Here’s the link:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/79289
I’m removing comments from this thread which are really about a tread that has been closed, otherwise it defeats the reason for closing the other thread. If you still really, really, really need to say something to someone, I suggest you email or give them a call.
Another comment removed. I really meant it folks. Polls open in a little more than five months. There will be plenty of time to debate the charter, hopefully with less finger-pointing and fewer conspiracy theories.
@Jane thank you for posting the data. I appreciate your engagement and transparency.
I would like to post my analysis from this data, and why the conclusions the CC drew were absolutely flawed. But then Greg will remove my comments.
@Blog Lords – Can you pl. open a new thread for the data used by CC. This discussion keeps on coming and its worth having a singular look at it.