One of the primary concerns expressed here and elsewhere by opponents of the proposed new charter is a concern that the elimination of ward-elected city councilors will make our council less diverse. Rev. Howard Haywood, a life-long Newton resident who was a member of the Charter Commission, addressed this topic in a letter to the TAB. Andy Levin shared a copy with us so it can run in its entirety.
Recent letter writers to the TAB have expressed their opposition to the proposed changes to our city charter on the grounds that elimination of ward-only elected councilors will prevent the election of minority representatives to the City Council. As a member of the Newton African-American community, and one of the nine members of the Newton Charter Commission elected at-large to serve our community, I most strongly disagree.
Newton does have a diverse population. Having lived here my entire life, over time I have witnessed Newton become a much more welcoming community and am proud that our minority community has increased significantly over the years. I am also proud that Newton’s minority citizens are spread throughout the city and live in every village.
However, because the minority community is spread throughout the city, minority candidates in Newton have a much better chance of being elected at-large, in city-wide voting. They can appeal to voters from across the city who share their values and priorities.
That has already been demonstrated here where all of our minority representatives have been elected at-large. Our mayor, Setti Warren, was, of course, elected citywide. Currently, there is an African-American member on the School Committee, Angela Pitter Wright, and previously another African- American, Kathy Jones, served on the School Committee, both elected citywide. Of the 24 current City Council members, only one represents a minority group and that councilor (Amy Sangiolo of Asian descent) was elected at-large. Two previous aldermen from the minority community, Matthew Jefferson and Carol Robinson, were both elected at-large. Members of the Charter Commission were elected citywide, and resulted in my election to the Commission.
Restricting voters to vote by ward residence only will limit the opportunity for minorities to be elected to public office in the city of Newton. If the Charter Commission had been elected by ward votes only, I would not have been elected.
In addition to requiring that all councilors be elected citywide, the proposed new charter creates a new category of four councilors who can live anywhere in the city and will be elected citywide from a pool of candidates. Candidates will have an opportunity to win with a plurality of votes rather than a majority, which could be helpful for candidates who represent a minority group or point of view.
So, if diversity of our elected officials is an issue that concerns you, vote in favor of the proposed changes to the charter.
Howard Haywood
To assess whether this argument holds, we’d also need to know how many minority candidates have run for ward positions and lost. It could be that all the minority candidates have run citywide.
Does anyone remember if Greer Tan Swiston was a ward councilor?
@mgwa – Greer was at large, as was every person of color elected to the council to date.
I’m sure others know of more, but the only person of color who has run and lost that I am aware of was Maria Manning, who I found to be compelling and actively supported but who lost a 4 way race for ward councilor. I was bummed that I wasn’t able to vote for her and strongly believe she would’ve won if it had been a citywide race.
Thank you, Howard. You make a great point and I hope everyone considers it when voting in November.
In other words, we have inadequate data to tell whether being city-wide or in a ward makes a difference. Especially given that a 4-way race means each candidate only had a 25% chance of winning to start with. As a professional statistician, I can tell you that these small numbers mean that no meaningful conclusions can be drawn. When there’s only been 1 ward race with a minority candidate, the result gives us no information on what their odds were or whether they would have been better had that person run city-wide.
For what it’s worth, my guess is that Amy and Greer would have had good chances of winning ward races. I don’t know the school committee members well enough to make an informed guess about them.
@MGWA, We have 8 data points of people of color who were elected citywide to public office in Newton. We have zero data points of people of color running citywide and failing to get elected. I think from that data we can conclude that there is no basis for arguing that the proposed charter will keep people of color from getting elected. (Greer did not get elected the first time she ran, but unseated the incumbent the second time she ran, so I think it’s hard to count that as a data point of a person of color unable to get elected citywide.)
For what it’s worth, Amy Sangiolo did not finish in the top 2 in her ward the first time she ran. She finished in the top 2 citywide but not in Ward 4. Howard Heywood points out that he did not finish first in Ward 2 in the charter commission race.
@Rihanna – yes, we have data to show that minorities can win city-wide. We do not have any data to show that they can’t win ward elections. If Amy or Howard had been running in their local wards, they would have run campaigns focused on those wards and might well have won them – there’s no way to know if they would have or not.
I make my living designing and analyzing clinical trials, and drawing conclusions from data. I can tell you that those numbers are too small to give us any firm info – all we know is that minorities can win or lose city-wide (because, as you said, some people who eventually won lost the first election they ran in), and that one lost a ward election (which says nothing about the probability of minorities winning a ward election except that it’s not 100%).
@MGWA: You’re absolutely right, we don’t have the data to know for certain.
But we do have sufficient data to know that the opponents of the new charter should stop claiming that eliminating ward-elected city councilors will make our council less diverse because there’s zero evidence supporting that.
And that, I believe, was really Rev. Haywood’s point.
We do have anecdotal evidence and a prominent voice in the minority community suggesting that it could be beneficial for minority representation to have at large elections. We certainly don’t have enough data to say this with certainty, but it is not an unreasonable assumption.
Diversity comes in many flavors. While Rev. Haywood focused on racial diversity, which is important, I think economic diversity has been the primary concern of many who don’t want 100% at-large representatives.
We are a large city of 80,000, making door knocking and grassroots campaigns less feasible for full-city campaigns. Those require money, which there is plenty of evidence to show disenfranchises those economically disadvantaged.
I admire the community and V14 standing up for people of all races, I wonder why so many here seem to dismiss concerns of those less fortunate economically.
Im not aware of anyone questioning the importance of at-large councilors, just those opposing ZERO local representation.
It’s all about pros and cons, and there are too many on here who literally won’t acknowledge the flaws of their preferred side of this issue.
(Greg, I give you credit for not being one of those, FWIW)
Paul writes:
Actually Paul that’s exactly why so many of us are so passionate about Washington Place, Austin Street and other multi-family projects that add more affordable and diverse housing options to our city. Perhaps you’re ready to join us in this effort?
First point: We know that minority candidates have won in citywide elections. We also know that no minority candidate has ever won a seat in a ward election. These are the facts.
Secondly, the data indicates that that economic diversity is quite well distributed throughout the city. We have an even distribution of people at the lowest end of the economic spectrum and as anyone who has driven through Newton knows, we have pockets at the very highest end (West Newton Hill, Chestnut Hill, Waban West of Chestnut, Farlow Hill). As far as I can tell, these very high-end sections of Newton don’t define us within our community, despite the fact that other communities overfocus on our pockets of wealth.
I’d suggest that people look at the data from the OCPF website which provides factual information about how much each candidate raises and spends, then think about who has won elections. It will show you that the strongest candidates for elected office do not necessarily have deep pockets. Rather, they have deep roots in the community. Typically, they’ve spent a significant amount of time volunteering on boards, commissions. and committees and through that work have strong connections to a wide swath of the community.
@Greg – I couldn’t disagree with you more. I absolutely think reducing the Council will result in less diversity of opinion and more group think. What I often find so interesting and compelling about the Council is the diversity of opinion, the out of left field prerogative that someone has because of their experience, and the insight someone brings to the table based on knowing their neck of the woods better than anyone else. to me, democracy is all about listening to and working with people who have diverse sets of opinions. Regarding MGWA and his/her (it?) point – I agree that this entire argument is not statistically significant, but it’s certainly fair to have an opinion.
@Councilor Kalis: I belive you mean to say you disagree with Rev. Haywood. He’s the author of the above letter.
Then again, Haywood was taking about actual racial and cultural diversity, not simply diverse views.
I agree that 24 councilors, including ward specific councilors, adds more diverse perspectives. That’s a perfectly good argument in support of our current system.
But opponents of the proposed charter should not be stating — as they have been –that eliminating ward councilors would make the council less ethnically or racially diverse because there is zero evidence to back that up.
“Secondly, the data indicates that that economic diversity is quite well distributed throughout the city. ”
This is wrong Jane.
The data shown in the Newtonville listserv shows that 02468 has 43% of households making >$200K, which is 3-4 times (!) other zip codes in Newton. That’s a huge difference. $200K incomes are the most common income in 02468 and rare (1 in 8) in other parts of the city. That isn’t evenly distributed.
So Paul, if your point is that Wabanites have an unfair advantage getting elected to office because of their high incomes, how come none of the current Ward 5 councilors live in Waban? Deb and Brian live in Upper Falls and John lives in the Highlands.
02468 is a zip code, not a ward. Ward 5 has economic diversity and apparently the people from the less wealthy parts of the ward can still get elected to office.
Rhanna,
That isn’t the point.
The point is that city-wide elections are inherently more expensive, less grassroots/door-to-door, thereby requiring more money to be raised. This tilts the policy agenda towards the wealthy with CC’s-at large of all wards that need to raise money. And that heavily favors our wealthy enclaves like Waban.
Specific examples:
— Affordable housing. Mayor Warren violated federal law in shutting down a housing project in Waban that would help those less fortunate (the meetings to just discuss it were cancelled with no explanation!) Literally a few months later he pushed through a highly contentious project in Newtonville. Very different behavior by the same man. Its so starkly different in such as short period of time, that its hard to see that as anything but the influence of money and power.
— We speak about the need to remain economically diverse, yet we are pursuing affordable housing mostly in the parts of the city that are already the most diverse! Mayor Warren’s affordable housing commission concluded that the richest/most expensive parts of the city are not practical for development, and so very few potential sites were identified in villages like Waban. So to make “Newton” more economically diverse, we’ll keep concentrating more residents in the poorer parts of the city, while the richer parts remain as is? That is how the wealthy shift the policy agenda.
Wabanites don’t need the CC’s to come from their village, they’ll simply financially support those that align with their agenda. The influence of money is subtle and pernicious, and a move to 100% at-large will only shift our governance further in this direction.
If you believe that the benefits of 100% at-large outweigh the costs such as this, so be it. We’ll agree to disagree. But let’s call it straight. 100% at-large tilts our governance in favor of the wealthy, and we already have an unfortunate history of not treating each part of Newton the same.
@Greg
Fully on-board. As you may recall, I supported a smaller project at Austin St, and support a smaller project on Orr block. Newton is a big place, and we seem to be focused on a few blocks.
You can read my post to Rhanna for further context. If we really looked at development in all parts of the city, it’d be easier to compromise with those who want no further growth AND meet goals of adding new affordable housing stock. Harder to do when the Waban-type areas are off limits.
Paul, the examples you give are about the leadership of a mayor, not the City Council
For 120 years, 2/3 of our city council has been elected at-large. I don’t see the evidence of how this super-majority of at-large representatives has managed to “tilt the policy agenda toward the wealthy” or “heavily favor Waban.” However, if it has…sounds to me like it’s time to downsize the council! A 12-member council will have more accountability since voters will actually be able know their councilors and what they stand for. It will be able to accomplish much more (such as zoning reform) with a manageable number of participants working together. We are facing very complicated issues in this city, and we need a more effective and responsive city council now more than ever.
Rhanna–
Seriously– will you acknowledge any downside of eliminating ward councilors?
A few points on At-large voting.
I support at-large seats – just not 100% AT-LARGE. Most cities have 4 or less at-large seats — the charter proposes 12. Most cities have 6 or more ward seats — the charter proposes none.
Candidates of any flavor can win city-wide with party/special interest support or wealth. Candidates are unlikely to win city-wide without these, but they CAN win and hold ward seats.
100% at-large councils are often found discriminatory. Should we be setting an example in wrong direction? We’d probably be fine with voter ID laws as well. Should we add them?
Seven of our At-large Councilors have >$1MM homes compared with only 1 in the Ward group. A 100% At-large council could be less economically diverse and less sensitive to resident economic issues.
If you wish to investigate OCPF data, identify the families that made the largest campaign donations in past years and see where they and their candidates stand on the charter proposal. Just put part of candidate name in “recipient” field, choose them from the drop down, and then sort by amount: https://www.ocpf.us/Reports/SearchItems
@ Jack and others – Why not also look at the $500.00 Contributions that were made by Developers and Special Interest Groups to Ward Councilors? Start with Ward 1 and work your way up.
@Joanne — The Ward 1 councilor is running for a city-wide-elected At-large seat and has endorsed the proposed charter.
There is one traditional “minority” for which we do have data. Women account for half the ward councilors (four of eight) but fewer than a third of the at-large seats (five of sixteen). Is this just a statistical blip? Or does it suggest that eliminating ward councilors may close off an avenue of access that has been particularly useful for women?
@Amanda — That’s really hard to say without looking at who has run for those seats and if women are more likely to win in one than the other. I would say that if you’re going to look at it through that lens, we should include the school committee, where women frequently win at large seats. Of the 8 members of our school committee, 6 are women and only 2 are men.
Rev. Haywood suggests that a minority candidate has a better chance of winning by running city-wide. I don’t disagree. No one is suggesting getting rid of city-wide elected Councilors. Many, like me, are saying that keeping the Ward only Councilors is a way to ensure that the diversity of the Ward is reflected in City government.
Let’s go back to some basic questions: What was the driving force behind creating a Charter Commission? Wasn’t the main concern reducing the size of the Council? What is the driving force behind eliminating Ward only representation? Making all Councilors accountable to the entire City? What then happens to representation for the Ward? It is misleading to say that the residency requirement for the at-large Councilor retains Ward representation since that Councilor could win without the support of the Ward. Don’t we want to ensure that the person running from the Ward is someone that the Ward wants to represent them versus the rest of the City? Why should the rest of the City determine the representation for a given Ward? Supporting a system that eliminates the Ward only elected Councilors provides a ripe opportunity for a power grab – where a small group of people with deep pockets and political acumen can run a slate of people and control local government in order to put forth their agenda. That to me is an affront to representative democracy and that is why I am voting “No” on the Charter Commission’s recommendations in November.
For me, reduce the size of the council – yes – but not at the expense of losing local representative government.
On the issue of whether it is easier to run for Ward vs. at-large? If we truly want to encourage political participation then we should keep Ward only elected Council positions. Knocking on doors for an entire Ward is doable. Knocking on doors for the entire City is tough and running a City-wide campaign can be expensive particularly if you are a new-comer and do not have ties to established groups of well-connected people. Running against an incumbent vs. an open seat is even harder in a city-wide race- I know from personal experience.
So I come down to conclusion that reducing the size of the council should not be done at the expense of losing local representation. Please vote “NO” on the the Charter Commission’s recommendation. There are other ways to reduce the size of the Council without sacrificing the voice of the villages and the Wards in local government.
Amy wrote:
It’s that word “versus” that gets me every time.
Howard’s points are good. The data leaves me wondering: Why haven’t minorities run for ward seats? Do they think that have better chances citywide?
Amy – As I recall, you made quite a name for yourself citywide through your effective advocacy of a particular issue well before you ran for a seat on the city council. I certainly knew of you and your work and I didn’t live in Auburndale. As I’ve said before, deep roots are far more important that deep pockets. A candidate can develop deep roots in a number of different ways – through activism in the community over time. Demonstrating an effective commitment to a board, commission, or council, or being a vocal and tireless advocate for an issue is how candidates win a seat on the city council.
I can recall only one new candidate who did not have some level of deep roots in the community popping up out of the blue and being elected to the city council. It was an unusual situation. It may not be a well-known statistic, but 15 of the 24 members of the city council grew up in Newton. In addition, these councilors have been involved in many aspects of the community over the years – on boards, councils, and commissions.
Deep roots. The data shows that “walking the ward” doesn’t do it unless you’ve got ’em. You certainly don’t have to have lived here your whole life, but you do need to have demonstrated a commitment to the community before running for the city council.
Let us also remember the Jonathan Yeo debacle of residency requirement, where the city solicitor sided in favor of alleged residency – who is to say which diversity of residence suits whom? I prefer living out of my PO Box, a little tight for space but a terrific opportunity to meet so many different people.
The prospect that come November, two very qualified dedicated leaders will be sidelined all due to this silly process known as an election.
@Gail — I don’t think the is issue is “ward vs. the rest of the city”, but rather that Ward-elected Councilors on some issues tend to represent viewpoints and perspectives that are, on average, different than those elected city-wide for a variety of reasons alluded to above, including economic background and how they need to campaign.
It seems to be an unstated premise of the Commission and Yes side that the Ward-elected Councilors have just a bit too much empathy for local issues in ALL parts of the city, otherwise why is there be so much intensity to eliminate just 1/24th the council that might advocate for the interests of a particular ward?
A few weeks ago I posted the result from comparing home values for at-large and ward elected councilors. I can’t find my post now, but I discovered that at-large elected councilors lived in homes that were twice (yep, twice) as valuable as ward elected councilors. This supports claims that economic diversity decreases with at-large elections. Certainly, it is consistent with story that running for an at-large seat is more expensive than a ward seat.
Ethnic and economic diversity are both important.
I’m curious about the reasons residents who say they are for ward-elected representation because of diversity are not supporting Washington Place and did not support Austin Street before it. I realize that the majority of apartments will be market rate but in addition there will be many deed restricted affordable units bringing more economic diversity to Newton – alright to Newtonville. Even the market rate units will bring younger two-income couples who need both to pay the rent, singles young and old and who knows how much ethnic diversity – hopefully lots.
I will grant it looks suspicious that not only the residence for homeless men with special needs and more recently the multi-family development on the St Phillip Neri property, both in Waban, were shut down with hardly any discussion. The development looked fine to me but seemingly overnight it became single family homes with a couple of townhouses. It makes sense that residents of Newtonville would be wondering why the larger developments end up here – particularly Court Street which is smack dab in the middle of an established neighborhood.
Zip codes cannot be used to reflect diversity in Newton. They are different sizes, unlike wards, and sometimes encompass several villages. In using them Chestnut Hill gets left out entirely since it is in Boston and Brookline as well as Newton.
@Marti
Are you similarly curious about those who support Austin St and Washington Place for economic diversity but do not support ward-elected representation?
Why are you only looking at this one way? Both sides being equally potentially hypocritical.
Waban looks suspicious? What more evidence do you need? Some parts of the city are treated differently, and too many people are looking the other way.
Money corrupts. At-large elections need more of it. Advantage Waban.
We need ward-elected councilors.
I don’t understand how folks can think otherwise, unless you don’t care that the wealthier parts of the city are treated differently than the rest of us.
PS Rhanna appears to be hiding from a simple question: Is there any downside to eliminating the ward councilors? Jane, Bryan and Rhanna– I don’t think any of them have even acknowledged that ANYTHING would be lost if we remove the ward councilors. I can respect an opinion that supports the proposed charter but acknowledges the pros and cons– but to date I don’t recall and acknowledgement from them there is anything on the “con” side of the equation for their proposal. Waiting for an intellectually honest answer.
@Jane — “deep roots are far more important that deep pockets…15 of the 24 members of the city council grew up in Newton”
Would you agree that it is accurate to say that councilors with roots in city have been roughly twice as likely to have entered as ward councilors and conversely that “outsiders” are over twice as prevalent in the At-Large entry route?
At least 75% of current ward councilors Newton have roots. Normalizing for the 8 vs. 16 seats and determining how to factor in Scott’s Ward Councilor entry makes it a bit difficult to represent the stats clearly and fairly, but I think the above is correct. Also my total for those with roots came in at only 14 rather than 15, so may be off from what you come up with.
This would seem to support the importance of Ward-Elected Councilor seats as a route to election for those with proven service in the community?
Paul,
Potentially both sides are being hypocritics to a certain extent. I dont like the way the discussions have developed.
The thing is that claiming Ward-elected Councilors are representatives for economic diversity doesn’t ring true without supporting a diversity of housing options. Instead, by far the ones wanting to maintain them seek to limit development and go overboard calling it hyper urbanization. So actually, they want to have more control over development – even to the extent of proposing the Planning Department report to the city council instead of the executive. Easier lobbying. There’s nothing wrong with wanting their opinion on development represented – but just say so.
As for the Commission, I have had questions about eliminating Ward-elected councilors since the first unanimous straw vote was taken and have continued to question their lack of debate and discussion in the minutes. It appears suspicious that they agreed immediately but after much discussion I agree that it actually isn’t.
“Waban looks suspicious. What more do you need?” Facts.
Something seeming suspicious is just that. No facts can be derived from suspicions. I do not engage in conspiracy theories. It wasn’t the city council who made either decision. The first was the mayor and the second was the developer changing his mind. If you choose to believe the Wabanites influenced them in some way, fine-your choice, but the counil had nothing to do with it.
The commissioners were above board in their actions. When it came down to deliberating on the smaller size of the council, they made their decisions based on their experiences with some ward councilors not because they wanted to diminish economic diversity on the council. Claiming the need for more economic diversity came from the anti-development crowd.
As for the necessity of ward councilors, I find that the ward 2 councilors-at-large represent my viewpoint most often. I do understand and have supported keeping the ward-elected councilors. It’s hard to share a viewpoint that’s been distorted so out of shape by the “vote no” crowd.
If true diversity of representation was desired on the city council, the best option of the charter commission would have been to choose a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system like Cambridge uses. While ward councilors produce geographic diversity, STV allows for many different axes of diversity (geographic, socio-economic, racial, political, single issue, etc). All seats are elected citywide, but a candidate can focus on getting a sufficient share of the vote any way they’d like. If a candidate is popular in a ward, they become a “ward” councilor, but that’s just one way to get a sufficiently large piece of the pie.
For voters, there is never an issue of a vote going to waste, since your vote gets transferred if your first choice is either very popular or not popular enough.
It isn’t a widely used system, and it seems complicated. But it produces some of the most representative democratic results of any voting system.
And yes, I understand this ship has sailed.
Just wondering why the Charter Commission opted to let go of the ward-specific councilors in their proposed model…
…Please note, I am NOT wondering why the Commission believes at-large councilors are the way to go.
…I am trying to understand WHY the Commission believes ward-specific councilors are expendable.
Thank you in advance.
@Kathleen — Its been discussed a few times here and elsewhere, but you may not have seen. The Commission reviewed a number of scenarios and determined that the proposal would be the best way forward. I felt that the 8 ward-at-large with 4 at-large was the right combination that maximized the benefits of geographic diversity within a smaller, more competitive council. Yes, I understand some people would’ve preferred that we went with ward-by-ward, but its a balancing act and ward-at-large felt like the right balance to ensure both the neighborhood and the entire city were thoughtfully considered.
Ward-at-large is the way we elect 3/4 of our elected officials now, including the entire school committee, and by all accounts it works very well. I understand that some people are opposed to downsizing the board and want to use this as a wedge issue, but downsizing is popular and I strongly believe the proposed system will accomplish it in a way that will work very well for Newton.
@Bryan, thanks for your response, but it doesn’t answer my specific question, so again,
Why are the the ward specific seats expendable?
In addition, how are we planning to minimize any loss related to this change?
Yes, there is plenty of commentary on why the Commission believes at the large approach is “the way to go” for their vision of a reduced size board. Plenty of commentary, data, research and info-marketing material.
I can’t find anything that explains why they have chosen to completely eliminate the ward-specific seats. I can’t find anything beyond “at-large is better than ward-specific”.
I think the Charter Commission needs to share how they arrived at their conclusion that the ward-specific seats are expendable. Thanks for considering this question.
@Kathleen: I’m not on the commission but it seems pretty clear to me: There was a desire to have a smaller council. And if we were to have a smaller council a harder decision needed to be made determining how to configure it since it could not stay the same.
Reasonable folks can disagree on the configuration decision, but something had to be eliminated and Rev. Haywood articulated one really good reason in support of this configuration at the very top of this thread.
@ Kathleen, on a city council of effective size, there are only so many seats. It comes down to prioritizing what is most important. People mistakenly begin by thinking of the current council and deciding what to whittle away and what to keep. That is never the way to get to an optimal design for anything. We began with a blank slate and tried to design the ideal council for Newton.
All commissioners agreed on the importance of maintaining ward representation, and one councilor per ward is a best practice. We found no city council anywhere in the country with more than one. With more than one you automatically build in redundancy and duplication of effort.
So, we faced the decision of whether those councilors should be elected only by the ward or by the whole city. Page 5 of our final report explains our rationale in that decision in detail…link below.
Our current council is 2/3 ward councilors elected citywide, so our proposal kept 2/3 of the council the same. To have made 2/3 elected by the ward only would be a radical change.
Per the report, “Newton’s longstanding tradition of having a majority of councilors elected citywide is important to preserve the sense of one city.” We are a geographically compact city (18 square miles), and issues such as traffic, safety, and economic development affect all residents, not just specific wards. Ward lines are arbitrary and don’t align with villages or even neighborhoods. Newton Centre sits in wards 6, 2, and 7, and Newton Highlands in wards 5 and 6. I live in Ward 6 but I can walk to wards 2, 3, 5, and 7….anything that happens in those wards affects my daily life and I’d like to have a say in the councilor that represents those wards since they are also my broader neighborhood.
We then had to consider how to supplement the 8 ward-based councilors. We never considered adding 8 more councilors elected by the ward because 16 is still too large of a number and no one wanted more than one councilor per ward.
4 councilors at-large without ward residency restriction add a huge benefit. Voters can choose the 4 they think are best (in ward-based seats you don’t get to vote for the 8 best if 2 you think are best are running against each other). Our research indicated that unrestricted seats are challenged far more often, making these councilors more accountable. You could run for one of these seats if you have a ward-based councilor whom you don’t want to challenge. The benefits of this configuration outweigh those of adding additional geographically restricted seats.
Our final report is here:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/82558
Folks who like saying that the commissioners never explained why they made the decision they did, should bookmark Rhanna’s comment above and, for extra clarity, Rev. Haywood’s letter to the TAB.
That doesn’t mean you have to agree or like it, just that it’s time to stop the comments I’ve seen on multiple threads saying they never explained it. Let’s focus on the merits of the two options rather than the roots.
@Rhianna. I disagree respectfully with your statement:
“People mistakenly begin by thinking of the current council and deciding what to whittle away and what to keep. That is never the way to get to an optimal design for anything.”
It would appear that this isn’t the best channel for getting a direct answer to my question. Thank you for your time.
Question, is Haywood implying Newton residents who oppose the proposed new charter are racists? I certainly hope not.
Lowell elections deny minorities a voice in local legislatures.
http://baystatebanner.com/news/2017/may/24/lowell-elections-deny-minorities-voice-local-legis/
Where is the diversity of thought in Newton? I voted for NONE of the people serving on the Charter Commission.
@Rhanna – You say: “People mistakenly begin by thinking of the current council and deciding what to whittle away and what to keep. That is never the way to get to an optimal design for anything. We began with a blank slate and tried to design the ideal council for Newton.”
“Our current council is 2/3 ward councilors elected citywide, so our proposal kept 2/3 of the council the same. To have made 2/3 elected by the ward only would be a radical change.” … “Newton’s longstanding tradition of having a majority of councilors elected citywide is important to preserve the sense of one city.”
That seems like whittling…
@Rhanna – “Commissioners agreed on the importance of maintaining ward representation, and one councilor per ward is a best practice. We found no city council anywhere in the country with more than one.“
If the goal was best practices….
What percentage of Massachusetts communities use the proposed “ward-based, but not ward-elected” model?
What percentage of Massachusetts communities have gone to 100% at-large legislatures?
What percentage of have disregarded the (modern) Massachusetts state law requirement (and absolute bedrock model charter assumption) of even-numbered boards when setting council size?
(Answer key: 0.28%, 2.86%, 0.00%)
On 2nd thought, I have decided there is wisdom in the League of Women Voters and agree with their recommendations:
http://bit.ly/everett-lowv
Reverand Haywood’s argument is that racial minorities have a better shot at being elected at-large in Newton. If he’s correct, which he could be, then it’s especially true that anyone who values diversity should oppose the proposed charter as it seeks to decrease at-large seats, which, per Howard’s argumentative logic, would make it even harder than it already is for diverse candidates to get elected in Newton.
A “no” vote would allow for a higher probability of both racial and economic minorities being elected to the City Council, which is one of many reasons that I’ll be voting “no.”