The bleachers of torment (or as my chiropractor probably thinks of them; his daughter’s college fund) should be filled tonight as our city councilors are scheduled vote on two contentious items: the proposed mixed-use project at Washington Place and the impeachment of President Donald Trump.
Also on the agenda is a proposal to remove permitting of the rDNA labs from the city council and place it in the hands of experts who actually understand rDNA.
Fireworks begin at 7:45 p.m. Be there (or avoid those benches but miss the hand-wringing and watch on NewTV), share your thoughts now and come here after and discuss.
I understand that the Trump item might be chartered this evening, a parliamentary stalling tactic that sends it back to committee for, um, further study.
@Greg: If it gets chartered, there will be some very angry residents in those bleachers.
The Charter provides that the Council act on a petition within three months of the filing, which as I understand it would be June 27th in this case. If the charter objection maneuver is used, the Council will have failed to meet its obligation under the Charter to act on a resident petition.
Interesting. @Bryan (or anyone else) does that mean it is not eligible for to be “chartered”? Or does it mean that this is a way to usurp the petition process? (and tangentially, does the proposed new charter keep this process the same, with the exception of requiring more signatures?)
This is from a memo released Friday from Council President Scott Lennon.
@Greg — When 2 provisions of the Charter conflict, I’m not sure that there’s an enforcement mechanism unless someone is willing to attempt a lawsuit. My guess would be that there’s no legal recourse here for the petitioners, although I understand why they would be upset by this outcome.
My children get upset over similar slights. As with our kids, we should explain to these citizens that adults sometimes have to set priorities that might make them sad. It’s all part of growing up. Perhaps a participation trophy for these courageous members of our community would make the hurt feelings better.
I have not followed this issue closely so take this as information that needs verification This is what Article 10-7 (Initiative; Validation of signatures; Action on Petition) says:
“Within 30 days after an initiative petition is presented to the city council or the school
committee, the city council or the school committee shall act with respect to the initiative measure by passing it without change, by rejecting it or by passing some other measure stated to be in lieu of the initiative measure. The passage of a measure in lieu of an initiative measure shall be deemed a rejection of the initiative measure. If the city council or the school committee fails to act with respect to the initiative measure as required by this section within 30 days after presentation, the measure shall be deemed to have been rejected on the thirtieth day after presentation. …. Initiative measures shall not be subject to charter objection as provided in subsection (c) of section 2-9.”
Thanks Jane and Bryan: I’m hardly an expert here but this seems pretty clear:
Put me in the column of individuals who are appalled by our president’s disregard of the emoluments clause of the US Constitution but don’t feel this matter is the purview of our city council.
And let’s start a new column which says: Since the council is required to act on a citizens petition, the council should vote tonight out of respect for the citizens petition process and so the council can get back to focusing on Newton.
Much of Article 10 (Free petition, Initiative, and Referendum) had to be rewritten to comply with state law, but this particular section (10-2d in the proposed charter) remains the same. As I mentioned, the measure before the council may not be covered by this section of the charter, but I suspect it is. Bryan has been more involved in the issue so he would have a better handle on its status.
@Jane: I would actually think the provision you referenced is strong evidence that Charter Objection is valid in the present case. The drafters of our current Charter specifically stated that Charter Objection shall not be used for initiative petitions, but had no analogous provision for group petitions. Thanks for pointing that out.
I think there’s still an inherent conflict between the use of the Charter Objection and the 3 month requirement. If the Charter proposal was still open, I would actually have suggested we clarify this in our proposal. A good argument for decennial Charter review.
Actually, Bryan’s info is accurate. As I mentioned, I haven’t followed this measure closely and didn’t know how it had been filed.
This article in the charter is one of the most confusing and it’s best to check out the various aspects of the measure, how it was proposed, the intent, etc.
@greg, why do you think people refuse to comment on the point of my letter to the TAB. As you pointed out I was simply saying that the Lowell Election and Charter are in no way related to the proposed Newton Charter and it is misleading for opponents to suggest so.
if we don’t impeach Trump, maybe we can get him to do the ribbon cutting at the proposed Washington Place Strip Mall.
#MakeNewtonStripMallsGreatAgain