In November, Newton voters will be asked to approve or reject revisions to the way our municipal government functions in the form of a new charter.
Recently the TAB published columns by two men who have a first hand perspective on our city’s structure, in particular the way our legislative body is organized.
- Former Alderman John Stewart in support of the new charter
- City Councilor Lisle Baker in opposition to the new charter
If I were to base my vote on just the two columns above, I would hands down vote yes for the new charter.
John Stewart, explaining why to vote-yes-for-the-charter, presents a well written, straight forward position on how Newton’s government will work more coherently with a 12 member council including better understanding between the mayor and the councilors, a more efficient way to handle complaints and a more efficient use of councilor’s time. This column is the best one yet on this subject. Certainly much more clear and concise than the commission’s description of “maintaining ward representation.”
Lisle Baker’s column is not an explanation of the charter proposal but instead a message directed at residents using confusing rhetoric attempting to feed their fear of non-representation. Verbiage such as saying twice the ward-elected councilors will be replaced with four at-large-councilors who might live in another ward is misleading. Try again using John Stewart’s style.
I think the “No” side isn’t helping their case by using sitting ward aldermen as their public spokespeople – i.e. those who’s seats are most under threat by the new charter.
My main concern with the new charter is how the four at-large positions are going to balance out – 5/12 of the council could potentially reside in the same ward compared to the current configuration where each ward is fixed at 3/24. Even if each of the four at-large are in separate wards there’s still going to be a slight imbalance. I think it would have been better to go with 16 and restrict to two per ward by either removing ward elected or one of the ward at-large positions.
I’m not a big fan of those four city-wide seats either because I prefer one-on-one contests.
But I’m NOT even a teeny bit concerned about this oft-stated fear of five candidates living in one ward sitting on our council for two reasons:
1. If it happened (and realistically what are the odds?) it will have to be because the majority of voters city-wide thought they were THE FOUR BEST choices.
2 If those four did a bad or disagreeable job, voters city-wide would have a chance two years later to do what voters city-wide can’t do now with ward councilors and that is vote them out.
I also present both sides of the issue in my monthly newsletter, here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/jake-auchincloss/july-update-charter-reform-explained/1146787135466017/
Really happy to see so many people becoming informed about this issue. It is fitting that after decades of discussion about a reduction in the size of the council, the voters will make the final decision.
For those who are supporting the proposal, we would love to have your help, as an endorser, volunteer or otherwise. Find out more at http://yesnewtoncharter.org/endorsed-by/.
For those who want to know a little more about the Yes for a New Charter campaign, details on the proposal are here (http://yesnewtoncharter.org/the-proposal/), the Charter Commission’s final report on the charter recommendation is here (http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/82558), and you can email any questions directly to me ([email protected]) or to the campaign (http://yesnewtoncharter.org/contact/).
And for those who think the new charter proposal is a terrible idea, such as me and the many people on this list, please join the campaign to defeat this proposal — you can email me at [email protected] or sign up here.
I believe this new Charter could pass because many voters do not understand the implications of the proposed changes. Will the new rules lead to better government? I think not, they may shift the power structure from bad to worse. Fewer councilors, in my mind won’t make much difference. Which councilors win election will be important. If the new Charter sweeps in a consolidated group of people bent on wholesale dramatic change to the structural make up of our city, then we all may regret the ill fated future of our city. Good representative government may recede and a blind, authoritarian group may replace the old fashioned way of rule.
And that’s a bad change?
If the new charter sweeps in change perhaps that’s would be because voters desire change?
@Colleen, although you toss out the phrase “good representative government,” your basic thesis here seems to be that voters can’t be trusted.
Greg, many voters may be unaware of the consequences of a smaller council in these changing times. I trust our voting system. However, I do not trust some of the vested interest groups who may attempt to replace and undermine our traditional form of local representative gov’t.
Colleen, which vested interest groups are you concerned about?
Many who are against the Charter Reform seem to be using this tactic of that passing the Charter will then lead to the City being controlled by an unknown power group. It seems like they are using this paranoia technique when pushing for No votes. I’ve heard this argument around the city.
I’ve scratching my head after reading the two supposedly “opposing” articles on the proposed charter by John Stewart and Lisle Baker in last week’s edition of the TAB. Disclaimer: Lisle was a tremendous asset in helping me and others launch a study group to examine the pros and cons of a local historic district in Newton Highlands. Over the years, John Stewart’s been the organizer of several civic related discussion group meetings I’m a member of. They are both good friends and strong powers of example.
But, I’m puzzled for two reasons. The first is that from the discussion on this post to date, I expected a robust debate on the pros and cons of a new charter by two of the iconic titans of Newton’s civic life. That didn’t happen. John gave a very strong set of arguments about why he supports the change, but Lisle seemed more focused on specific preservation priorities he hopes to advance in a new term and the steps he’s taken to remain relevant and on top of things. That’s always a good thing for a long term incumbent to lay out, but he certainly didn’t outline a strong case for ward councilors or against the proposed Charter. I’m puzzled over why so many think he did.
That aside, I do question the fuss over whether it’s pretentious for a sitting ward councilor or any incumbent to write about the value and relevance of the specific office they hold. Sure, it might have more of an impact if others write about it, but Lisle has always impressed me as being totally up front and transparent in everything he does. It’s not in his nature to stay hidden in the background and let others speak for him. As we go forward with this debate, none of us should be erecting verbal or written barriers to discourage anyone from stating what they are really thinking,whether they hold office or not.
John wrote a great piece.