VIDEO: A smaller city council, yes or no?
by Greg Reibman | Aug 24, 2017 | Newton | 37 comments
Categories
[youtube-feed feed=1]
Archives
Tags
40B (20)
alien abductions (61)
Alison Leary (19)
Amy Sangiolo (21)
april fools (40)
Austin Street (48)
Barney Frank (76)
Bob Kraft (36)
Brooke Lipsitt (102)
Charter Commission (27)
Chestnut Hill (25)
Chestnut Hill Square (76)
David Fleishman (30)
Donald Trump (25)
Emily Norton (28)
Frank Santo (20)
Gail Spector (18)
history (2269)
jacobson (20)
Jake Auchincloss (38)
Joe Kennedy III (30)
MBTA (25)
NewCAL (23)
Newton (45)
Newton Centre (36)
Newton Highlands (74)
Newton Nomadic Theater (28)
Newton people (19)
Newton Public Schools (19)
Newtonville (60)
NewTV (48)
Northland (34)
politics (83)
recreational marijuana (35)
Ruthanne Fuller (77)
Scott Lennon (44)
Senate (65)
Setti Warren (38)
Susan Albright (26)
trees (39)
Upper Falls (81)
video (23)
Village 14 blog (144)
Washington Place (22)
Webster Woods (21)
Did people really testify that they observed our councilors “hiding in the crowd”, and if so did the charter commission vote or discuss this?
It’s derogatory to say the least!
While the original link mentioned in the video works, the website for the “No” position is http://newtondemocracy.org
Note that when Emily recorded this video last summer, the proposal was for 5 non-residency seats rather than 4. The commissioners subsequently concluded that approval of large development special permits would be easier if the proposed council was reduced to 12 members (requiring 66% vs. 69.2% to approve). As discussed in earlier comments, this decision overlooked Mass General Law C43B,S20 and the guidelines for new charters, which require new charters to specify odd-numbered multi-member bodies https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter43B/Section20
While some believe this law doesn’t apply to city councils, and point out the Assistant AG overlooked the issue as well, special-permit granting authorities are implicitly specified as odd-numbered in the language of MGL C40, S9, which specifies thresholds for 3, 5, or higher approving bodies (not for an even-numbered 4). No other city in Mass has a even-numbered council. https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter40A/Section9
This decision went against the goal of updating the charter to comply with new state laws just to make special permit approvals 3.2% easier. And of course the charter commission was an odd-numbered 9-member body rather than the 8 cited in video…
@Jack Prior: Thanks for pointing out your no group’s video contains a factual mistake and outdated information regarding the charter proposal.
But don’t you think your committee ought to remove this video from the home page of your website? Certainly you wouldn’t want anyone accusing NewtonDemocrary.org of misleading the public.
I don’t buy it. All the progress Newton has made with our schools, fire houses, sewer, etc has been done with our current council. What’s broken? What will a smaller council gain us and what problem does this fix? We need better long range planning and execution. The Charter Commission didn’t address this at all. I really think that all this is about is removing counsellors that tend to be less pro-development, and creating a new council that will be more likely to support changes that a particular group wants.
Size of a legislative body does not make much difference in quality. New Hampshire loves its 425-member House; Massachusetts didn’t get much out of shrinking its House a couple of decades ago when the same googoos called for it.
What matters is representation. And the new charter takes that away by making it all at large. We don’t let Oklahoma and Texas choose a nominal Massachusetts resident to represent us in Congress, nor do “ward at large” seats represent a ward.
I’ve never thought much about the if it’s good enough for Congress it’s good enough for Newton argument.
For one Newton is a lot smaller geographically. It’s not unrealistic for a city councilor to be in touch with the whole city.
For two, well, Congress.
I’m really on the fence. “Ward” is a strange unit of representation, especially with the arbitrary way wards are drawn in Newton, combining areas with little logical attachment to each other. I have no problem dropping ward-specific representation, but I’m concerned about the proposed council size. We need councilors to serve in the various committees. How do we get that with half the number? Right now we are getting their service (almost) for free, so why not use this resource?
@Greg — “Certainly you wouldn’t want anyone accusing http://NewtonDemocracy.org of misleading the public.”
The video has always had a footnote below it stating: “Note this was recorded before the Commission reduced the proposed council to 12 to minimize votes required for Special Permit approval.” which I hope addresses your concern.
Thanks for giving both videos visibility. Ultimately I think both sides want voters to make informed an informed choice in November and the move voters know about it the better. In particular it is not unusual for some to thing we are talking about Charter Schools rather than city government!
I wanted to make a few counter points to the commissioners video:
“Things have changed, we have modernized communications. Ever one is in touch by email.”
Email does NOT lighten councilor workload. They receive 100’s of emails 24/7 expecting replies and ongoing dialog.
“We have a robust 311 system”
I tested this hypothesis when the planning departments “subscribe” email link gave me errors on March 15th. My ticket is “In Progress” 5 months later with no response or follow up. I had to talk to planning department in person to subscribe.
“We have customer service people right in the rotunda of city hall”
Not everyone can make it to city hall during working hours and often that will not be the route for conveying legislative concerns.
“No longer necessary to have a councilor on every block”
Each Ward-Elected Councilor covers over 8000 residents — that quite a few city blocks…
“Non residency seats are a popular configuration”
That is true, but most Massachusetts cities have 4 or less non-residency seats — the charter proposes 12. Most Massachusetts cities have 6 or more ward-elected seats (we now have 8) — the charter proposes none.
@Newtoner, thank you for raising a thoughtful question.
The charter commission looked at the committee structure of other city councils. In other cities, committees are smaller, meet less frequently, and have considerably shorter meetings. Smaller councils that can deliberate effectively (hard to have a real deliberation with a 24-member body) accomplish a lot through the Committee of the Whole.
Our 8-member committees create an additional 4 (sometimes more) long meetings per month that a councilor must attend. This is a huge time commitment that could be reduced with a modernized committee structure that would come with a smaller council.
Based on our research, the charter commission concluded that with a smaller council, councilors would spend the same or fewer hours doing their job. This would make the job attractive to a wider array of citizens who might want to serve but can’t commit the amount of time currently required.
@Jack Prior, you make an outrageous and false claim. Certain things that come before the city council require a 2/3 majority to pass, but the ease of getting a 2/3 majority was not a decision factor for the charter commission.
Most of the commissioners who supported reducing the unrestricted at-large seats from 5 to 4 did so because they thought the unrestricted seats should make up a smaller percentage of the council. One person thought that calculating a 2/3 majority off of an odd number would confuse voters, but the other commissioners disagreed. And the point was made that it would be mathematically easier to get a 2/3 majority from a 12-member body, but the commissioners agreed that in reality, the requirement is one less vote from a body that is smaller by one member which has a negligible impact.
Your subsequent post is also inaccurate. The charter proposed to have one representative from each ward, elected citywide–those would be 8 “residency” seats.
@Rhanna — “you make an outrageous and false claim. Certain things that come before the city council require a 2/3 majority to pass, but the ease of getting a 2/3 majority was not a decision factor for the charter commission.”
Here is a snippet of audio from the commission audio for the discussion at the 8/24 charter commission meeting I attended.
http://newtonwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/special-permit-threshold-discussion.mp3
Transcript:
Rhanna: “…they said to get a 2/3rds majority with 12 you need 8, which is .67, to get a 2/3rd majority with 13 you need 9, which is .69, and therefore they feel it’s harder to get a 2/3rd majority… “
Brooke: “Why should we make it harder than the law requires, why should we, why should we up the ante, I don’t see any rationale, I think it essentially inserts us into the political system if we change the ratios by changing the numbers.”
Bryan: “I would just add quickly that the 2/3rd is how it is, because the legislature intended to make this a more difficult vote to achieve, if we did have the inexact number with 13, we are actually making it an even harder bar to hit, than the already hard bar that is in place, which puts us in the shoes of having us go even further, I feel very uncomfortable with that.”
Based on the above I would say it is not at all an outrageous or false claim to say that the ease of getting a 2/3rds majority was not a decision factor for the commission. Brooke and Bryan’s statements certainly imply ease was a factor in their decision making.
To you 2nd point, you are correct. I meant to say: Most Massachusetts cities have 4 or less At-large seats — the charter proposes 12. Most Massachusetts cities have 6 or more ward-elected seats (we now have 8) — the charter proposes none.
I should have followed up with a correcting comment.
So… according to this (painful) video, it makes no sense to have as much representation because the city now has better technology. Really? According to that logic, why have a Council at all? Just phone it in. Representation? fuggeddaaabout it. You don’t need it. :)
Folks… some very good people worked on this proposal…but sometimes good people simply come to a bad conclusion. This is one of those times.
Vote NO on this unfortunately ill-conceived proposal. Keep your Ward Councillor. Keep your most local voice in city government. Keep your ability to have a true say in what happens in your neighborhood. Keep the structure that makes Newton one of the leading cities in the state…and the country. A smaller council is not worth losing your Ward Councillor.
Vote NO….proudly…and with enthusiasm. And tell the folks who are not as actively involved to vote NO as well!
Power consolidation = BAD. Retaining local representation = GOOD
Learn as much as you can. Visit http://www.newtondemocracy.org for more info.
In contrast to Rihanna comments, the lack of Ward representation is highly uncommon in the state and more broadly in the country.
The Commission has put forth a structure that is very radical compared to most communities.
Let’s be clear on the facts.
Unfortunately the size of the council has been lost in the debate over how the council will be elected.
And that in turn has become a proxy battle between the NIMBYs and the pro-development forces.
Surely the Commission members must have had some inkling that the Charter proposal would run into such vocal opposition. If they believed that reducing the size of the council was that important, why not make the electoral method more palatable? Or was neutralizing local opposition to development their actual goal?
Greg: As president of the local chamber of commerce, I can understand your position. But to say that you don’t see the parallel between electing Congress members and ward councillors strains credulity.
I see the parallel. I honestly don’t buy the logic. The US and even our state are geographically vast. It makes sense to elect regional representatives. You can bike across Newton in 20 minutes. Any elected who isn’t capable of representing all of Newton isn’t worthy of electing.
@Greg.
YOU may be able to bike across Newton in twenty minutes. Some of us would need the day to do it, with frequent stops along the way. :)
Look, there is a model for this form of government and it’s right here in Newton. It’s modeled after our own school committee. They are elected within the ward that they live in and they are voted into office city wide. There was no outcry during the process that it was too expensive for them to run, there was no outcry that the citizens didnt have ward representation, etc. No outcry at all. just a sound, well functioning school committee.
Now, some councilors may or may not lose their jobs, so now it’s a problem.. This city is too much lololol
Maybe you can bike across Newton in 20 minutes, but the differences in the neighborhoods are undeniable. In the Newton Parents FB group I notice major differences. The Southsiders and Northsiders may as well be in different parts of the state. My family and neighbors in West Newton (not Hill) has very little in common with families in Waban or Chestnut Hill.
With all respect to Tom, the School Committee is a different entity with different agendas, handling one piece of one aspect of city life. I do not believe it’s functions can be compared to the functions of the City Council and believe this apples to oranges comparison was actually a flaw in the thinking during this process.
The argument also falls flat for me comparing a potential 12 member city council to the present school committee with an assumption that the school committee is in the throes of some sort of success. As someone who’s followed the school committee since 1977 and been continuously under their thumb since 1960, its contagious disfunction only strengthens the argument for me against the proposed charter. The school committee, especially those of 1975-1978, 2000-2004 and 2015-2017 a paragon of great governing??? Please. OVER THE COURSE OF THE THIRTY FULL YEARS MY OWN CHILDREN WENT THROUGH THE SYSTEM, THEY’RE STILL DEBATING LATER START TIMES. If the proposed charter had advocated doing away with the school commitee as an entity, I’d be the first in line at 6:59 AM this November.
Mark, with all due respect to you, it sounds like you have problems with members of the sc, not the sc itself. Otherwise you would have said that you had a problem with the sc from 1970-present. While later start times has still been talk about within the sc, do you honestly believe that more members of the sc would be better??
Tom, I have a problem with the school committee as a functioning body, a problem with the very way it conducts its ‘business’. Any saint, any good person, any outstanding human being, any well-meaning person you care to name could become a member of that dysfunctioning bunch and the net result of group deafness and lack of responsiveness would be the same.
One of the things I attribute this to is the fact that there’s only 8 members. A distinct coziness takes over, they all sit at the cool kids’ table since there’s not enough other members to challenge their group think, and they’re elected at large so their responsibility to not just their ward but to large swaths of people, becomes diffused. What do they care? Just get enough votes citywide and your own ward and large groups of people be damned.
For me, the proof is the pudding of the past 56 years, especially the last ten.
Framingham just became a City, and they chose to have all their School Committee members elected by District. I think Newton would be better off if we did the same. Margaret Albright is an outstanding School Committee member, she got more votes than anyone else — including the mayor — in the last election, and yet it took her 3 times to win. Why? Because it was a Citywide vote and she was not endorsed by the power structure. If she’d been able to knock on doors, which one can do with a ward race, I’m confident she would have won sooner.
Mark, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Emily, you’re making huge assumptions regarding Margaret and her campaigns. Even if you weren’t, it wasn’t the charter commissions role to make things easier for Margaret or you for that matter. Their role was what’s best for Newton…not what’s best for any individual candidate(s).
Rhianna – I believe this is a misrepresentation: “The charter proposed to have one representative from each ward, elected citywide–those would be 8 “residency” seats.” Councilors from the 8 residency seats would not be Ward representation, they would be citywide representation. The phrasing of your sentence implies otherwise.
I’m always struck by how no one seems to care about the cost of a city-wide versus ward election. Economic inequality is one of the biggest issues in the US. The ever increasing costs of elections distorts who runs for office. Whatever happened to ‘Think Global, Act Local’. There is a big difference between raising $3,000 versus $30,000 to run a contested campaign for many people.
Tom – the first several elections I was in Newton for, the School Committee ran as a slate against all challengers – including sending out campaign postcards with a group pic – and won as a slate until Geoff Epstein ran 3 times to get in. I do not see this as a good thing and think ward elections would benefit the SC. Studies repeatedly show moving to citywide versus ward elections decreases diversity as measured by income and race (and increases costs).
Lucia wrote: “the School Committee ran as a slate against all challengers – including sending out campaign postcards with a group pic – and won as a slate until Geoff Epstein ran 3 times to get in.”
I remember that happening and seeing those photos. Again and Again.
Tom, my point is that it is good for Newton to have independent minded people such as Margaret Albright representing us on the School Committee. Citywide elections benefit insiders and slates. Diversity of opinion is a good thing.
@Tom: Your argument relies on the assumption that the School Committee does in fact operate with the best interests of all of Newton in mind. I’m not so sure that’s true. Hear me out before disagreeing.
In Massachusetts, municipalities have the option of taking advantage of a federally funded nutrition program called the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). This program provides free meals to children ages 18 and under when school is not in session. To qualify, the community must have an area in which at least 50% of children under 19 are at or below 185% of the federal poverty level. Because we have many pockets of poverty in Newton, we qualify for this free program.
In Newton, there are roughly 5,562 residents who live below the poverty level. Many of them are children. In Waltham, there are roughly 7,057. In other words, there are similar numbers of poor children living in both of our communities. However, in Waltham, because its leadership decided to take action to solve a problem, they offer ten different SFSP sites. At places such as their public schools, public library, public pool, public housing, and more, during the summer months, nearly every single day, a child who is going hungry can show up to any of these ten locations and get some food for free. No questions asked, no stigma attached.
In Newton, we offer our poor children ZERO such sites. And if that weren’t bad enough, not only does our leadership acknowledge that we have many poor children going hungry during the summer months, but they admit they do nothing to solve this problem by telling these children to go to Waltham so as to take advantage of their SFSP program. In light of our current Mayor running for Governor on a platform focused on economic inequality, think about that for a second.
If we had the leadership, we could provide our hundreds if not thousands of disadvantaged children with consistent, reliable, and healthy food during the summer months for free. As someone who grew up in Newton and went to bed hungry too many times to count as a child, believe me, the impact of offering such a service would be profoundly positive. But because poor children going hungry during the summer months is not part of School Committee conversations (as far as I’m aware) in a meaningful way, we instead do nothing. Given that childhood poverty in Newton has increased more than 77% since Setti Warren became Mayor, think about the message that this sends to our children and their families.
Historically, School Committee members are elected by representing a narrow and majority view agenda. In my opinion, at the end of the day, an all at-large election system creates a culture that suppresses the minority point-of-view.
@ Lucia, “Think globally act locally” is a great mindset. How are you defining local? I can walk to Newtonville village center, and I think of Newtoville as local to me. But I don’t live in Ward 2 so I wouldn’t be able to vote for the one city councilor who take the lead on an issue in Newtonville if our ward-based councilors are elected by the ward only. Most of Newton Highlands (Ward 5) could not vote for the councilor who would take the lead on issues in Newton Highlands village center, which is in Ward 6. This city is small enough that traffic issues and development anywhere affect residents everywhere.
If you spend some time on OCPF data, you will see that running for a citywide council seat does not always cost more than running for a ward-only council seat.
@ Tom Davis
Thank you for the post and that information, which I admit with embarrassment, I did not know about. How appalling. I intend to pursue this as well.
It reminds me of similar situation 15 years ago. After 9/11, the federal government was offering grants to communities to upgrade their firefighters’ equipment and gear. The administration of the time couldn’t be bothered to fill out the forms because we’re a ‘rich community’ and ‘didn’t need the money’. Yeah, why try to save both money and make lives easier for those putting their own on the line.
Tying this back to the main topic of this thread, consolidating power in the hands of less people to simply make things more efficient for a few will not solve these kinds of issues that take greater deliberation; Greater deliberation by people more DIRECTLY tied to the needs of their wards and THOSE PEOPLE WITHIN IT… that they would tend to know more personally and be more responsible for.
Rhanna – Why do you assume a councilor living in Ward 2 would take the lead on a Ward 2 issue if they are elected citywide? It would make sense that they would take the lead on a Ward 2 issue – if that was their constituency. I also don’t understand why it is assumed Ward elected councilor wouldn’t work together for the benefit of the city.
The data you refer to, no doubt, includes candidates like Mr. Woodward, Mr. Cecchinelli, and Mr. Saunders, who are running for mayor but spending almost nothing compared to the 3 main candidates. So if you looked at total per candidate spending in this mayoral primary the average cost would seem low because 4 candidates are spending almost nothing.
There is a cost difference between ward mailing and citywide mailings, purchasing ward signs and citywide signs. There is a huge time difference between walking ward and walking the city. Having been a treasurer for several local candidates who ran citywide, I’ve seen this first hand.
@Tom Davis. I also thank you for posting this and the many other items you have posted about challenges facing significant segments of our population that just never get reported. Kids going to school hungry is nothing new in this City and you are right. There’s no safety net here when school isn’t in session.
More than a few kids I went to school with in the late 40’s and early 50’shad no lunch or way to get food. The kids that did were pretty good about sharing what they had.
Tom, that was wonderful information. I truly hope it get rectified and would love to advocate for that problem with you. BUT, what that tells me is that you have problems with the SC members not the system. Nothing in that speech (for lack of a better word) tells me that anything would change if we went to a ward-centric election for the SC. The samething still would have occured.
I agree with everything you’ve said up until your conclusion.
I do hope we can find away to bring that program into Newton. It’s silly that it hasn’t happened already. I hope someone on the SC will come on the blog and explain why it hasn’t been rectified, yet.
What “modernized committee structure” would enable the smaller city council to have fewer committees? The eight–member committees are intended to provide at least minimal knowledge of site specific citizen petitions and public improvements in each committee. If Committees don’t have at least one member per ward, items might be decided without any knowledge of specific sites or impose an enormous burden of visiting on the smaller committee members. This reflects a naivete on the part of the Commission members.
The only real way to cut the number of Committees is cut the number of functions that the smaller Council carries out/. The logical choice is the Special Permit Granting Authority which could be given to the Planning Board or the Zoning Board of Appeals. For citizens, the problem is that both smaller boards are made of unelected and thus unaccountable appointees of the Mayor. The amount of work associated with major projects like Washington Place would be an enormous burden to place on such people.
It should also be noted that the Planning Board has had a major attendance problem in the last few years. Several recent meetings were cancelled because of a lack of a quorum Citizens had to go City Hall more than once to address the subject matter of the cancelled meetings. How is this better than the existing Committee structure where failures of quorum of the larger Council Committees are rare?
The members of the Charter Commission reflect the problems that their recommendations are likely to produce. As I have asked since the beginning and Michael Slater has re-stated clearly on this thread., What problems is the Commission trying to solve? How will their recommendations solve them. Unfortunately the Commission’s predelictions have led them to ignore the reality of life in Newton and the structure of government that has produced it. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it. Vote No.
I wanted to thank the Charter Commission for adopting (9-0) more neutral language for their change summary for the ballot this evening. The text will now read something along the lines of “…1 councilor from each ward…” rather than “…8 members representing wards…”.
Thanks for posting that Jack. The new wording is more indicative of the proposed composition of the city council. Certainly less ambiguous.
@Tom: Sorry to take so long to respond to your comment. I wasn’t ignoring it, but rather doing some research to better answer it. You write: “Nothing in that speech (for lack of a better word) tells me that anything would change if we went to a ward-centric election for the SC. The samething still would have occured.” Data (and history) suggests otherwise.
In Massachusetts, there are roughly 50 municipalities that are 1) eligible for the Summer Food Service Program (“SFSP”) but 2) that despite being eligible, do not have a single SFSP site in their municipality. Of these 50 municipalities, 100% of them have a School Committee that is elected on an all at-large basis. In other words, every single municipality that is eligible for SFSP does not take advantage of it if they have an all at-large School Committee.
On the other hand, 100% of the municipalities that have a School Committee elected on a ward basis have at least one SFSP if eligible. In other words, every single municipality that is eligible for SFSP takes advantage of it if they have a School Committee elected on a ward basis.
Both the evidence and history is clear. When politicians are elected on an exclusively at-large basis, minority and/or disadvantaged residents are disproportionately represented. And when a class of individuals is disproportionately represented, inequality grows and people are unfairly harmed. (Please keep in mind that Newton kids going hungry during the summer months without express advocacy by our exclusively at-large elected School Committee is but one of many examples to prove my point.)
I’ll be writing more about this in the fall in regard to why I will be voting no on the proposed charter, but for now, hopefully what I wrote here makes some sense.