City Councilor and candidate for Mayor Amy Sangiolo posted the new wording the Charter Commission has formulated for the November ballot. The new wording takes away “representing” in favor of “one member from each Ward.” Perhaps the CC understands that they are, in fact, taking away Ward representation? Any thoughts?
Update: A redline of the original and new language. (Supplied by Jack Prior.)
By mucking up the language to misrepresent what we will be voting for (or in my case, voting against), the Charter Commission is actually lying to the electorate.
Why not say: 8 Councilors with a residency requirement and 5 with no residency requirement?
When dancing around with the language the commissioners are appealing to the lowest common denominator among voters, and may be assuming voters are comatose. I see it as lying through omission.
I have a question about this Charter Commission business. Hopefully, someone here, who knows the nuts and bolts of how Newton politics works (and some courage) can provide some insight.
As I follow this issue, I feel as if there is a proverbial elephant in the room, and I’ve pieced together a story and opinion without really knowing if any of it is true.
It seems to me, that there is a group of politically involved Newton residents, with strong ties to Newton’s Democratic party and The League of Women Voters who have a particular vision for the direction of our city and are weary of being thwarted by local neighborhoods. I think this has something to do with density and the Austin Street project.
Being politically savvy, (good for them) these folks made certain that they ran for – And were elected to the Charter Commission so they could configure our city’s political landscape so that the neighborhoods (and especially the neighborhoods North of the Pike) have less power to thwart their vision.
My opinion, based on my story (which may or may not be true) is that the CC succeeded in pulling off an above board, Trumpesque political power grab and they are counting on the same lack of political awareness that got them elected to the CC to bring their plan to fruition.
Am I totally out of my mind here? Please let me know.
Mike
Mike – I’m on the Charter Commission. In addition, I’ve been a Newton Public Schools teacher for many years. I’ve taught at Burr, Williams, Countryside, (a bit at) Franklin, and NNHS.
Please reread that – I am a public school teacher.
When you are a teacher, you have significant conversations with many people who live outside of your personal world experience. You talk to families about the people most important to them in the world – their children. In addition, you become part of the school community and the community surrounding the school and have serious conversations with residents about the neighborhood.
In addition to these experiences, my kids attended Cabot, Bigelow, Day, and NNHS. I held parent leadership position at Day and at NNHS. In those capacities, I worked hard to help parents who were having difficulty navigating a complex school system.
Because I’d been involved in so many parts of the city and with such a wide range of residents, I believed that I had something unique to add to the charter commission, so I ran for one of the nine seats. As part of that campaign, I attended countless events, canvassed, and met with anyone who had an interest in speaking with me. You were not one of the many people who made an effort to speak to me, yet you feel free to speak about and for me, about my character and integrity.
I’m not a joiner. I have never belonged to the League of Women Voters, I joined the Newton Dems city committee by mistake and have asked to have my name removed from its email list. But without so much as a phone call or an email asking to speak to me, you accuse me of being part of a “Trumpesque power grab”. Frankly, if I got hold of some power, I wouldn’t know what to do with it.
Call me anytime. Really. I’m more than happy to talk to you or any resident about the charter, how I came to be interested in it and a charter review, and why I voted as I did on any particular issue.
Does “from” just mean that the representative shall be a resident of the ward, rather than allowing anybody from anywhere to “represent” the ward? If so, that does not seem nefarious to me.
Mike,
I think you’re just listening to one side of the issue. I ran in the race and I saw nothing like this.
What I did see is the 9 people on the commission care very much about the city. I was a bit nervous at first about some of the members of the commission, but was soon felt my nervousness was misplaced. I saw independent thinkers create the new charter. I saw caring, independent thinkers who value transparency on the commission.
How I see the no side is a bunch of obstructionist who have done nothing but dissuade the commission from doing their job, who want to see us stuck in the 1970’s and some don’t want to lose their job.
Mike, I have been involved in this movement from day 1 (over 12 years) the people with an agenda are the no side. At first they refused to cut the size of the board when the voters voted by more than 2:1 they wanted a smaller board. They then promised me and others that they would cut the size through home rule petition and gave excuses not to do that, now that the commission came out with their recommendations, they are now making false assumptions on the recommendations…..losing ward representation?? Power consolidation?? Where are you people getting this???? Whatever.
This is a huge opportunity for the people that will be on the Board if the charter passes. You will have an opportunity to reconfigure Newton politics, you don’t understand how lucky you are. You are so upset, you don’t see the big picture.
Mike,
It doesn’t require a nefarious conspiracy to get the outcome you’ve described. You have correctly described the two basic thrusts in Newton civic life: those who have a more progressive vision for the future and those who are inclined to preserve things more or less how they are. The first can be described as shaping Newton to meet evolving challenges or as pushing their vision on neighborhoods. The second can be described as protecting the unique character of the city’s villages or as forcing their vision on privately owned land.
The bottom line: the first group’s aims are better served with a council more responsive to the city as a whole. The second group’s aims are better served with council members who are responsive to their neighbors. This is a bit of a zero-sum game. There are going to be winners and losers.
It’s not a “power grab” any more than any election is a power grab. The majority of the city likely supports a council more responsive to city-wide priorities. If so, Yes will win. If not, No will win.
First, again thank you to the Charter Commission for revising their summary of the changes. This particular text was theirs to draft, and I appreciate the changes. Despite citywide mailings, this is the only information many voters will see before marking their ballot, so it is important to get it right.
The link in this post is actually to a circulated scanned version of Anne and Brooke’s proposed edits going into the meeting that been misinterpreted as being the final revision. I listened to the meeting audio and reconstructed the new text that was approved here:
http://newtonwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/newcharterlanguage.pdf
Lynne or Greg — perhaps you can substitute this link in post above? The official version is with the clerk’s office.
The essence of this debate is about “Retaining Ward Representation”. According to the Yes group, this is the key thing the new charter retains, but in reality it is the key thing it removes. Perhaps the most concise way to illustrate this point is to look at our current charter language on filing vacancies:
“…The election shall be by the voters of the whole city in the case of councilors at large or by the voters entitled to such representation in the case of ward councilors. ”
BY THE VOTERS ENTITLED TO SUCH REPRESENTATION
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/why-vote-no.html
@Jane @ Tom
Thank you for responding. To be very clear, there were no accusations, nor did I infer anything regarding anyone’s character or integrity in my post. I don’t think anyone did anything below board, and I said that.I’m probably similar to many residents want to make an informed decision – And tuning in now because it’s after Labor Day.
I’ve lived in Newton for 17 years; I don’t read the Newton Tab regurally, have never set foot in city hall, and don’t have kids in the school system. I’m an independent internet marketing consultant / designer working from my home office in West Newton. I work a lot.
Based on what I’ve learned through the touch points I list below, I had recognized that I’d constructed a pretty strong story and opinion – Without really knowing if my view of the forces behind Newton’s politics were accurate.
– Two 5-minute conversations with YES friends who are political insiders
– Five 5-minute conversations with West Newton Neighbors
– Participating in a Village 14 thread on this topic back in the spring
– Reading various Newton Tab headlines as they pass in my Facebook feed
– A maddening 10-minute conversation with a very aggressive LWV member at the Farmer’s Market*
– Watched a YouTube video
* (Note to LWV, my neighbor had the exact same experience with the same individual)
My post was/is simply to learn if my view of this issue and the underlying political forces Newton was/is in any way accurate.
@Tom, I’m not upset at all, and my quest here is to get a grasp on the big picture best I can. From conversations I’ve had with my neighbors, there is a lot of uncertainty, suspicion and far around this topic.
Mike
The thing I do not understand about the CC is their inability to compromise. Never have they agreed to simply downsize the Council to 16 members and retain 8 at large and 8 Ward councilors. Why is that? Why eliminate the Ward representatives? They are the people who work closely with their ward population. This weakens local gov’t. It appears the CC members are carefully selecting who retains their position on the Council. How will this ‘power play’ serve the community? In fact it does not serve Newton well. It sets up a very divisive scenario for the future and makes entry into the political power base difficult and expensive. If Ward councilors are eliminated, this will be the first step to transforming Newton into a very different city.
Jack, thank you for that link. It’s much less confusing. I also thank the Charter Commission for changing to the new, less ambiguous wording. I took the following from your link leaving out the old verbiage. Great choice.
“Effective with the 2019 municipal election the size of the city council will be reduced from 24 members to 12, with 1 councilor from each of the 8 wards and 4 councilors who can live anywhere in the city. All councilors will be elected by the voters citywide for 2-year terms.”
Jack,
I added a link to your document.
This could have been much simpler.
Council will be reduced from 24 seats to 12. All seats will be voted city wide. Eight seats will have a residency requirement: one councilor from each of the eight wards. Four seats will have no ward residency requirement.
I’m not sure if I understood this correctly.
Does YES = We DO have 1 Ward rep with a residency requirement, (and 4 at-large) however, the entire city gets to vote on who our rep is? So, in theory, a candidate can lose in the ward he/she is running to represent?
Mike, first to answer you question, yes you are totally out of your mind, your words.
it’s not a good idea to form opinions based on a concocted story without knowing if it’s true. The elephant in the room is the attempted power grab by the special interest group composed of voters who agree with the NVA stances who have a particular vision for the direction of our city.
Quick questions about your made-up story:
How did they do this? “these folks made certain that they ran for – And were elected to the Charter Commission”
How do you reconcile your assertion that the Charter Commissioners got themselves elected “so they could configure our city’s political landscape so that the neighborhoods (and especially the neighborhoods North of the Pike) have less power to thwart their vision” with
“To be very clear, there were no accusations, nor did I infer anything regarding anyone’s character or integrity in my post.”
Yes in theory a Councilor could win city-wide and not win his ward. But surely you’ve heard the adage:
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.” It doesn’t happen in practice.
@marti Thank you.
first to answer your question, yes you are totally out of your mind, your words.
-MC: Well ya.
it’s not a good idea to form opinions based on a concocted story without knowing if it’s true.
-MC: Agreed, which is why I wrote the post.
The elephant in the room is the attempted power grab by the special interest group composed of voters who agree with the NVA stances who have a particular vision for the direction of our city.
-MC: OK
Quick questions about your made-up story:
How did they do this? “these folks made certain that they ran for – And were elected to the Charter Commission”
-MC: OK
How do you reconcile your assertion that the Charter Commissioners got themselves elected “so they could configure our city’s political landscape so that the neighborhoods (and especially the neighborhoods North of the Pike) have less power to thwart their vision” with“To be very clear, there were no accusations, nor did I infer anything regarding anyone’s character or integrity in my post.”
-MC: In two ways – 1, The former was an inquiry, not an assertion and 2, I don’t necessarily consider configuring a city’s political landscape through legal processes a measure of character or integrity.
Yes in theory a Councilor could win city-wide and not win his ward. But surely you’ve heard the adage: “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.” It doesn’t happen in practice.
-MC: If a company wants to build a oil refinery on Needham Street, and it would bring a boatload of $$ to the city, the other Wards won’t vote in a supporting councelor? .. Well maybe.
@Marti
” It doesn’t happen in practice.”
IIRC, Albright beat LeBlanc by 7 votes in the last election in Ward 2. That’s awfully close. Too close to be so dismissive of a real concern.
@Paul – an example I was thinking of but there have been others.
@Marti, it’s no secret that several Ward Councilors have been elected even as they are opposed by the Newton Democratic City Committee. That tells me that what the NDCC and what Ward residents want can be at odds. I don’t have a problem with the NDCC per se, but I do think it problematic that their long arm of influence is often extended to candidates they favor but that Ward residents may not. Having only at-Large Councilors may also likely mean all Councilor races that have opposition candidates will need large amounts of money to run for office ($30,000 for the Auchincloss win in last election cycle is a case in point). For anyone who’s ever railed against money in politics, welcome to that brave new world. This will be a stark change in the average resident’s ability to participate in elections and shift to more “professional” politicians and candidates.
To go back to one of Mike’s earlier questions: a candidate has to live in the ward they are running to represent if they are in the election for the ward seat. If there are two candidates or more running for that seat, then yes, someone who lives in that ward will lose the election. They are elected city-wide, however, just as 16 of the 24 councilors are today.
These eight seats are different from the proposed 4 at-large seats. The proposed seats have no residency requirement, so people who are happy with their ward representation would now have another opportunity to run without directly challenging someone they like.
Thank you, Mike. By the way, I meant it when I said that I’d like to talk with you and can be flexible about time to fit your busy schedule.
To anyone who continues to think running for a ward councilor seat vs an at-large seat needs to check the user-friendly OCPF website. In fact, the most successful candidates have deep roots in Newton’s civic life rather than deep pockets.
Can a person run simultaneously for a resident ward seat and also one of the 4 at large seats? If so and successfully wins both, who decides which seat is preemptive?
I’ve been following this and went to a coffee in the neighbourhood to meet with supporters and two of the council members. (This is possibly the only election where I voted for 8 of the 9 winners… and I was dissapointed I the result.)
What. I took away from the coffee was that the charter council started with a system that had the majority of it’s members – 2/3rds – elected “by ward, elected at large.” A system that reqiures almost all of writing on municipal government to have an asterisk at the end of most sentences to denote “except Newton.” And the council decided, or reasoned, or assumed – erroneously, IMHO – that this system used only in Newton was important to Newton and that it needed to be preserved because they wanted to get a smaller council with as little disruption to the current system as possible.
I can’t say that I agree with them on this, but there were legal changes that were needed (and are included … if Mayor Cohen had to put together an infrastructure report I doubt it would have been as neglected as it was) and I appreciate the thought and time they put into it, and, well…
2/3 of the council is still “by ward, elected at large” – there are still the same number of races on my ballot although they move to “pick one” rather than “pick two.” I’d prefer to see directly elected ward representation, but I don’t think in terms of elected officials or ballots that this is worse than what we have now, so I’ll be voting yes.
(I also haven’t heard the no side put forward an argument for when or how we should fix the real problems with our charter… or what living with them would look like.)
Home rule petition. Same way we changed “alderman” to “councilor.”
@Janet — Note that its 4 seats with no residency requirement, not 5.
@Sean — yes, “residency requirement” would have been clearer and that was my initial 7/12/17 suggestion (shot down 9-0), but will settle for “from each” given that this was the commission’s text to draft.
@Sue — “the ward they are running to represent…” …Sigh
@Anne — Note that the proposal is more of an outlier “asterisk” than the status quo. Only Everett uses this structure, only Methuen has term limits, only <3% of MA communities lack the local representation being eliminated, most cities have 4 or less at-large seats vs. the proposed 12, all others are odd-numbered. etc; but if you have invested time in choosing your vote, I fully respect that.
@Tom — On other posts you've lamented being inappropriately passed over by the central party in the "endorsed slate"/support area in your charter and commission runs. You've said "that's politics", but does it have to be the case for every seat on our council? I personally was in the "lets find a council structure most can support" camp until the final report was submitted and regret this is now an "obstructionist" Yes/No issue now.
re: agendas – hidden and otherwise
The commissioners stepped up to serve the city in fairly difficult and thankless roles. They come from have a variety of perspectives, but have shared stance on how the city should be governed. A few have priorities they see as favored by the proposal, as do some of their supporters, and the converse is true for some of its opponents.
I think the challenge in this day and age, when there are "sides" in a divisive decision, and multiple implications and pros/cons involved, it is difficult to avoid ascribing the worst intentions/values (or tolerance of the worst intentions/values) to the entirety of the other side. Lets try our best to get through the next 60 days civily and come out the other side as one Newton… with 8 ward-elected councilors :-).
@Jack — Couldn’t have said it better myself. Unfortunately, people have hardened in their stances on some of the local issues at the moment and we’ll have to ride it out until November and try to keep it neighborly — and hopefully end up with a more effective 12 member council. 😀
@ Jack
Thanks for that perspective! I wanted a smaller council in order to have a simpler ballot, and therefore less research (yes, selfish … ) So in return for my hubris I there is both the charter commission and the mayoral primary that require substantial research and thought this year 😉
Jack, great post.
“I personally was in the “lets find a council structure most can support” camp … ” I was right there with you.
Now that two interest groups with diametrically different positions have brought their battleground to both the charter and the elections, I only see the division growing wider.
@Jack @Bryan
I think a legitimate concern is that none of the Charter Commission members discussed their preference to remove ward-only representatives when they were running for their positions. Its clear in reading the comments of several of them who post on V14, that being anti-Ward Councilor were long-held positions, not conclusions drawn from the charter process.
It was dishonest to hide their views– all were asked to share any going-in beliefs on elements to change in the charter.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m seeing/hearing support for a YES vote for the new charter from BOTH the NVA and many of my very left-leaning liberal Newton friends. Am trying to reconcile those two very different positions and figure out what is driving both to recommend YES to the new charter. ?????
@ANP – are you spreading Fake News? Because you’re totally wrong if you think anyone in NVA leadership supports the antidemocratic idea of getting rid of ward councilors. (Obviously, I can’t speak for every last person on our mailing list.)
All the NVA people I know believe keeping local representation is essential. Many of us including me have been passing out Vote No flyers and talking to people, as I took the opportunity to do when I was gathering my signatures to get on the ballot. And I’ve just been commenting on a Facebook thread.
Who exactly are you “seeing/hearing” from?
@Paul, the Charter Commission process is mandated by state law, and it didn’t leave enough time for candidates to study the charter and state their positions on city council composition (and every other part of the charter). During my campaign the most I said about this was that I would be “reluctant” to eliminate ward representation. I don’t believe there was any dishonesty on the part of the individuals who have given their time and energy to this. I have admired their transparency throughout this process.
I don’t like this proposal because I think it skews too much toward pure majority rule. I don’t think a city council elected all at-large is a meaningful check on a strong mayor. As Jack Prior points out, this structure — strong mayor plus all-at-large council — is a rare outlier in Massachusetts.
I am disappointed to be voting no, because I was hoping for a smaller council and a simpler ballot. But this isn’t the only bite at that apple. If this charter is voted down, a smaller council could still be achieved via the home rule petition route.
@Kathy: It is exceedingly unlikely we will have another opportunity to downsize. This has been discussed for decades and the city council has never been able to reduce itself despite many attempts to do so. Many of the councilors supporting and running the campaign against the charter have never supported reduction.
Bryan – When during the last 18 years did the city council try to reduce itself?
@Bryan, your point only makes me more nervous about adopting a structure like this. If this proposal results in an unacceptable level of groupthink or in the majority exercising their votes in a way that squelches minority voices (socio or economic), we will be stuck with it.
That is why I urge folks to look at this on an ideological level rather than get too caught up in the weeds. I don’t like a system where 100% of the seats can be elected by 51% of the votes.
@Kathy – I don’t agree with that conclusion. The council has proven incapable of downsizing itself. It is very capable of changing the charter for other reasons, as we saw when we changed the name from aldermen to city councilors.
Once we adopt a new charter, the new charter also contains a 10 year review provision for the first time, which is in most modern charters. Anything that’s not working will be studied, the council will receive a recommendation, and presumably would at that point act on the recommendation.
Marti,
Let me start by saying I dislike the NVA and everything they stand for, particularly as a result of my personal experience in dealing with prominent members when we rebuilt our home.
That said, I don’t see a ‘no’ vote as a power grab by them, as it preserves the status quo, but more of a rear-guard action. And it is without doubt true — by definition — that making the election of councilors an entirely at-large affair will remove local accountability, in the narrow sense of the term. Now, you can argue that removing parochialism (or NIMBYism, if you prefer) in the interests of the City as a whole is a good thing, but let’s be honest and open about it.
Referring to the Charter Commission’s FAQ, the nearest they come to this argument is this statement:
But then comes this:
I’m not doubting the responsiveness of at-large councilors; for example, I have found Deb Crossley to be excellent in this regard. But responsiveness does not mean that an at-large councilor will share your views on a particular subject, and more crucially, vote the way you might wish.
This was thrown into stark relief by the vote over rezoning Washington Place, where four out eight ward councilors voted ‘no’, but only three out sixteen at-large councilors did so. In Ward 2, where the project is situated, both at-large councilors (Auchincloss and Albright) voted ‘yes’, but the ward councilor (Norton) voted ‘no’.
Clearly at-large councilors have less to fear from vengeful ward voters over narrow parochial issues, and it’s also not surprising that ward councilors appear to have a mutual interest in banding together to oppose developments that have vocal local opposition.
It’s a shame that the considerable amount of good work put in by the Charter Commission has been put into jeopardy over this specific issue, which has become a proxy battle between those who wish to freeze the City in time, and those with a more pragmatic and progressive view of development.
Bryan – please support this statement: “The council has proven incapable of downsizing itself.” The last effort I can recall is Anatol Zuckerman running for alderman in 2007 on the platform “If elected I will not serve.” Anatol got 304 votes citywide.
@Lucia — There’s quite a history. I’m going to put together specifics hopefully tonight. Know that I didn’t ignore you, just want to provide accurate info!
Ruth Balser as ward alderman tried to muster enough for the inside self downsize approx 1986? Rick Lipof as at-large alderman tried unsuccessfully in ~approx 2002? Twice there were non-binding referendums re: downsize on the ballot – both handily were in favor of downsizing. Unfortunately those referendums are the leverage the charter commission is banking on to successfully get the ‘Yes’. I am sensing the CC’s negotiating skills are lacking in what will be the final result. – at which time, as one of the CC members said to me, “back to square 1”
Mike C: You’re an internet marketer??
I’d love to pick your brain for a couple of minutes regarding internet marketing.
Thanks.
My email is: [email protected]
We need to take a moment to reread Robert Welbourn’s thoughtful comments above. Well done Rob!
Robert Melbourne hits on the most inexplicable (to me) aspect of the Charter Commission story.
I believe that the city would be better off with a smaller board. All things considered, I would rather that the new charter had preserved Ward Councilors in some form or number. So all told, I’m neither an enthusiastic supporter or opponent though ultimately I’ll probably vote Yes.
What puzzles me is how/why the ward councillor issue has become such a clear “proxy battle” for the anti-development crowd. I do get that at times there may be particular ward councillors who’s interests/opinions align with the anti-development agenda. It seems to me though that there’s no clear development/anti-development divide that aligns with ward/city-wide councilors. As far as I can see, whether they are instinctually anti-development or not has much more to do with the individual councilor then whether they were elected city-wide or not. Brian Yates and Amy Sangiolo for example are city-wide elected councilors who seem to be much more aligned with NVA positions then some of the ward aldermen.
It seems like regardless of how you feel about the desirability of Ward Alderman, that aspect of the proposed Charter has no become a referendum on development issues. Strange indeed.
We took too many votes to count on individual items in the proposal. On the major issues – term limits, size of the council, the composition of the council, neighborhood area councils – votes were divided. The commission deliberated on these issues a number of times and took several (if not more) votes on each issue. Everyone lost on an issue of significant importance to her or him.
In the end, individual commissioners had to decide whether the total proposal was better than the current charter. In so many ways, I believe that this proposal is far superior to the current charter – including specific language related to the financial reporting and the capital improvement plan that protect city’s assets worth $1 billion, placing it in compliance with state law, instituting a 10-year charter review process, and downsizing the council. I’m also an advocate of term limits, so that’s a major improvement from my perspective as well.
@Jerry Reilly, I think there is a simple answer to your question. What No Development Anywhere Anytime folks want is a city council of 24 members, so they need to find something in the charter proposal to rally people against. “Eliminates local representation!” is a very easy message to get across, even if it’s misleading.
In practice, under Newton’s current charter, a ward councilor has almost no power at all. The one councilor who is accountable only to your ward gets 1 vote out of 24, or 4%; he or she controls 4% of the outcome on any vote. That’s what you’d be giving up in order to get all the benefits of a smaller, more effective council. Yet, the proposed charter is described as “destroying local democracy”.
The phenomenon that Robert Welbourn describes, of ward councilors voting as a bloc, was one of the top reasons that charter commissioners didn’t propose having the councilor from each ward elected only by the ward. Our research indicated that bloc voting / vote trading is all too common in practice, and it can be a huge problem when the bloc makes up a majority of the council. (Currently in Newton, the ward councilors only make up 1/3 of the council, so the potential power of that group voting a a bloc is marginalized.)
Further, having those eight councilors elected by one ward only would mean that 7/12 of the council is not accountable to you. That would be a dramatic shift from what we have today and, to me, would dramatically reduce the power of an individual voter.
Nice post Jane and Rhanna
@jerry @robert @all
No doubt for many, the charter proposal “has become a proxy battle between those who wish to freeze the City in time and those with a more pragmatic and progressive view of development.”
However, for me, this proposal has been the cause of internal conflict – Generally, I am FOR development and greater density and I believe residents/developers should have a greater say in what they can do with their property.
I understand the argument that a smaller council could be beneficial. However, the Charter Commission’s recommended course for achieving a smaller council has struck me as fundamentally and structurally flawed from day one. Flawed to the extent that it trumps how I feel about progressive development. All issues aside, I want our city’s political structure to be fair. It needs to empower residents of all neighborhoods.
In the current Charter Commission’s proposal, the Ward councilors are voted on by the city as a whole making it possible for a Ward to be represented by someone they don’t want or who may not represent their interests. Also, the proposal disempowers residents from participating in the system by raising the bar – As running a city wide campaign is infinitely more expensive and daunting than running a Ward campaign.
This proposal by the Carter Commission takes the ‘roots’ out of grass roots – Which I believe is a fundamental principle of how our system works.
I understand that my friends who use the system on a daily basis – counselors, developers, agencies and such – REALLY want a smaller council. They are frustrated and impatient. However, after taking the time to dissect and analyze this issue from all viewpoints, I think the option given to us by the Charter Commission is fundamentally flawed and does not serve us well.
I don’t care about other cities and studies; I believe it’s most important to build on sound structures that provide representation and access to government to people where they live. This needs to have a higher priority than our frustration with the process of government or how we feel about progressive development. Democracy never promised efficiency, brevity or results. In our world of instant gratification and increased efficiency, we can’t skimp on the process.
The thing I’ll never understand is why ward-at-large has suddenly become a controversial election method in Newton. 3/4 of our elected officials are selected that way: 2/3 of the city council and the entire school committee. Newton has always used this unique election device and I’ve never heard a single person complain about this method until the Charter Commission put forward this proposal. To those who say this method is fundamentally flawed, I want to understand how you came to that conclusion.
Have you always felt that way about the elected officials who have been making decisions for our city for decades? Do you feel it hasn’t worked well now that you’re thinking about it more? Do you believe the city would have made better decisions if more of the city council and school committee had always been elected only within the ward?
@Bryan
To be clear, I am saying a mix of at-large and ward is best. Especially for a city as large and diverse as Newton is. My uncle is a long time city councilor in Gloucester where I grew up – Their system is the same as our current system where you have a mix of ward councilors voted only by the ward and at large voted by all. I believe good democracy requires local representation. I want to know someone in my neighborhood, chosen by my neighborhood is representing – Especially when the concerns and values of my neighborhood may be different from other neighborhoods.
Mike C, my Ward Councilor doesn’t represent many of my concerns or visions for Newton but my ward-at-large councilors do. Not everyone in mine or your neighborhood, community or ward agrees with each other so the conditions you want will never happen.
Bryan,
I think you’re choosing the wrong frame. The proposed charter would reduce the ward-elected legislative representation from 33% (not trivial) to 0%. It’s not that at-large representation is controversial. It’s that people are fond — for very good reason — of ward-elected legislators.
What’s amazing is that the Charter Commission didn’t realize how important ward-elected officials are. (And, I regret that I was not active in the charter process, though my views appear to have been well-presented (with one asterisk).) The Charter Commission had a clear mandate to reduce the size of the board. Into that effort, it injected removing ward-level representation. It’s going to reduce the representation of folks with local-majority views that are not majority city-wide. Simple math.
@Marti
Of course, that is to be expected in a democracy and is unfortunate for you. But in my opinion, it doesn’t justify tearing out a link in the chain. I just don’t believe in changing the system to get the result you want. I think there is value in having a councillor who lives in West Newton and who was voted in by the residents of West Newton representing – Even if that person opposes every one of my positions.
Marti, it goes without saying that in our current system, a ward-elected representative does not represent every individual ward residents views. That would be impossible. But they will represent the majority of the ward residents views, or they won’t get re-elected.
Bryan, I don’t believe anyone has argued that ward-at-large elected seats are fundamentally flawed. It’s the removal of ward elected seats that is controversial.
OK, and I hear what people are saying. You’re focused on ward councilors, I get that.
But look at it this way: All of the city’s decisions have functionally been made by ward-at-large councilors. Except on highly controversial 2/3 votes, the ward councilors don’t effect vote outcomes. As Rhanna said, to the extent their votes matter, the one each of us elect is only getting a 1/24 vote.
On the school committee, we already have all at large representation, and outside of Geoff Epstein I don’t think I’ve heard anyone suggest that needs to be changed.
So for most of the Commission members, going to a majority ward councilor system would have been a FAR bigger change to our government structure than sticking with an election method that has always functionally run the city.
By the way, for anyone who thinks a 16 member council, 8 ward and 8 at large, would have flown through, history suggests otherwise. That system was proposed in the 1970-era charter commission by Florence Ruben, docketed by then-Alderman Ruth Balser in the 1980s, was the subject of 2 non-binding referenda in 1996 and 2000, and here we are in 2017 with a 24 member council. (I’ll be doing a longer post on the history of downsizing soon, still fact checking some details on my complete timeline)
Why were the referenda non-binding? Did the voters approve the 1970s Charter recommendations or the non-binding referenda?
“What’s amazing is that the Charter Commission didn’t realize how important ward-elected officials are.”
Sean, the charter commission heard from hundreds of voters on this subject. Do you imagine that we ignored unambiguous feedback? Public input was pretty evenly split between people who wanted all councilors accountable to all voters and people who wanted ward-only representatives.
People seem to think there is a configuration that would be universally popular among Newton voters. Trust me, based on public input to the commission, there is not. Had we proposed a council comprised of a majority of councilors elected from one ward, we would instead be hearing from the other half of Newton arguing against the proposal.
People who argue for councilors elected by one ward seem to ignore the fact that in Newton, we have no experience with a council comprised of a majority of councilors from one ward. There are *huge* implications of that. Voters here are also accustomed to voting for 17 of the 24 councilors. Being able to vote for 5 of 12 would be very different.
@Lucia – The 1970s era charter passed but Florence Rubin’s proposal was not included in their final recommendation, as I understand it. The referenda passed 2 to 1 but the then-board of aldermen never could muster the votes to follow through on downsizing.
I’ll have a more complete history for everyone to review soon.
@Rhanna: At best, in your own words, the Charter Commission heard from less than 0.005% of Newton’s residents in regard to how important ward-elected officials are.
What other factors did you and your colleagues consider when determining how important ward-elected officials are to the city as a whole? What data did you analyze? What discussion was had, what perspectives were raised, and by whom?
Bryan said:
“The thing I’ll never understand is why ward-at-large has suddenly become a controversial election method in Newton. 3/4 of our elected officials are selected that way: 2/3 of the city council and the entire school committee. Newton has always used this unique election device and I’ve never heard a single person complain about this method until the Charter Commission put forward this proposal.”
Exactly. They are throwing up issues in hopes it will stick. They are obstructionist to progress.
Also, one minute it’s “consolidation of power” the next minute it’s “ward representation” if that doesn’t work, it will be something else. Obstructionists.
@Bryan
“But look at it this way: All of the city’s decisions have functionally been made by ward-at-large councilors. Except on highly controversial 2/3 votes, the ward councilors don’t effect vote outcomes.”
Fundamentally flawed thinking. The role of each councilor is to do more than vote. Each CC has a seat at the table, the ability to share different perspectives, influence thinking, shape compromises, etc. They have ALWAYS functionally had a role.
You are proposing to takeaway that seat at the table. Its a sorely mistaken proposal.
Not consistent with the general direction of elected bodies in Massachusetts and the US.
Not consistent with progressive values of ensuring local representation so minority voices aren’t muted by the majority.
The list is LONG as to why this is the wrong choice. Reading the flawed logic of Bryan just makes it that much more disappointing.
The decision about the composition of the council was difficult because the input from the community was by no means uniform. Many more people expressed to me that it was time to remove the ward councilor position than those who said they wanted it retained. No blog can be representative of the full range of opinion, and let’s face it, most pull from one side of the political spectrum.
An individual who says 25 times that s/he wants a particular part of the current charter retained has one vote on election day – just as does the individual who chooses never to talk about the subject publicly.
Paul – You think members of the commission didn’t express opinions on any and all issues, large and small? We think we didn’t shape compromises?
We did. As anyone who attended the meetings can attest, we all shared differing perspectives and by all accounts, listened to one another well.
Bryan – “The referenda passed 2 to 1” to me this says that twice Newton Voters have approved “a 16 member council, 8 ward and 8 at large”. It seems the problem was the referenda were non-binding.
@Jane
I think you’re right on. Which is why its so odd that Bryan is making the claim that Ward Councilors functionally had no role as the voting minority. His own experience on the Commission should help him understand that having a seat at the table is important.
I just wish you weren’t all suggesting to take that seat at the table away from our Ward Councilors. Particularly when its so out of step with current practices for elected government in this country.
Out of respect for Florence Rubin (note spelling), she was a dynamo of energy, a leader remarkable for her down to earth practical ways, ensuring and looking out for gender equality vis a vis the League. She hoped the Board of Aldermen would take it upon themselves to do the right thing beyond their selfish ideals of government and do the will of the majority of the people. Unfortunately the number of aldermen willing to eliminate their position thru downsizing never came to fruition. Asking one to fall on his/her/their sword for the benefit of the masses led us to where we are today. As a female CC member sighingly said: “back to square 1”.
@Tom S — ” one minute it’s consolidation…next minute its…representation” . ..”
Consolidation of power from 24 to 12 individuals is consolidation in any case.
It is also potentially moving from from a balance of 3 per ward to one ward with 5 and rest with 1.
If you argue residency is representation, that’s consolidation
If residency does not equal representation, then you are not preserving it… you can’t have it both ways.
I think we’re just going around in circles on this thread at this point.
Jack, with all due respect, consolidation of power will only happen if the council decides to keep the same work load. There is no way, the Council will do that. They will have to give much of their power away, ie special permits and allow regular citizens who have experience in permitting to take up the slack…they will have to give more power to neighborhood associations, etc. There is no consolidation of power unless they take on all the responsibilities of the 24 person council, which won’t happen. It is an opportunity to reshape Newton politics for the better. But, it can’t happen unless it passes.
@Robert Welbourn, @Mike Ciolino and several other “civilians” in this discussion — thanks for the insightful and balanced comments on the issues and trade-offs. Whether for or against, several of the people commenting here have enough of the facts to make an informed choice, and that’s all either side can ask.
One thing that does jump out of some of the comments, that I think is unfair, is the framing of opponents/No as the those who wish to freeze the city in time or obstruct change. This was an inevitable “trump card” that I think prompted some of those with an agenda to pressure the commission to overreach.
Some thoughts:
* The councilors publicly opposed to the charter voted FOR Austin St. and FOR the Orr block by a good margin.
* Among former Alderman, those with no skin in the game, charter opponents outnumber supporters by 2 to 1.
* Many prominent pro-development progressives are AGAINST the charter.
* Any number of small changes would have swung many current opponents to the Yes side and still achieved their objectives.
I think the arguments for Ward-elected Councilors go beyond residents wanting a 1/24th voice on the council. In contrast to some, I don’t personally feel I need to vote for every representative of the places I occasionally walk, eat, drive, bike, work, vacation, etc. I trust voters in those places to judge how things are going and hope they have enough direct attention/influence with representatives to improve things. There are many advantages to decentralized approaches and thinking.
“Many prominent pro-development progressives are AGAINST the charter.”
Please elaborate. Please be specific.
It should not be surprising that so many elected officials who are either former councilors with friends still sitting on the council or who may themselves be forced to run for a smaller number of seats are opposed to right-sizing the city council. They don’t want a smaller council for reasons that are easy to understand, and many of them have publicly said so. That’s why the league of women voters went to the ballot in the first place: the city council is never going to downsize itself.
It is actually quite shocking how many current and former elected officials ARE supporting the charter despite the fact that it could make it harder for them to get elected.
It’s also quite interesting that 12 current and former school committee members are publicly supporting the charter compared to 5 who are opposed, more than 2 to 1. School committee members know how effective a smaller group of officials elected from their wards by the entire city can be. Most school committee members I’ve talked to have emphasized the benefits they feel the school committee has gotten from having term limits as well, a feature the new charter extends to the city council and mayor.
The charter commission never considered keeping the ward councilors. Rhanna Kidwell, March 29, 2017: “I’ll begin by saying that I think we had unanimous agreement on this council from day 1 that we all thought the entire city council should be elected at large. That is not something we had a lot of trouble coming to agreement on”. Listen here.
Bryan wrote: “By the way, for anyone who thinks a 16 member council, 8 ward and 8 at large, would have flown through, history suggests otherwise. That system was proposed in the 1970-era charter commission by Florence Ruben, docketed by then-Alderman Ruth Balser in the 1980s, was the subject of 2 non-binding referenda in 1996 and 2000, and here we are in 2017 with a 24 member council.”
I am told the 2 non-binding referenda did not include the 2 Newton precincts represented by John Lawn so the legal counsel at the State House would not allow the home rule petition to move forward.
I believe it would be quite possible to downsize the City Council without eliminating ward councilors. I believe if the Charter Commission had proposed 8 ward and 8 at-large councilors that they would have gotten a lot of support for it across the city. And that of course was the model proposed when the voters supported this concept in the past. Voters have never approved eliminating ward councilors.
Rhanna wrote: “Our research indicated that bloc voting / vote trading is all too common in practice”
Note her “research” consists of their hired consultant talking about what they believe happens in other cities. They found zero evidence of it happening in Newton. In nearly 4 years on the city council I have not experienced this once. In fact I cannot conceive of someone offering “Hey I’ll vote for this if you vote for that,” it is just not how people communicate or operate. We certainly try to persuade each other to vote a certain way, as is evident to anyone who has attended a committee meeting or watched a full Council meeting on NewTV, but there is no horse trading.
@Tom – “Please Elaborate”
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/who-is-voting-no.html
I find it highly problematic that Bryan is stating that former and current CCs oppose the charter out of self-interest instead of doing what’s best for the city.
With no evidence.
These are unsubstantiated personal attacks.
Bryan Barash should apologize.
@Bryon
RE: “School committee members know how effective a smaller group of officials elected from their wards by the entire city can be.”
I find this statement to be incredibly (offensively) elitist. Democracy intends to provide a system of social equality – It does not promise to be efficient or effective – In fact, it can be down right messy and tedious.
Ward Councilors elected by an entire city are NOT Ward Councillors and calling them Ward Counselors is dishonest. They are At-Large Councilors with a residency requirement.
The CC proposal is flawed because it allows for a scenario where a Ward could be represented by someone who is not of their choosing, and also by significantly raising the cost of entry for a local grass roots candidate. A Yes vote would be a disaster for a city that takes pride in being a city of villages and a city that supports diversity.
And FYI, am FOR development, PRO Austin St, … A progressive, I think people here are calling it – But NOT at the cost of basic fairness and democratic principles.
@ Mike Ciolino
For the record, I am undecided at the moment – but Bryan’s point of “in the current system, Ward councilors don’t affect voting outcome of the council” gave me pause. If Ward councilors can’t influence how the council votes (other than trying to convince the at large people), then why keep the current system?
The cost of running issue is a big one for me, but I am not sure if that should be the only reason for me to vote no.
@Patricia Loewy have you ever watched a committee meeting or a full Council meeting? It would be quite instructive if you haven’t. For example, ward councilors do not vote as a bloc. People use logic and reason to attempt to persuade each other. I will be deploying these tactics to try to get folks to support a 100% renewable energy commitment and to ban polystyrene for example, in the coming weeks. I will be working very closely with Amy Sangiolo, Alison Leary and Vicki Danberg on one or both of those issues – ie 2 at-large and 1 ward councilor.
@Patricia
To answer your question, I don’t understand Bryan’s point that Ward Councilors don’t affect the voting outcome of the Council – Don’t all Councillors have an equal vote, and doesn’t the role of a City Counselor have much more depth and substance than simply voting?
More importantly, we are not debating whether we should have Ward councilors, we are debating whether the entire city gets a say in who represents my Ward.
This is what I consider the fundamental flaw. For example, it allows folks city-wide who are pro-development (which I am) to influence the outcome of race within a Ward that may not be pro-development.
A candidate in your Ward could win your Ward handily, but lose the seat to a candidate that the other Wards prefer. To me, that constitutes a structural flaw.
I caution people not to take quotes from the audio out of context. Commissioners made statements thinking they had a clear sense of what others thought when that wasn’t the case, as further discussion often demonstrated. On a number of occasions, I spoke about an issue with a sense of certainty, only to change my mind after hearing the full scope of the discussion. It would be completely inaccurate to have my original statement quoted out of context.
Also, commissioners brought different strengths and perspectives to the position and the task at hand: two had significant experience on the school committee and city council and institutional knowledge, two had significant experience as parent leaders in the schools, one had served on a commission for a significant period of time, two were lawyers, and one (!) was a public school teacher who has had significant experience interacting closely with people in many parts of the city. Two were very involved in data collection and analysis at either the local or state level. If one commissioner speaks from his/her strength or perspective about a particular issue, s/he does not speak for the commission.
This is where the commission was in unanimous agreement: that the proposed charter – as a whole – is far superior to the current one that leaves the city’s financial future in the hands of a particular mayor, as opposed to codifying best financial practices; institutes high standards for the capital improvement program, rather than returning it to the days when the squeaky wheels received improvements; implements reasonable term limits on the city council and mayor; downsizes the council to a size that of a typical city so that it functions more effectively.
@ Mike Ciolino
I understood it as follows: 24 councilors – 8 ward voted only, 16 at large – simple majority is 13, which is reached among the at large councilors, without a single ward only councilor vote needed.
I share the same concerns with you btw – and am leaning towards voting against. It’s a tough decision though, IMO. Thanks for your input!
@ Emily Norton
No, I never attended any meetings. In fact, I am fairly new to local politics. After November of last year, I felt that I cannot longer afford to be. I am reading here and talking to people and I am trying to make sense of what is said.
I hope you don’t think I implied that ward only elected councilors are not needed, or not effective. I was just using Bryan’s post, which seemed to raise an important point, and seek clarification. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
@Jane — How many other cities in the Massachusetts limit the experience they allow on their city councils?
@ Jane Frantz
Codifying best financial practices; instituting high standards for the capital improvement program; implementing reasonable term limits on the city council and mayor; and downsizing are all important points, and I would agree that these are fully needed.
But why does it have to include a weakening of the ward representation? This is a real concern, given that our villages are very distinctively different from each other.
Was another model of representation ever even considered? Why not 16 councilors, one ward only and one at large? What would make this model undesirable?
Patricia, thank you for your interest in this topic. The charter commission considered a lot of information…we looked at a peer group of the 20 biggest cities in Mass. (Newton is 10th), we looked at city charters across the country, we read the Model City Charter published by the National Civic League, and we had panel discussions with city councilors from Newton and other cities. Two things jumped out right away as best practices: we found no other city or town in the US with more than one representative per ward (more than one automatically builds in redundancy and duplication of effort), and an effective council should be 13 or smaller. The average council size of the group of 20 Mass. cities is 10, and across the country the average council is 6. We began by looking at 5 models, and 16 councilors was one of them. But we all agreed that if we were starting with a blank slate and designing the ideal council, we would never choose multiple councilors from one ward and such a big council.
Ward representation in Newton is already extremely weak. The councilor from my ward is one vote out of 24. He controls 4% of the vote on any issue. That is the power of the councilor who answers only to my ward. That is what I have to give up as a voter to get all the benefits of a 12-member council that will be more effective, accountable, and responsive.
It wouldn’t matter if ward councilors in Newton vote as a bloc, because in total they only control 33% of the vote. However, the Model City Charter explains that the bloc voting phenomenon is a real risk when the majority of seats are elected by one ward only. In our panel discussion with councilors from other cities, it was confirmed that this happens in practice.
The charter commission all agreed that each ward needs a voice, a local person who will understand local issues and take the lead. We wanted to avoid the parochialism and divisiveness that can come from a majority elected by one ward. And we liked the continuity of keeping 2/3 of the council exactly what 2/3 of the council is today (which is also the way our School Committee has been elected for 40+ years).
While the loudest voices right now are those who don’t like the proposal, the commission received equal feedback from folks who want all councilors accountable to all people. Many people feel like in a city of 18 square miles, everything is local. Ward lines are arbitrary and divide neighborhoods. Anywhere in the city, you are a mile from more than one ward boundary, and people want accountability from those councilors too.
We were concerned about the cost of running, because we want the council to be accessible to all. OCPF data indicates that ward-only councilors sometimes spend more than at-large, and in general (notwithstanding the 2015 ward 2 at-large race) citywide races usually cost less than $10,000.
@ Rhanna
Thank you so much for all the info. I understand the theory of the 4% control, but any of the 8 ward only councilors can try to convince their at large colleagues to vote on any specific issue (which was emphasized by Emily Norton in an earlier post).
You said that “we all agreed that if we were starting with a blank slate and designing the ideal council, we would never choose multiple councilors from one ward and such a big council.” Even given the unique situation of Newton, where the villages are so distinctively different? At large election makes the council pretty much detached from their villages because someone can be elected who supports something that the majority IN the ward don’t, but the majority in the city does. In theory then, the only thing that ties a councilor to the ward is the address where they live.
In designing a city council, everything is a tradeoff. To get one councilor who answers only to your ward, the tradeoff is getting 7 who are not accountable to you, and who have major influence at some point on a decision that will affect you tremendously. It would be very different in Newton if those 7 who are not accountable to you make up a majority of the council–that would be a huge shift from today, where only 7 of 24 are not accountable to you.
Many of the cities in the peer group are very diverse, economically and geographically. This is not unique to Newton.
Codifying best financial practices and instituting high standards for the capital improvement program are probably the two items in the proposed charter that will most affect the daily lives of every resident. With the current charter, it is within the power of a new mayor to take the vague language in the Financial Procedures section and return to practices that are not in the best interest of the city services, the schools, and the $1 billion of capital assets. In a heartbeat.
I simply don’t understand why this essential improvement in the proposed charter has been ignored. We have tough financial times ahead and tough decisions to be made in the next few years. When cuts to the school system or city services are proposed, I want to know that best financial practices are in place no matter who is in the corner office – and that the proposed cuts aren’t because an individual mayor is promoting an agenda or simply doesn’t have sufficient understanding of finance, the budget process, the financial risks ahead, etc.
For me, the financial well being of the city far outweighs all other concerns and the proposed charter codifies practices that protect every resident, the school system, city services, and our $1 billion of capital assets.
I understand that for some people that other issues are of greater importance. In my opinion, protecting Newton’s financial future is the highest priority.
Codifying best financial practices and the capital improvement plan are the kind of non-controversial changes to the charter that should be easy to accomplish through a home rule petition if, and hopefully when, this proposed charter is defeated.
If they were so important, they should not have been jeopardized by bundling them with the bound-to-be-controversial elimination of ward-elected councilors. Instead, these financial changes are now being used as bait to try to get voters to eliminate their most directly accountable representatives.
@Rhanna – “Two things jumped out right away as best practices: we found no other city or town in the US with more than one representative per ward”
http://www.cityofmethuen.net/city-council :
“The Methuen City Council is a nine member body charged with enacting the resolutions and ordinances that govern Methuen. The nine members are elected for two year terms, with three Councillors elected “at-large” (City Wide), and six elected from the three voting Districts (East, Central, and West) in Methuen.
The East District is made up of Precincts 3, 7, 9 and 12, with the Central District consisting of Precincts 1, 2, 6, and 10, and the West District consisting of Precincts 4, 5, 8, and 11. Councillors are limited by Methuen’s Charter to serving three two year terms.”
Was Metheun overlooked or are we splitting hairs around the name “district” being applied to a collection of 4 precincts in this case rather than Ward?
“To get one councilor who answers only to your ward, the tradeoff is getting 7 who are not accountable to you”
Why are some so concerned about other parts of the city having a portion of those they elect be elected locally. Are there parts of the city we don’t trust to make the right decisions or offer up the best candidates?
“that would be a huge shift from today…”
The proposal cuts the council in half, eliminates ward representation, introduces 100% citywide-elected council, allows 5x power concentration in a neighborhood, sharply limits experience allowed on council, and introduces a a non head to head pick 4 component that will make bullet voting an absolute requirement for anyone with a favored candidate.
It seems like the commission was fine with the above, which are fairly “huge shifts”, but not with allowing any increase in ward representation, or the percentage approval required for special permit approval.
Is there anywhere in the Model Charter where it says, “Go with even-numbered if you think it works for your city?” How many other cities in Mass use “At-Large ward-residency” at all? How many cities have term limits on their city council? How many of Massachusetts 351 communities lack ward representation (answer key: No, 1, 1, 10).
These were the conclusions of the study of options for changing the board in 2006 from Alderman Lipof and Vance:
1. Newton’s current 2:1 at-large to ward-elected ratio is unusual and that the vast majority of communities have a majority of ward-elected councilors
2. There is no evidence that majority ward-elected councils yield legislative decisions not reflecting their city as a whole
3. there are no historical patterns of Newton’s at-large or ward-elected councilors voting as a block,
4. Newton’s original decision to have a 2:1 ratio was based on myths not borne out by experience in Newton or other Massachusetts cities
5. 1:1 at-large/ward-elected council would still have less ward-elected representation than nearly all communities in Massachusetts.
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/letter-to-editor-former-alderman-makes-case-for-ward-elected-councilors
Every time Newton voters have voted in the past to downsize the Board, it was for an 8 ward, 8 at-large setup. They never expressed a preference to eliminate ward councilors. That came from this particular set of charter commissioners.
Boston has 9 district, 4 at large
Framingham, which just voted to become a city, went with 9 district, 2 at large.
Somerville, 7 district, 4 at large.
It goes on and on – virtually no communities are all at-large, and why? Because local representation is a best practice. This change would make us an undemocratic outlier, which is the opposite of what Newton of all places should be doing.
Julia – If it was easy to codify these changes to financial procedures and the capital improvement plan then why didn’t it happen? At some point, it’s important to face up to the fact that these so called “noncontroversial” changes never happened and to ask why, when it was clearly in the best interest of the city to do so.
The whole thing, controversial or not, could have been done by a home rule petition. It simply did not happen, as the city assets crumbled over decades.
@Julia Malakie – after more research, I think it’s an honest miscommunication/misread by me. I saw a YES recommendation from a city councilor who had previously been “claimed” by NVA leadership (while s/he was running for office), but who distanced her/himself from NVA prior to being elected (which I hadn’t seen until doing this current research). (I follow Newton politics, but obviously not close enough.)
I’m not putting names out there to create more confusion or any hint of FAKE NEWS! Heaven knows we don’t need more of that. Apologies for the confusion. -ANP
virtually no communities are all at-large, and why? Because local representation is a best practice. This change would make us an undemocratic outlier, which is the opposite of what Newton of all places should be doing.
This is really all that needs to be said. Supporters have not provided any good reasons as to why Newton should be such an extreme outlier on something as important as local representation in a democracy.
Very, very few communities have a representative body structured like what is being proposed. This proposal is extreme and radical. Those are facts.