One Ward 2 candidate at-Large City Council, Braden Houston, has come up with an interesting solution to the divisive either/or (Yes/No) recommendation of the Charter Commission regarding elimination of Ward representation. It’s an interesting proposition – especially as the Charter Commission so deeply missed the mark on Ward representation that it diminishes the entire process and overwhelms their other recommendations.
I’ve condensed this “third option” (see below) but read Bradon’s suggestions in its entirety at https://www.houston4newton.org/news/2017/9/20/a-third-option-on-the-charter-beyond-yes-or-no .
“The two main perspectives shared by the majority of people are:
1. I would like to see a reduction in the size of the City Council
2. I do not want to lose my Ward Councilor”
“Group 1 – Residents…will vote “Yes” because they want change and are fearful that they may not get another near-term opportunity, but are not comfortable with the idea of losing local representation.
Group 2 – Residents…will vote “No” despite the fact they might like much of what the new charter has to offer, but just can not accept the loss of the ward councilors and the potential of concentrating power in certain neighborhoods…
If we chose to reject the Commission’s version of the charter in November, Massachusetts provides another avenue by which a “Compromise Charter” revision can be completed http://www.mass.gov/dor/local-officials/dls-newsroom/ct/charting-a-route-for-charter-change.html. This process is called a “home rule petition” and it is relatively straightforward…
…Massachusetts law allows the City Council, with the Mayor’s approval, to submit the “Compromise Charter” to the MA legislature as a piece of proposed legislation. Once this is passed by the House and Senate and signed by the Governor, it would only then need to be approved by the voters of Newton. All of this could take around a year, as all of the research, debate and reviews of the charter document have already occurred under the Charter Commission’s auspices.”
Houston advocates that the new City Council and candidates make a pledge: “to take up this idea to complete the revision with a balanced charter.”
What do you think?
Ah, Lynne, you beat me to it. I was going to write a post on Braden’s proposal, and I was going to use the title, Houston: We have a solution. 😉
@Bruce Great title!
This issue has been in front of the Board several times over the last 10-15 years. They are incapable of coming up with a plan to cut the size of the Board. They just won’t. It is up to the constituents to make the decision for them. They are going against the will of the people over and over and over again. They can not be trusted to make this decision, after all these years. Then, if they do come up with a plan, it will be in the hands of outsiders. Officials from Winchester will be deciding our fate. I have been on top of this for well over a decade, they can’t be trusted to do whats right. It’s unfortunate, but we have to do it for them.
This is what I posted on the Newtonville listserv in response to Braden’s suggestion:
Yes, a home rule petition is possible, but please keep in mind the following: Newton has had two nonbinding referendums asking voters if they would like to see City Council (then the Board of Aldermen) downsized. Both times the referendum passed by an overwhelming majority – by a 2 to 1 margin.
What happened as a result? Nothing. Despite the best efforts of several Aldermen, they were not able to get the majority of their peers to agree to a home rule petition. Unless the City Council votes to submit a home rule petition, it does not happen.
Citizens began to collect signatures to put the charter review on the ballot because the City Council refused to submit a home rule petition to downsize itself. Why would anyone expect the Council to address the issue now after they’ve refused to deal with for 18 years?
Right now, the Ward Councilors are campaigning heavily against a charter proposal that eliminates their position. In order for the City Council to submit a home rule petition, you’d have to get the At-Large Councilors to sign on to have half of THEIR positions eliminated. So we’d end up with a different set of Councilors campaigning heavily against the proposal.
The City Council has been given a mandate – twice – to submit a home rule petition to downsize itself and in 18 years, it hasn’t happened. Why does anyone think the situation is going to change now? If the charter is voted down, we will most likely have a City Council of 24 members – by far the largest in Massachusetts – for the next 45-50 years.
It took 5 years to collect the necessary signatures to get the charter review on the ballot. It’s important to be realistic about the history of this situation – the Councilors have been and are well aware that the voters want the Council downsized and could have submitted a home rule petition at any time, but they did not. That’s the reality.
@Tom It’s all bad. But it says a lot that after taking years to even get on the ballot we ended up with a Commission on a mission: get rid of those pesky Ward Councilors (I’ve paraphrased but that’s what one CC member came close to saying) . The promise of objectivity could never materialize with that goal. Why reward such misrepresentation and one that is touted as a way to “streamline” democracy?
“Pledge” or no pledge, the City Council will NEVER willingly downsize themselves. As Jane points out above, the electorate has twice voted in favor of downsizing the Council, only to be ignored by their elected representatives.
I applaud Braden for making this proposal. With so many candidates to choose from this year, it’s helpful to hear some actual ideas from candidates rather than a laundry list of paltitudes like “Our schools are important” and so on. I hope this inspires more candidates to share actual proposals.
That said, I don’t like this particular idea for two reasons:
1. As Jane. Tom and Mike have already said, we can’t depend on our city councilors to vote to reduce their jobs. I don’t blame them. It’s human nature. Who wouldn’t fight to save their own jobs? I would. And how else to explain that the no campaign is being chaired by a ward councilor?
2. More importantly, a 12 ward/12 at-large council is a bad idea. Talk about undemocratic! It would take away from voters the ability to have a say on nearly half the council, which would be even less democratic than the nearly 1/3 we have now. I get the whole constituent services argument. I admire our current ward councilors. But our charter decision needs to be bigger than the people in these jobs today. It needs to be good for generations. All of our city councilors should be accountable to the entire city and put the needs of the entire city first.
Leaving aside City Council size, it seems like there are some good revisions in the Charter proposal. I’m voting against it because of the elimination of ward councilors, but hate that it means throwing out everything else. It would be worth having a home rule petition for the much-needed updating of certain sections.
Lynne, I guess we see this very differently. You see this as a mission to get rid of ward councilors, I see this as a commission trying to do whats right for the city as a whole….which is what they were elected to do.
The thing that strikes me the most is the similarity between the “proposed council” and our current school committee. Yet, in the 1.5-2 year process no one complained about the school committee not having ward representation, etc.
To me, this speaks volumes.
@Greg. Re: Your point #2. Yes, that would be so much way worse and detrimental rather than the proposed new way with the potential of 5 councilors elected from one ward ALONE. That won’t stack the deck, no sirie.
@Mark: I’m not loving the four at-large at-large aspect of the proposed charter. But not for the reason you’re suggesting: I don’t like it because it will make it harder to unseat any particular councilor that I’d rather not be there, not unlike the situation we have now with two at-large candidates per ward, only worse.
But I see the “five candidates from one ward” fear as a red herring. If those four at-large at-large councilors are elected from the same ward, it will be because voters city-wide choose them. And if those four candidates behave in a way that’s not in the best interest of the entire city, they will hear about it at the next election.
As a former alderman ,I can confirm that Jane and Tom speak the absolute truth. If the council could agree on how to reconfigure itself, it would then to the state legislature to approve. Thus introducing another political process. About 10 years ago former Alderman Parker and I did a survey to identify how the Board could be more effective and frankly no one was interested in doing anything. Once Scott Lennon became president, he did eliminate 3 committees, but the work stayed the same and as it was absorbed by existing standing committee…so no change!
Meredith – It would have been a great idea to have a home rule petition to address the will of the people. That was the hope after two referendums favoring a downsizing of the Board passed by a 2 to 1 margin.
18 years.
It. Never. Happened.
@Greg — 12-12?? Braden’s proposal is 8-8.
Re: democratic — any voter’s ability to hold an official accountable is proportional to how much their vote is diluted by the pool of voters involved. Accountability to everybody is accountability to nobody. As the main supporters of Yes well know, there are a 1000 ways someone can support the officials of his or her choice beyond voting for them.
Re: the no campaign
The no campaign is not registered as “Vote No on Charter”. It is “Newton Citizens for Local Representation” (http://newtondemocracy.org) and would have dissolved months ago if ward representation had been retained in the commission’s final proposal.
I don’t think this about saving anyone’s jobs. By a 2 to 1 margin, former alderman reject this proposal.
My mistake: I meant to type 8 and 8.
@Jack Prior:
Jack: Interesting. I hadn’t heard that number before. Are you reporting that every living former alderman has been polled?
And yes of course this is about certain elected leaders saving their jobs. As I said, I’d do the same thing. It’s human nature.
In 1993, a fellow knocked on my door to sign petition to reduce size of board. I did so gladly.
I voted to reduce size in both of those referendums. When the LWV rep came up to me at West Newton Farmer’s market to sign petition to initiate the Charter Commission and mentioned that one of the purposes of doing so was to shrink size of board, I happily signed.
As I’ve said on this blog before, I truly thoroughly kick myself now for not ONCE thinking or asking that it may mean they intended to eliminate ward representation. My bad! I never would have done so if I had known. I always thought it meant eliminating, like, eight at large. Truly, major lesson learned: Better to try to ask every possible question from every angle. Learn and live…or something like that.
Note the model approved by voters was for Braden’s idea of 8 and 8, not for what the charter commission has proposed. So why didn’t charter commission just give the voters what they want?
I have such a hard time understanding the objection to the 4 at-large councilors.
53 of 55 Massachusetts councilors have some or all of their council elected this way. We talked plenty of other cities, and those councilors being concentrated in one ward was not an issue anyone could recollect…but they all said “But why would it matter? They don’t represent their ward.”
Is it mathematically possible? Barely. First, you’d have to have 5 people willing to run from one ward, and then you’d have to have a majority of voters from 7 other wards think the 4 at-large reps were better than any other candidates from 7 other wards.
This is just a kitchen-sink objection…not something that would ever happen, but throw it in anyway to bolster your objection to the charter.
@Rhanna,
Okay, let’s not assume worst-case scenario of five. Let’s say just three. That’s more betterer, I guess.
Wait….that’s what we have now. But in every ward. Not just one ward. More fairer.
I am a Councilor at large and would sign on to reduce the Council. I have no problem losing my job if it means doing what is right for the City. While the current recommendation took along time to draft and was done by people I respect, IMO it is not a good solution. The potential of 5 Councilors from one Ward – really? Making it more difficult for newcomers to enter the local political scene by forcing them to run at-large – I don’t like it. Eliminating those Councilors who arguably know the most about their Wards – no thank you. And, then there’s that thing about getting the work done. At any one time – just in Ward 8- you might have 3 committees above and beyond the standing committees of the Council to sit on – for example the Chabad neighborhood group, the N2-Wells Ave group, and the Needham St visioning group – not to mention constituent questions, requests, and concerns. I still don’t get it. One person who resides in the Ward, but may not represent the Ward, is supposed to do everything? I’m not buying it. I’d rather reduce the Council myself and do what is right for the City.
@Greg – Most of the City Councilors care more about the current and future state of the City than they do about holding onto their jobs. Remember, we are not professional politicians. If this was my primary job, sure, that would make sense to hold on dearly to – but even then, not at the expense of what is right for the City. This recommended change would create more professional politicians. That, too, is not a good thing..
@ Tom – I see the SC differently. Their responsibilities are a combination of Federal and State top down execution of policy that does not differentiate between Wards and bottoms up policy that does impact the Ward – or better said – the school level. The Council is almost exclusively developing bottoms up policy that often impacts the Wards differently. So, having Ward representation is important..
@Rhanna – We just need to have a fixed web page where we can have this stats debate archived for reference rather than both of us having to keep typing it :-).
re: “53 of 55 Massachusetts councilors have some or all of their council elected this way.”
* 341 of 351 Massachusetts communities don’t have all their legislatures elected citywide.
* 75% of Mass cities have majority ward-elected city councils.
* Most cities have 6 or more ward-elected seats, the charter proposes none.
* Most cities have 4 or less at-large council seats, the charter proposes 12
“We talked plenty of other cities, and those councilors being concentrated in one ward was not an issue anyone could recollect”
http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_31143354/lowell-city-diversity-but-not-its-leaders
and one more link here to get around V14 spam filter:
“We talked plenty of other cities, and those councilors being concentrated in one ward was not an issue anyone could recollect”
http://framinghamsource.com/index.php/2017/04/03/south-framingham-voters-want-representation-encouraging-voters-approve-city-form-government/
The problem with a non-binding referendum is that it’s…nonbinding. No research needs to be done, because there are no consequences of the vote. (No, no one actually thought the Council would downsize itself as a result of the non-binding referendums.)
The charter commission was elected to study and become experts on city government and find a solution that is suited for Newton. We were not elected to rubber stamp an uninformed referendum proposal.
If you spend any time studying city government, two things become quickly apparent. 16 is way too big, and 2 representatives per ward builds in redundancy and duplication of effort.
@Greg “Has every living former alderman been polled”
6 Yes, 12 No
Given how little turnover the Yes group claims the council has, I’m surprised we have any FORMER alderman :-).
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/who-is-voting-no.html
Hmmm. Not so sure about that Jack. I don’t see either of my past two former Ward 5 Aldermen (Samuelson and Brandel) on either list so I’m going to assume others are missing too.
Every time this intractable of ward councillors comes up, I feel it’s my duty to plug “single transferrable voting” like Cambridge has used since 1941.
Each voter orders the candidates by preference. At the end of the day, the candidate with the most votes gets selected, and any surplus votes get passed on to those voter’s second place choice. Votes for eliminated candidates also get transferred to the vote’s next choice. One nice property is that you can arbitrarily set the council size.
Motivated groups of voters can elect people by whatever criteria drives them: geography (ward), cultural or ethnic affiliation, stand on an issue, etc.
While the vote counting system seems opaque (some would say crazy), it is considered one of the fairest voting schemes in existence and it’s an acceptable choice in Massachusetts.
(Yes, I know it is unlikely to ever happen.)
A couple of thoughts:
I find this hilarious. The Home Rule petition is the ultimate of woulda/coulda/shoulda logic. Yes, it exists. But it is such an unlikely option that I’d view this proposal as basic No on the Charter reverse logic. Hey folks on the fence…there is another better way, without a timeline, with no likely hope of success, but hey, technically there is an alternative path forward, so vote no and hope for the best on this other path.
That’s what a friend of mine calls “Dumb and Dumber” logic, from the old Jim Carrey movie from 23 years ago. “there is a million in one shot I’d date you” ….”So you’re telling me there’s a chance”.
Look, vote for or against the charter, but don’t hope for Home Rule to save you if you want future changes. It will never happen. What we have in front of us is the choice.
I do appreciate the political sophistry here though. Lots of folks are torn about the charter. So give them an option with just enough basis in fact to seem possible, gloss over the difficulties, don’t define what the Home Rule would contain or how difficult it would be to come to consensus on it (because the Charter process was such a slam dunk easy thing right?), but hey, there’s a third option right, so vote no.
Let’s just vote on what is in front of us.
@Greg — Was just reporting a quick stat from the Yes/No supporter lists.
I really wish we could have a debate about the charter that was related to the actual proposal as weighed against the current system.
Instead, we’ve had claims the proposed charter is destroying democracy (it’s not, plenty of cities are governed with all at large or a mix of ward and at large that includes a pool who can live anywhere), is eliminating ward representation (it’s not, there’s still one person designated from each ward, as we have on the school committee and people feel represented by them), and now that the city can just downsize themselves (they can’t, the people have been trying to get them to for 50 years and you know what they say, past is prologue).
So why are we having a debate on issues that don’t actually exist in this proposal? I think the answer is clear: people who don’t want to reduce the size of the council understand that their argument about the value of a ward elected councilor isn’t a strong enough one, so instead they’re saying it’s destroying democracy or eliminating representation.
@Bryan
The full council had a great debate about the charters mailing this past Monday.
http://www.newtv.org/video/city-council-meetings/091817/
Maybe I’m wrong, but I think Bryan is talking about the community debating the proposal.
David – You’ve been on the City Council for six years and have not made any attempt to downsize it in that time. Nor have any of your peers. And this was during the time the Councilors knew that a signature collection was in process. It took over 5 years to collect the signatures – plenty of time to begin and end the process.
There is simply no reason, no evidence to suggest that the Councilors would go through the home rule process in the future. The fact that the City Council never bothered to even begin the process when it knew that an active signature collection process was in place is a clear indication that it wouldn’t happen in the future.
@Bryan –
“plenty of cities are governed with all at large” — Only 10 in Mass, and Lowell is being sued under the Voting Rights Act for its discriminatory tendencies. You can say “this doesn’t apply to Newton”, but we do have significant economic diversity across the city. Even if it didn’t, why role model a discriminatory model? Should we add Voter ID just because we don’t think it would impact our residents?
” or a mix of ward and at large that includes a pool who can live anywhere”
This is true — but this is not the the proposal. “ward” is ward-elected, not ward-residency. Out of all the cities in Mass, none have the proposed composition. Only Everett uses the at-large-ward-residency concept. 83% of Massachusetts cities have ward-elected representation. 97% of communities have locally elected or direct representation in their city legislatures.
Not all LOWV think alike on the concept of at-large councils:
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/league-of-women-voters-make-the-case-for-ward-elected-city-council-seats
The Charter Commission members on here continually ignore the facts that an all at-large Commission is an out-of-norm structure.
Rhanna selectively chooses benchmarks, and ignores the statistics that a small minority of communities that have no ward-only representatives. Its bordering on dishonest to continually be selective and not even acknowledge contrary facts.
Bryan is being dishonest when he says we maintain ward representation. A system where the ward can vote for one candidate, but the city can choose someone else, is not representation. Lynne LeBlanc was a few votes away from being the Ward 2 preferred at-large candidate, contrary to the City. The City preferred Albright 2-1, Ward 2 was 50-50. There is a REAL possibility of the city choosing a different candidate than a ward. Ward residency is NOT ward representation.
And Jane lied when she said that she had no preconceived notions on the charter when running for the position.
A lot of dishonesty amongst our CC members. I don’t trust them.
This charter proposal is contrary to best practices for good governance. Local representation is overwhelmingly part of most communities. We should do the same.
Bryan Barash writes: “I really wish we could have a debate about the charter that was related to the actual proposal as weighed against the current system.”
@Bryan, you can’t be serious. You can’t be. Essentially this entire debate has been about weighing the actual proposal against the current system. Countless arguments – grounded in fact and actual experience – have been raised, and they have clearly articulated why the proposed charter as weighed against our current system is a terrible idea. As Paul and others have pointed out, you continue to ignore all of this. In my opinion, that’s regrettable.
Regardless, since you want to engage in a comparative debate, I’ll ask you again: How specifically would the proposed charter make the City of Newton better? With specificity, please, clearly articulate your argument.
A number of people have commented that if we moved forward with this concept of rejecting the current 12 at-large proposal on Nov. 7 and proceeded with a home rule petition with 8 ward and 8 at large councilors in January, what is to say that the council will actually approve it.
I think the difference this time is that we have an excellent base document (thanks to the CC) that has been openly discussed, debated and negotiated, and with a simple change, going to 8 ward and 8 at-large councilors, we can make most people happy. The problem with large changes is that the devil is in the details. The Commission created a document that spells out all the details, so people can understand everything that would change. With the change to 8 & 8 we have a document that, based on my campaigning around Newton, gives most people what they want, a balance of a smaller council and local representation.
The city council has not submitted a home rule petition in the past, despite two mandates and the overwhelming popularity of charter reform – this is true. I think there is always a lot of apprehension in beginning change when not everything is out in the open. This may have been the case in the past for the council not proposing the Home Rule Petition, fearing the volume of negotiation and time that would ensure, along with an uncertain result. That is certainly not the case here, as we have a finished document with a few simple edits. As I have pledged, if I am fortunate enough to be elected to the City Council, and the vote is “No” in Nov., I would forward a Home Rule Petition with those simple edits. (I would also ask the other city councilors and candidates to review the document and see if they would be willing to make the same pledge.) I just feel that that is a compromise that gives most people what they want – a smaller council and local representation.
Thank you,
Braden Houston
(sorry – cut and pasted some of my comments from the Newtonville listserve – had to get to work)
Paul – During the campaign, a total of 2 people spoke to me about retaining the ward councilor position. On the other hand, a significant number said they didn’t think the position served the city well in the digital age when it was easy to contact any councilor or one’s at-large councilor, or use the 311 system.
At that point, I was in listening mode. Once the commission began its work, it became clear that downsizing the Council and maintaining the ward position could only be done if the council had a preponderance of ward councilors.
That’s why I didn’t vote for the 8 and 8 model.
Interesting to note, after Jane’s comment “Right now, the Ward Councilors are campaigning heavily against a charter proposal that eliminates their position. ” that half of the AT-LARGE Councilors (8 of 16) also publicly agree with 7 out of 8 Ward Councilors on voting NO on the Charter.
15 out of 24 have signed on to the “NO” website.
@Terry: That statistic reinforces the argument that it’s probably not prudent to expect the council to approve a reduction on its own. As I said, it’s human nature.
@Jack: I admire the way you’ve been respectfully leading the discussion here as an officer with the no campaign so it’s disappointing that you would state that every living former alderman has been polled on this issue, only to have to walk it back less than an hour later.
I hope you aren’t using that claim on your campaign mailers.
Terry,
This is a people’s movement. What the Board does or says is irrelevant. So the answer to your statement is NO, it’s not interesting to note. Vote yes.
Braden, with all due respect, you’ve been involved in this issue for all of a month and I applaud your effort to try to come up with a happy medium…but we tried that. This whole situation rests on the fact that the Board wouldn’t do the WILL of the people. They have obstructed every effort to move this issue along. Thats fine, as Greg says, I don’t blame them for trying to save their jobs, either. But, if you think your going to come into office and fix everything with a swoop of a pen and everyone will be happy, your being naive. Every first timer thinks that. The current Board is in office due to the current charter, they are afraid of any change to the charter because it means 12 jobs. It’s that simple.
This is a defining issue for me, I can’t vote for anyone who obstructs progress and votes no on this issue. The fact that most of our Board doesn’t like the new charter is a clear indicator we need new blood who thinks for the benefit of the city instead of themselves.
@ Terry, How about the other take on that? I have been pleasantly surprised to have *any* support from sitting city councilors, I would never have expected that.
But we have 8 sitting councilors who have said, Even though this would make it harder for me to get elected, I put what is best for the city over what is best for me. And if I continue to serve, I would like to be able to work on a council where I can be more effective and spend less time to accomplish more.
Greg: For the record, I support the “No” vote on the Charter Commission. And I came to this conclusion by comparing the proposed changes to the existing system. We are a City that is officially organized into wards and precincts, but for many (most), we identify with our villages. This proposal does not adequately reflect that reality.
I am grateful to the CC for their time, effort and service. However, the Charter is a serious issue, and it would be unwise to undo what actually works well with the existing Charter. I do hope that Newton voters have the wisdom and patience to reject this proposal, and that the City Council builds on the research effort of the CC to produce a more efficient and equitable form of representation for Newton and its villages.
With that, I will now go add my name to the “No” web site.
@Tom: The will of the people has never been to eliminate Ward representation, and it never will be, because doing so goes against the best interests of the people.
Furthermore, only roughly 13% of Newton’s voters or 8% of Newton’s residents voted to allow the Charter Commission to move forward. In other words, roughly 87% of Newton’s voters or 92% of Newton’s residents did not vote on this. When it comes to the issue of the specific proposal that the Charter Commission has chosen to put on the table, there is no mandate nor is there any form of obstruction in opposing it.
Because of the fact that the proposal on the table would eliminate ward representation, as someone who fundamentally believes in the value and importance of ward representation, it’s clear to me that voting “no” is the right thing to do.
From my perspective 8 ward only and 8 at large will only make the issues worse. This means 50% of the elected councilors are elected by a small number of voters and usually beholden to to keeping those small numbers of voters happy even if it is not in the best interest of the city.
And it bears repeating, what the hell does a ward have to do with anything? Not enough to justify having someone elected JUST by that ward. I live in Ward 6 but across the street is Ward 7. Are my needs for representation going to be different if my ward changes after the next census? My experience in talking to people across the city, most have NO IDEA what ward they live in or who their ward councilor is. Even when I tell them, most don’t even recognize the name.
Life after ‘NO’:
should ‘NO’ prevail, both RF & SL will be hamstrung from the gitgo with a ‘no confidence’ by the majority of the electorate. SL needs the AS ‘no’ base; not doing so will by default hand the numbers to RF. Surely SL recognizes the time is of the essence to move from left to a fence setting position, coupled with a pledge of successful councilors to downsize (negotiable team play). Insider campaign strategists sometimes miss the obvious..
@Harry: Ridiculous. Lennon and Fuller are running on many more things than the charter commission and voters are asking about and looking to them for much more than this one issue. Voters in Newton are smart enough to separate these two things on their own merit.
@Bill: Glad to hear that you’re still alive! I got nervous when Jack wrote that every former alderman had been polled and couldn’t find your name on either list.
@Colleen: Those nine members were elected by voters city wide in a competitive election from a field of candidates. Let’s leave the conspiracy theories to Alex Jones.
@Lucia: Really?
And what Alicia said.
Why have local government at all? Let’s just let the people who know best decide everything.
There are 9 people on the CC who have a single purpose agenda to reduce the size of the council in a narrow, singular way. How does that demonstrate representative government? For me it indicates stubborn authoritarian rule which does not serve the common good of all citizens. It smacks of elitism which favors the few in power and fails to improve the lives of the majority.
@Greg – the crown emoji didn’t come thru.
Tom,
You’re falling into their trap. There is no elimination of ward representation. Each ward will be represented by atleast one councilor. Very simple, you have a problem go to the councilor within your ward…if your lucky and you have an area council feel free to go to your area council for advice. Where is the elimination? The No side says the yes side plays with words, but I find the opposite to be true. There is ward representation period.
Correct me, but did the two past referendum votes to reduce the Board’s size specifically call for the elimination of ward aldermen? I couldn’t find specifics, one way or the other.
Susan Albright and Jake Auchincloss are Ward 2 Councilors at-large with Braden Houston as a challenger for one of their positions. On the Newtonville listserv where Braden Houston introduced this option, he said, “In the spirit of compromise and delivering the will of (the majority of) constituents, two things that are scare in politics these days, I have taken it upon myself to re-write the Charter Proposal.”
Another participant in the thread said, “”Additionally, I think that many at-large councilors also feel this way [putting the entire city above their ward] and it is reflected in their newsletters–where they appeal to everyone, sometimes against the majority feelings of their own neighbors in the ward.”
I, as usual, am infuriated by his and the other no voters assertions that they know the majority opinion and it corresponds with theirs. An interesting point, the majority of voters in Ward 2 voted for Ruthanne Fuller who supports the charter rather than Amy Sangiolo who does not. Only a small portion of Ward 2 seems to agree with their message rather than a majority.
Don’t fool yourselves folks as you sit in your Village 14 or listserves bubbles.
Anyone who read the comments on this blog two weeks ago would have thought Any Sangiolo was a shoe-in to advance to the finals. Heck, the comments were probably 2-1 in favor.
And anyone who states with certainty that Newton voters want to (or don’t want to) keep their the ward aldermen is deluding themselves, pulling our leg, or both.
That’s why, we have the actual elections.
@Marti
You’re infuriated?
Braden said he has knocked on the doors of 2,000 residents in the last few months and shared his impressions on what’s he heard.
What’s the problem exactly?
@Jane
I specifically asked you about your views during the Charter Commissioner election on V14. You said you had no preconceived notions, but were there to listen and convene the process. You have since commented on long-standing opposition that you’ve had to Ward-only Councilors.
It was dishonest.
If you really want to me go back and pull up the statements so everyone can publicly see for themselves that you were not honest, just respond to this and let me know.
Marti – “An interesting point, the majority of voters in Ward 2 voted for Ruthanne Fuller who supports the charter rather than Amy Sangiolo who does not. ” I don’t think that proves anything either way. That’s one issue. I’m currently planning to vote no on the charter and I voted for Scott Lennon for other reasons.
Remember that short-lived “district” proposal that was raised at the end, where the 4 at-large-from-anywhere councilors would instead each have a district residency requirement (but still be voted on at-large)? Was there ever any discussion of a council with 8 at-large-with-a-residency-requirements plus 4 district-elected councilors? That would get us a 12 member council with the same at-large vs ward/district proportion that we have now, while maintaining at least some level of truly local representation.
Paul – I have never said I have, nor have I held, a “long standing” opposition to the Ward Councilor position. I disagree (and quite strongly so) with several current Ward Councilors on a regular basis, but I also disagree with several At-Large Councilors on a regular basis.
It’s hard for people who want to retain the Ward Councilor position to accept, but during the campaign, many more people expressed the opinion that the position should be removed. My response to those people was the same response I gave to you – if we actually had a conversation.
How would I know that we did? You’re an anonymous poster who claims to have had a conversation with me so you can say that I said anything you want. If you want to quote me from a conversation you claim we had, I’d need to know who you are in order to respond with any sense of accuracy.
Terry from many posts back, I agree with Greg. If the At-Large Councilors won’t agree to eliminate someone else’s position, why would they vote to submit a home rule petition that eliminates their own seat? History has shown that a home rule petition is highly unlikely to happen in the future.
@Greg: “I got nervous when Jack wrote that every former alderman had been polled and couldn’t find your name on either list.”
I do think you may be putting words in my mouth a bit here Greg. I did a quick endorser count in response to the “they are just trying to save their jobs” argument being made. Given the priority given to brevity on V14, I summarized this too concisely as “By a 2 to 1 margin, former alderman reject this proposal.”
I should have said: “Among the sampling of 18 former alderman present on the published endorsement lists of the Yes and No ballot committees, 12 (now 13) former alderman publicly oppose the charter and 6 support it (including Charter Commissioner Lipsett). ”
Thanks for recruiting former Alderman Brandel into the NO pool. If NO was a special permit, it would now pass comfortably :-).
Regardless of the stats, I do respect the views of current and former councilors on both sides of the issue, including those of the mayoral candidates. They know the realities of the situation much better than I.
Tricia – I sought out and asked many people who wanted to retain the ward councilor position if the model you suggest was amenable to them, and the response was an unequivocal no. As I recall, Marc Laredo was the only person interested in it, and by the time I spoke to him, it was clear that the model that made everyone very unhappy.
“during the campaign, many more people expressed the opinion that the position should be removed”
@Jane — On the topic of input, is the email/letter input the commission received on council composition a public record that can be made available? I find it a bit hard to decipher these stats:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/81887
@Jane — I did notice the public comment summary doesn’t show any entries for 8/24, when I know there were several public comments, including mine and Sallee’s:
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/81886
It seems clear to me that most of this “sturm und drang” would disappear if the proposal were 8 ward-elected councilors and 4 at-large. But it isn’t. I’ve lived in the city for nearly 20 years, and remember being shocked and confused by the size of the council when I first arrived here (it was “the board of aldermen” then). The common-sense drives to shrink the board seemed like obvious winners to me…but not to the aldermen. So here’s the bottom line for me:
1. I don’t believe that the Council will ever be able to achieve consensus on shrinking itself. Houston’s idea is nice, but just like every other common sense proposal that the council has ignored before. They won’t do it.
2. I’d prefer ward-elected councilors in the new charter, but the proposal doesn’t have them.
3. At-large election of ward resident councilors is not terrible.
4. I respect and admire many of the “No” campaigners I’ve met: Jack Prior, Mark Laredo, and others, and I believe them to be acting in good faith and making their arguments honestly.
5. I’m voting “Yes.” The new charter is better than our current document, and those are the only choices available.
Jon, you basically summarized my exact thinking in your 5 points. That’s why I’m voting yes as well. It’s not perfect, but it is a significant improvement. And the Council will never vote to shrink itself.
Now how I go about getting a sign is something I still have to figure out.
@ Jon Basset, thanks so much for your very thoughtful summary of the situation.
To be sure, having the 8 ward based councilors elected by the ward only would not be a slam dunk for approval. The charter commission had lots of public feedback on councilors from the wards being elected citywide or from one ward only. There is a trade off there. Right now we are hearing from the side that is disappointed b/c they want councilors elected from one ward only. The other side (a small majority of those we heard from, less vocal now b/c they like the proposal) prefer to have all councilors accountable to all voters, and they would vote against a council with 2/3 elected by one ward only.
In a city of 18 square miles and 8 wards, each ward is 2.25 square miles. No one lives their life inside a 2.25 square mile radius. We all live our lives spread out across multiple wards (where we live, shop, worship, walk our dogs, or send our kids to school / activities). We are affected by issues like traffic, zoning, or public safety in wards other than the one our house sits in. I think we should be able to expect accountability from councilors in those wards too.
@fignewtonville: http://yesnewtoncharter.org/volunteer/
I’ll jump on the bandwagon to thank Jon Basset for his summary and to say I’m voting yes for the same reasons.
Rhanna, ward lines are drawn according to population after every US census, not size.
Wards are just political constructs and are not composed of a group of like minded residents.
Jon’s statement hits the nail on the head, with one exception. The charter commission was divided on the composition of the council, in part because the residents are. We heard from many people who proposed every imaginable composition and there like the commission, there was not consensus on the issue.
If there’d been consensus within the community, I would have been more than happy to go along with it. Downsizing the council to a manageable number and establishing term limits on the mayor and city council (we currently have term limits for the School Committee) were my two highest priorities.
@Rhanna writes: “No one lives their life inside a 2.25 square mile radius. We all live our lives spread out across multiple wards (where we live, shop, worship, walk our dogs, or send our kids to school / activities).”
Actually, Rhanna, many residents of Newton live their lives inside a 2.25 square mile radius. In fact, many of our elderly residents confined to public housing don’t leave their block, and many of our kids born into poverty don’t venture further than 2 miles from where they live.
I take issue with this type of narrow-minded, privileged thinking. If you’re going to make definitive statements such as “no one” or “all” as a basis of how you arrived at a particular policy decision, you need to know what you’re talking about. When is the last time you visited or interacted with a single resident who lives in Newton’s public housing?
Rhanna said: “I think we should be able to expect accountability from councilors in those wards too.”
We SHOULD be able to expect that, right? But, I don’t. There are enormous class differences in Newton. A personal example: A councilor in a big house with a long driveway in a more suburban part of Newton doesn’t understand the stress my family incurs all winter in my neighborhood because we don’t have a place to park our car. Someone who represents my ward would better understand my neighborhood layout, and the fact that there are smaller lots, smaller driveways, and lots of multi-family homes. I know that there will still be a residency requirement, but it changes when they are campaigning to the entire city versus only their ward.
Tom, on the other hand, it isn’t clear that an elderly resident in public housing or a youth born into poverty are best served by the councillor geographically closest to them (or at least in the same ward).
Putting aside the traditional lack of voter turnout for both of those groups, there is no good way for a candidate who focused on improving public/affordable housing, raising families out of poverty, and enhancing later life for the elderly could win at-large *or* within ward without some other issue popular with “mainstream” voters pulling them over.
That’s in part because the constituency that could benefit from such a platform aren’t in a single ward, but spread out across the city. The ward system only biases towards geographic proximity, and that’s not enough to pool these voters. It’s also possible that two candidates will support the same underrepresented cause, leading to a vote split, and neither of them gets elected.
So it doesn’t seem that any of the proposals on the table do much to solve this problem in a general sense.
On the other hand, Single Transferable Vote allows voters who care about one issue passionately, such as the issues you described, to vote for a candidate that directly speaks to them wherever that candidate may live. Other voters may focus on who is the most well-rounded candidate, or the candidate that lives down their street. You just have to get enough percentage of the total vote to win, so the issues important to voters all end up being at the council table.
Lost votes because of vote splits don’t happen, because if (say) two candidates run on a single issue and one doesn’t win, the voters for that candidate get transferred to the voter’s second choice. If a voter votes a straight “help those who need help most” ticket, their vote will make a difference. On the other hand, if one candidate is incredibly popular, the votes that exceed the election threshold for that candidate will trickle down to like-minded candidates.
It seems like a strange system and tallying, while exact, seems complicated, but it’s the easiest for the voter (“list your preferences in order”), most flexible in terms of size of council, and most likely to capture important issues for the populace.
Mike Halle – Your second and third paragraphs are the essence of the issue. If we want to have a city government that represents a community that is 30% minority who live in all 8 wards, we need to provide a structure that enables people to be elected.
In Newton, in 2017 representation in the city government is not just about geography.
Mike Halle wrote: “Putting aside the traditional lack of voter turnout for both of those groups…”
Yes, that’s an unfortunate issue. As someone who volunteered once to drive seniors to the poll on election day, I realized why I was doing it when I got to the first house. Mobility for long walks was a problem. Which certainly left driving out of the equation.
I don’t think you were editorializing regarding this. I’m just pointing out one anecdotal reason from my small sampling.
Mark, thanks for emphasizing this important need based on your personal observations. There’s so much talk (some of it quite reasonable) about why Internet voting is a risky. Plus all the efforts to make voting less convenient because !FRAUD!.
But in the rush to frame everything from our own perspectives, twisted by real and imagined fears, we lose sight of the people for whom every day has far more struggles than opportunities, and we create a system that diminishes their already weak voices.
I keep mentioning STV because it’s very hard for even well meaning people to understand that there isn’t just one way to count votes, and the most common way (whoever gets the most votes wins) is what most people believe to be fairest. Everything else seems weird. But there are other researched and tested ways to count votes that produce what most people feel are fairer outcomes, and it turns out they are both legal and used in Massachusetts.
Another thing that STV offers: no safe seats. There’s no way to run unopposed. An incumbent has to maintain their constituency to get the votes, because another candidate with a new issue could knock them out.
Here’s a quick summary of how it works in Cambridge. It uses the example of race for motivation, but literally any issue or candidate can achieve success if it/they achieves a sufficient threshold of votes.
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=241
Tom, I can answer your last question, as I do interact with folks in public housing on a fairly frequent basis. And while it is certainly not “all”, the vast majority are active and certainly extend out further than their ward. Folks who are bedridden, sick, unable to travel are certainly exceptions. The very young are certainly exceptions. But with the Ride, public transportation, and frankly general services such as doctors/schools/jobs, again, the vast majority don’t just exist inside their ward. I say this not to speak for everyone in public housing of course, I can only speak to those I meet and talk to, and from my own experiences with public housing in other communities.
But I’d also say that even those who are for health or age reasons confined to housing, they have an interest in the other wards. Many public housing units are near a ward border. Public services don’t know a ward border (fire/police/city services for the aged and infirmed/youth services/early intervention). And more and better public housing doesn’t seem to be a ward issue as much as a city issue as a whole. I don’t see the ward councilors taking this on as an issue except in limited circumstances.
I certainly understand your desire to stand up for those in public housing, but I’m not sure if the ward councilor system is effective in defending the rights and needs of those in public housing. In fact, I think in many cases it is the exact opposite.
According to the Tab, it looks like that fourteen of the city councilors are indeed putting a Home Rule proposal in front of the Programs and Services Committee.
So maybe the Home Rule option does have legs after all.
@Jon Bassett – “I don’t believe that the Council will ever be able to achieve consensus on shrinking itself.”
@fignewtonville – ” the City Council will NEVER willingly downsize themselves.”
@Mike Striar – “the City Council will NEVER willingly downsize themselves.”
http://village14.com/2017/09/25/majority-of-city-councilors-co-sponsor-a-plan-for-downsizing-the-council/
Perhaps move the conversation to this thread.