Today 14 of our 24 City Councilors co-sponsored a proposal to reduce the City Council to 8 At-Large Councilors elected city-wide plus 8 Ward Councilors elected by their wards. The docketed legislation says that if the Charter Commission’s proposed City charter is not approved by voters on November 7, then the City Council will seek Home Rule legislation to amend the charter to change the composition of the City Council as noted above.
This new Home Rule proposal offers an alternative to the Charter Commission’s proposed composition of the City Council, which would be 12 Councilors (1 resident in each ward, plus 4 with no residency requirement) all elected city-wide, with no Councilors elected by their wards. The Home Rule proposal would make no other changes to the City charter.
The Home Rule proposal is co-sponsored by Councilors Brousal-Glaser, Blazar, Ciccone, Cote, Danberg, Harney, Kalis, Lappin, Laredo, Lipof, Norton, Rice, Sangiolo, and Schwartz. As noted in the TAB, the proposal is expected to be heard by the City Council’s Programs and Services Committee early next month. The next step would be approval by the entire City Council, which seems likely because the legislation is co-sponsored by a majority of the Council. If approved by the Council, it then goes to the Mayor, the state legislature, and finally to Newton voters for approval at each step. The process would be expected to conclude in the November election of 2018 or 2019, depending on how quickly each step is completed. This is the same process that was used to change the title “Alderman” to “Councilor” [EDIT: …except the last step, as noted by George Foord in his comment below.]
See the TAB’s article for quotes by Charter Commission Chair Josh Krintzman, Councilor At-Large (and former Mayoral candidate) Amy Sangiolo, Ward Councilor Emily Norton, and Councilor At-Large Marc Laredo.
Question becomes which of RF or SL is the first to the ‘neutral gate’ on the charter question, as we now see respected politico-warriors recognizing the noble cause of falling on ones’ sword. Similar to the 2010 senatorial race, Scott Brown recognized this is the ‘peoples seat’ to victory – Municipal government similarly is the will of the people to decide its’ fate.
Although SW is positioning for his SL endorsement, RF will need this topper move as a clinching challenger to the establishment machine.
The AS numbers are there – formulated like no other municipal election, she and her strength in “NO’ is the deciding factor for a successful mayor.
AS may be down but she’s not out!
I am very much in favor of a more balanced charter reform and fully support a compromise that allows people that want a smaller council to go from 24 to 16, and people that want to maintain local representation to have that too. In my campaign for City Council, I have repeatedly heard people say they like the idea of charter reform and a smaller council, but are mostly uncomfortable with losing the ward representatives. This proposal is very much in line with the “Is Home Rule a better Solution to Charter reform” that was posted recently by Lynn Leblanc in which I call for a more balanced reform of 8 ward and 8 at-large councilors. Great job City Council for giving people another option to have what I have seen the majority of people are looking for – a middle ground. Additionally, if I am fortunate enough to be elected this Nov. I will vote in favor of such compromise. Braden Houston Candidate – City Council Ward 2 at-large
This proposal addresses 2 concerns people have with current composition (size, non head-to-head at-large races) and has the following advantages compared with the Charter that must be voted NO in November for this legislation to be enacted by the state legislature:
1. Reduces council size from 24 to 16 and election ballots from 17 to 9 races (vs. charter’s 12)
2. Maintains accountable ward-elected representatives (vs. charter’s none)
3. Maintains geographical balance with 2 resident councilors in each ward. (vs. charter’s 5:1 geographic imbalance potential)
4. Allows non-incumbents to meet nearly all their constituients for half of seats (vs. cost and impersonal nature of 100% citywide)
5. Ensures head to head match ups and reduces uncontested elections (vs. charter’s 1/3 slate)
6. Compatible with existing committee structures (vs. charter likely move to more paid staff and higher council pay )
7. Matches local representation practices of state and national legislatures (vs. charter’s none)
8. Matches local representation practices of 341 of 351 Mass communities (vs. charter’s none)
Josh expressed a concerned about the percentage of direct representation on the council. 38 of the 56 City Councils in MA (68%) have MAJORITY local representation compared with 1:1 in this legislation. In contrast, the charter proposal puts us in a tie for last with no local representation.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qd9kJC4D5IZrH7JGkbaGdr24HJv2JXSQ29XulnjkC8w/edit#gid=1975493858
Please ask the remaining councilors (and mayoral candidates) to support this legislation. I honestly don’t see why they wouldn’t. Voters can still choose the proposed charter if they choose. This just changes the default outcome when it fails.
Its great that we have this compromise.
I hope those that were inclined to vote for the proposed charter because it was better than the status quo will reconsider.
It looks like we have a new option on the table. A better option that maintains local representation.
Braden– well done– the type of leadership we need in Newton. Particularly in Ward 2.
38 of the 56 City Councils in MA (68%) have MAJORITY local representation compared with 1:1 in this legislation. In contrast, the charter proposal puts us in a tie for last with no local representation.
This is the key fact. The proposed charter is out of step with common practices for best governance. Local representation is a core principle for ensuring the voice of under-represented groups and has been a staple of progressive platforms for several decades. Newton should keep its local representation.
79% of Newton voters asked for a charter commission, which is a process that allows 9 elected citizens to conduct research and become experts on city government and propose changes to the charter. In the case of Newton’s charter commission, the process included ample public feedback, including 6 public hearings, public comment at every meeting, and emails received from hundreds of residents. Voters will get to have the final say on whether they approve of the proposal.
We are in the home stretch of a 2-year democratic process. 14 of our elected city leaders want to try to interfere with that democratic process because they think they know the will of the voters, and they think the charter commission ignored an obviously popular and superior solution.
I can assure you, from the feedback we received on the charter commission, that there is no consensus that a council of 16, 8 at-large by ward and 8 by ward only, would be preferred to 24. We had more feedback in support of having all councilors answer to all voters in our geographically compact city.
This is terribly misleading—it is an attempt to make voters think there is a guaranteed outcome if they vote No on the charter commission proposal. Again, the feedback received by the charter commission, more residents favor having more, not fewer councilors be accountable to them.
The 16 councilor proposal does not meet the best practices test on 2 fronts: it is still way too big to be an effective, accountable body. And it has 2 representatives per ward, which automatically builds in duplication of effort and diffusion of responsibility. No one starting with a blank slate and trying to design the optimal city council would ever come up with this model.
Life after NO: Should ‘NO’ NOv 7th prevail, the incoming mayor will be hamstrung by a NO confidence electorate with No appetite for an override. In that case the city is the big loser for the full 4 year term.
Candidate Leadership is defined by honest flexibility, at times, beyond obstinance. Ignoring the obvious data feed is not the trademark of a successful embracing leader. Statistician poll numbers by AS brings the AMN beyond the successful reach of either RF or SL, ignoring those numbers will doom either candidate.
This is a bad idea.
Yes it downsizes the council (but not in my view in an acceptable configuration) but it leaves out all of the meaningful other reforms and language correction AND term limits that are included in the proposed charter revision.
@Rhanna
Source your best practices. (Benchmarks are different than best practices)
And please acknowledge that locally elected representation is a best practice, and isn’t part of your proposal.
This is about finding the best solution, not pushing for your side to win. Its OK to be wrong, please be open to other ideas.
What about the rest of the proposed charter? Voting no on the charter because 14 members of the council say they will pursue a home rule petition to downsize itself isn’t comparable to having a new charter.
This legislation only changes the size and composition of the city council – It doesn’t address all of the important, necessary changes the charter commission made to the charter. Those changes and updates needed to be in line with MA law are a major reason to vote yes for the charter.
@Greg
2 options:
1. Include the good stuff
2. Allow the City Councilor structure to be on the ballot in 2018-2019 following home rule petition irrespective of this charter proposal succeeds of fails, so that if it passes, the good stuff is in, and we give voters the option to select a different CC structure if they prefer
What do you think about either of those?
@Marti
Same question to you as Greg.
Looking for solutions and compromises, not just arguments for one side.
“In contrast, the charter proposal puts us in a tie for last with no local representation.”
Paul, this might be a key fact if it were actually a fact. 18% of Massachusetts cities have all representatives elected citywide. But the charter commission proposes a hybrid where councilors are elected from each ward by voters citywide, so that each ward is guaranteed to have a representative.
If your argument is that being an outlier is bad, then why are you supporting a council proposal that force Newton to remain an outlier on size and number of residents per ward?
We have had a council of dysfunctional size for 120 years. Now that we have an opportunity to change that, we should aim for a best practices solution, not a solution that is inspired by a dysfunctional model that did not originate with thought or research but came about when a bicameral council was merged into one body with no seats eliminated.
Back in 1897, the council did what was politically expedient and protected jobs, rather than do the hard work of designing something superior. Can’t we do better than that in 2017?
@Rhanna
Having 16 versus 12 representatives is not an outlier, but being on one end of the spectrum. Its silly to make such a big deal about 4 people. Having zero local representatives when 2/3 of communities have them is an outlier.
Its about tradeoffs, and have zero local representation is the wrong one.
“We have had a council of dysfunctional size for 120 years.”
Newton has been one of the best cities in the US for decades.
Not the best argument.
PS Still waiting for you to simply acknowledge that most communities have locally elected representation and your proposal does not. Simple decorum and establishing a common fact base for dialogue.
The docketed item is written saying a no vote on the charter in November is the only way to pursue the above home rule petition.
Why does it need that language? Why must it be contingent on the outcome of the charter vote?
Why not vote YES for the new charter in November to get the other changes and pursue the home rule petition afterward?
Makes more sense.
Paul, I must have been tying when you posted your comment above. I’m all for compromise in solutions.
My last comment has one. Why not vote yes for the charter to reap the benefits of the changes and have the city council pursue the home rule petition to change the size afterward?
That is the best of both.
Hate to throw cold water on what seems to some like a compromise solution, but anyone who paints this as a sure thing is being quite disingenuous. As the councilors well know, in order to pass, this proposal would still need to:
1. Be passed by the city council. Getting 14 people to docket the item is far different than getting the votes for a final proposal, especially since by the time it’s voted on it will have accomplished its purpose, ie. creating doubt about the new charter.
2. Be signed by the Mayor. I’ve seen no indication that he would do that.
3. Be passed by the legislature. Home rule petitions are scrutinized carefully, and would likely be very controversial if the proposal flies in the face of a recent vote by the public on the charter.
4. Be voted on by the entire city. Again. (It is important to note that the legislation is not required to contain a provision for voter ratification of this change; however, it has been customary for significant changes to require voter ratification before taking effect.)
5. There would likely be a legal challenge to this method of charter change. This is an issue several charter commissioners have looked into and the law is unclear on whether the composition can be changed by the city council. It would appear it may not but by my understanding this provision has never been litigated. (See Chapter 43B Sec 10: “and that only a charter commission elected under this chapter may propose any change in a charter relating in any way to the composition, mode of election or appointment, or terms of office of the legislative body, the mayor or city manager, or the board of selectmen or town manager.”)
Or, if the charter is voted down, file home rule for the rest of the changes.
I have a big problem with the timing of this move, mostly because it completely muddies what it means to vote No. Imagine you’re an informed voter who is truly opposed to what the Charter Commission presented. You no longer have the ability to simply reject it, but you must now choose between two different changes.
Worse yet, it undercuts the careful deliberation of the Charter Commission itself. We elected this group to do a job, they did it. Now, as a voter, you can accept their advice or reject it.
For the city council to jump in and throw up an alternative, after having years of opportunities to do just that but NOT acting, is, at best, disingenuous.
This is just a game to them. If they felt 16 councilors was the best option they would have done this years ago. My experience with the councilors is that they are playing us. Just like they played me for years when promising me they would cut the size through home rule petition.
If the charter gets voted down in Nov 7th, nothing assures us that the 14 co docketers will still vote for the home rule petition. Some will flip and the proposal will lose and there wont be anything the voters can do about it. We’re being played. It shows they are desperate.
Vote YES.
‘2. Be signed by the Mayor. I’ve seen no indication that he would do that.’
– The mayor at that time might be a woman – is that not recognized?
KISS is what the busy electorate needs.
The charter commission members might be going thru intended effort remorse – all that time and work and all they might show for it is a cream pie in the face..
– but then again that is Newton politics.
I don’t understand how this is an improvement. Right now, we get to vote for 17 out of 24 councilors (70.8%). With the charter commission proposal, we get to vote for 100% of the members, and with this new idea from the council itself, we only get to vote for 9 out of 16 councilors (56.25%) What am I missing–how does this make the council more democratic and responsive to Newton voters?
Thanks Bryan for the informative comment.
I agree with Chuck about the 14 members of the council being disingenuous. The timing is peculiar.
There is no way this legislation is a slam dunk. Just because they docketed it doesn’t mean they will vote for it.
Sue, I think you’re talking about two measures that do not go hand-in-hand but rather are inversely proportional to each other. The higher the percentage of the Council that each of us gets to vote for, the less responsive each Council member needs to be to each voter who can vote for that Councilor.
Looks like a “Hail Mary” pass by the NO proponents. Thank you, Bryan, for your informative post. Agreed, Chuck, that this is, at best, disingenuous….at best. And, yes, Tom, I believe we are being played. But let’s not let that happen . I actually hadn’t quite made up my mind yet but this move has made me look and study more carefully. This attempt to circumvent the democratic process with an empty and toothless promise makes me just plain ANGRY! Vote YES for charter reform.
When people docket something, they generally support it, it is quite rare for a councilor to vote against something they are a co-sponsor on.
@ Rhanna – Above you say “But the charter commission proposes a hybrid where councilors are elected from each ward by voters citywide, so that each ward is guaranteed to have a representative.”- I’m sorry but this only guarantees a residency requirement.
Additionally, you mention that this proposal assures duplication of efforts. I just fundamentally disagree. Beyond the 3 committees I and my Ward 8 colleagues sit on for the City, we have a myriad of additional responsibilities of which I’ll name a few to provide color: Needham St visioning working group, Wells Ave working group, Chabad Neighborhood Council, Newton Highlands area Council, Nahanton Woods conservation trust, Kessler Woods committee, Oak Hill Park community meetings, any development meetings in our ward (Chestnut Hill Sq) plus constituent requests that are not black and white that would meet the 311 criteria. To say that 1 Councilor can do all of this well is incorrect (unless you want a professional politician, which I don’t). So, this argument about duplication makes no sense to me – the work needs to be split up to cover it well.
@Tom – For you to say “this is a game” is truly insulting. I understand you are frustrated by past efforts, but all of the Councilors I know care deeply about the future of the City, thought long and hard about this proposal, and came to the conclusion that it offered a better path forward than the Charter Commission. You can disagree, I don’t mind, but please do not insult.
@Bryan – I’ll speak for myself. I intend to see this through and be consistent. I believe others will as well as they see it as a better option. I recognize your other points and cannot speak to how others might act.
@Chuck – I guess “disingenuous” isn’t the word I’d use. Instead, I’d say the Councilors are being true to what they believe is right for the City. Could they (we) have done this earlier? Absolutely and I’ll take part of the blame for not doing something. I wasn’t here for the times others like Lipof docketed items to reduce the Council so can’t speak to those efforts, but what we are doing here is trying to listen to constituents and give them a choice.
All – If the Charter Commission recommendation is so strong, it will pass and that will be that. But 14 Councilors docketed this not to save our jobs, not to fly in the face of the CC, not for personal gain. We have docketed this to respond to current resident concerns as well as our belief of what is best for the City. (I say “current resident concerns” because I think the electorate is far more tuned in now vs. during the CC process and are a bit surprised at the recommendation by the CC.)
For those who say the charter proposal would mean no local representation, STOP misleading. The proposal ENSURES that a councilor will be elected from each ward.
As for ward-only election, in my two decades in Newton I have never understood–and none of the no on charter have attempted to explain–why representatives elected by one-eighth of the electorate should have the same voting power as those voted on by the full electorate. And NO–this is not how Congress and the legislature work. Reps and senators don’t vote together. The Newton City Council is not bicameral. (When reading Newton blogs and list serves starts to feel like watching Fox News, it’s time to unplug!)
@Marcia: Great point but please don’t unplug! It’s important that readers here (and we have far more readers than commenters) understand that this issue offers no guarantees. In fact one (Harney) and as possibly as three (Cote, Blazer) of the docketers of this item won’t be on the council next year when this home rule is most likely to be considered….if it ever is. (And let’s face it we know Coucilors Baker and, if reelected, Yates and possibly a few others who want to keep a 24 person council will use their charter privileges or other parliamentary moves to stop a move to 16)
One thing that keeps getting lost in this conversation is that this is not about keeping or saving the jobs of some of the 24 dedicated men and women who now occupy council seats. It’s about creating a system of government that serves our city for generations…long after these 24 individuals and the rest of us (ok maybe not Cyrus Vaghar) are long gone.
Interesting. First I have heard of it.
Apparently, nothing clears the mind like an imminent hanging.
FYI: The TAB story has been updated and has reactions from two of the non-sponsoring councilors, Susan Albright and Deb Crossley.
The charter debate has credible and talented advocates on both sides. Personally I support “Yes” on the current proposal though I do hear and completely respect the “No” side’s views.
That being said, this new proposal is quite concerning because, if passed, it would mean that just under half of the City Council would not be accountable to all voters.
Marcia – To me, local ward representation means a representative from the ward, elected by the ward voters. I see people saying this new Charter proposal keeps local representation as a falsehood. Newton currently has a merged bicameral chamber, so it is very similar to a blend of Congress and Senate, which I think is good.
Keeping local elections low cost and diverse is what I care most about. Taking away ward elected, ward representatives increases costs and decreases diversity – “District (ward) elections give all legitimate groups, especially those with a geographic base, a better chance of being represented on the city council, especially minority groups.” National League of Cities.
Right now we have the best of both worlds – councilors elected by ward and city. Originally I thought a smaller sized council would be a good idea, but now I not even sure why it matters.
@Lucia: I believe Rev. Howard Haywood did a pretty thorough job debunking the minority representative case for Ward Councilors.
Do you disagree with his findings?
Funny how the “yes” arguments change. Yesterday the City Council would *never* vote to downsize themselves. Now that we’re proposing doing just that with a majority of co-sponsors, it’s still a terrible idea! Some people just really cannot stand the idea of local representation. Why is that? Whose interests stand to benefit from an all at-large council? I have some ideas.
Oh Paul! You’ve never been so mistaken. Rev. Haywood is a public servant with unparalleled integrity and a record of public service and dedication to our city and for the voiceless. He’s not some random “one person” who blogs under a pseudonym.
And, of course, it’s not “one opinion” when Haywood notes that Newton has never elected a person of color to a Ward Aldermen/Council seat but has elected people of color to at-large seats, school committee and the mayor’s office.
@Councilor Norton: I’m not part of the Yes campaign but I still don’t believe that the council will ever vote to downsize itself. More importantly, the formula you propose in your docketed item is a bad one that no one should vote for.
@Greg
1. Howard Haywood is one person. With one opinion. Amazing that you dismiss conclusions by an organization that Lucia cited so quickly.
2. His data is based on very few data points. (Thorough?) Which isn’t surprising because were just one city. Others have looked at this issue on national and regional levels and come to different conclusions.
Which is why the Democratic party has consistently advocated for local representation, and somehow we’re smarter than everyone else and know better?
@Bruce, I don’t think I’m misunderstanding this at all. This proposal gives more power to the ward-only elected councilors, meaning that they don’t have to be responsive to anyone else in the city and could behave in a very parochial fashion, increasing division in this city. For me, I am more than my address–I want broader representation than just where I live. I’ve lived in two wards, with, at time, councilors on the same street, and I wouldn’t say that that determined the best representation of my views.
If these City Councilors had an ounce, even an iota, of respect not only for the democratic will of the Newton voters who put the Charter Commission in place but also for the significant time and effort put in by the members of the Commission in answering the call, they would have exercised some self restraint and waited until after the coming ballot to put this in place. All residents of this city should be offended by the actions of this group. Like the proposal or hate it, the appropriate course of action was to let the process play itself out. While none of us should be surprised by the collective lapse of these 16 individuals, we should nonetheless be outraged. If I was on the fence before, I now look forward to voting Yes on the new charter as a first step in sweeping these people from City Hall.
Greg – there is a difference between one example and multiple examples. When elections with ward (district) representation have been compared with citywide representation research finds representation elected citywide is whiter and wealthier, thus the National League of Cities quote and the court cases forcing a return to local ward/district elections.
There are always outliers, but I’m not even sure how we can say Newton would be an outlier (ie keep diversity when moving to citywide representation). There are many different types of diversity, economic, racial, religious, political, gender…. While we may have overcome issues of local electoral diversity based on past prejudices, we should hope to create a Charter that will be robust against future majority biases.
We already have a strong mayor centralizing power. A citywide elected council will further centralize power and diminish minority voices.
Plus it will increase the cost of elections for candidates, thereby reducing the pool to those with money or with friends with money.
@Greg: Newton voters voted not once but twice (1996, 2000) for exactly the model being proposed by the City Councilors. They’ve never voted for the model suggested by the Charter Commission.
Emily, you could also say that voters votes twice for smaller city council, and once for charter overhaul that would provide expert study about this and other charter issues.
It isn’t like the voter’s intent regarding specific council makeup is clear.
I think I’m with John McCain on being a fan of regular order, which this new proposal doesn’t seem to be.
Councilor Yates: It is broken!!!!
It’s broken when it takes months to deliberate decisions that leave homeowners and businesses in limbo as they await council approval on a small modification like a dormer or a parking waiver.
It is broken when a councilor can back up traffic on one of our city’s busiest streets just so he and his neighbors don’t have as long as the rest of us wait to enter from on our intersecting streets.
It’s broken when elections are a game of check off the names I’ve heard of because I’m a busy person and am unable to discern which all of these councilors represent my values.
It is broken when a committee has to postpone deliberating because a member didn’t have time to read the docketed item.
It’s broken when your meetings stretch so far into the night so everyone can stand up and say which colleague they associate their comments with and may I request an additional minute, discouraging others from ever considering running because of how long your meetings are.
It is broken when businesses won’t come here because they hear (factually correct) stories about how broken it is.
Dear Greg.
You’re right / “It is about creating a system of government that will serve the city for generation”. The current system of government has served the people of Newton for Generations. It has its problems and the least branch least responsible to grassroots citizens has made mistakes that will plague the city and cost the citizens money for generations. No one has answered the argument and resulting question. “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” ” What is broken about the current city council structure?.” The problems I would suggest is that the government is so complex that it’s difficult to figure out who’s in charge of what areas and to coordinate efforts between more than one agency.
Cutting a third of the people available to cut through the red tape will make things worse. 311 is no magic bullet for this task and it’s foolish to think it is.
Cutting a third of the Council should be accompanied by a plan to delegate one third of its work to non-elected and non -accountable officials. No such plan has been proposed by either the advocates of the proposed Charter or the majority of the Council.
I declined to join in the new plan because I have steadfastly opposed a Board cut in past and saw no reasons to do so now. I will vote against the new plan on the floor of the Council and the Commission’s proposal at the ballot box because they will serve the city worse than the current system. Perhaps the Charter Commission would have come up with a better plan if its membership had been
more diverse and less close minded
Emily – You jump to conclusions without evidence.
I voted yes on those nonbinding referendums very specifically because I thought the Board of Aldermen, now the City Council, was too unwieldy with 24 members to be an effective decision-making body. If it had been a binding referendum with an 8/8 split as the composition, I would have been voted no on the item.
@Greg: “And, of course, it’s not “one opinion” when Haywood notes that Newton has never elected a person of color to a Ward Aldermen/Council seat but has elected people of color to at-large seats, school committee and the mayor’s office.”
Has any person of color ever run for a Ward Alderman/Council seat?
Well Councilor Sangiolo, that’s precisely the point, isn’t it? Opponents to the charter have been saying that the ward system encourages diversity. And yet, you and our other candidates who have brought diversity to our government have found that path city-wide.
Can you tell us why that is?
@Amy: Maria Manning ran for ward 3 ward alderman just a few years ago. She was an excellent candidate, ran an excellent campaign, was endorsed by the TAB, and she lost. I think she would’ve won citywide.
(See: http://newton.wickedlocal.com/article/20140903/NEWS/140909192)
@Emily: You’ve stated many times in the past that you are against downsizing the council. I double checked just to be sure and I have an email from you stating it in no uncertain terms. Can you explain why you all of a sudden decided that downsizing the council is a good thing and why anyone can expect you’re going to follow through after the election?
@Greg @Bryan
Guys: there is plenty of research on the topic of local representation and minority representation. Its pretty clear overall- local representation matters. Its frankly embarrassing to be referencing a few small data points in our local town when so much has been researched on the topic.
The world is bigger than Newton. Go read the research.
Paul, any such search will bring you to proportional representation, of which single transferable vote is the only such system in Massachusetts. STV helps assure that all voters have a say in shaping their elected body, not just a majority or plurality.
Here’s a recent article discussing it:
http://cambridge.wickedlocal.com/article/20140225/NEWS/140227796
This letter to the Tab submitted by civil rights attorney Nadine Cohen also conveys important strengths of the Commission’s proposal: http://yesnewtoncharter.org/support-the-changes-in-the-charter/
This latest proposal from 14 City Councilors is a manipulative and cynical attempt to undermine the work of the Charter Commission. It would be laughable if it weren’t such a pathetic ploy.
For more than 20 years the voters of Newton have expressed a desire to downsize the Board/Council. Now, weeks away from the FIFTH ballot box vote this process has required, we’re expected to believe these 14 City Councilors have finally heard the voice of the electorate? Give me a break!
I completely respect anyone who wants to vote “no” on the new Charter. Personally, I think the Charter Commission did an outstanding job, and I plan to vote “yes.” But what happened in Newton today was not about supporting that choice. Unfortunately, it was about these 14 City Councilors trying to manipulate the voters, and it was tremendously disrespectful of the role played by the elected Charter Commissioners.
@Greg
We keep hearing reducing the council will speed up meetings.
Perhaps you could explain how so.
Perhaps you could explain how the Washington place project would have been any quicker?
Wow – that’s a full day of comments. It will require a few responses.
First, Since Labor Day, I have seen dozens and dozens of “the council will never downsize itself!” and “If this fails you’ll have this council for 50 more years!” statements from the Yes side. It seemed like a conscious shift from selling benefits to selling fears.
Now the council acts in good faith to address this concern, and they are attacked even harder. Tough job!
Most of the HR sponsors were not in office (or not against this) in 2006, so why imply hidden agendas?
The process has been in the hands of the charter commission process from early 2015, or earlier considering the signature process nearing completion, and was wrapped up with the commission’s final report submission. It will now go to voters for an up or down vote on 11/7.
I personally am very appreciative to see the council launch the process for a home rule petition for voters to ratify up or down after the charter fails. I am confident they are all sincere.
This gives the voters 2 choices in sequence – approve the charter proposal, ratify the home rule, or stay with current configuration. Having this limited to the single issue of composition keeps it simple and minimizes the risks Bryan raises. On the other hand, non-controversial aspects of the proposed charter can be submitted separately without need for ratification.
I personally don’t feel “NO” has a momentum issue as Josh suggests, but it’s in the eye of the beholder I guess.
On the other hand, I do unfortunately agree this with statement from a charter commissioner today:
“Most Newton voters don’t even know about the charter proposal – even people who are typically well informed.”
@Simon
In my experience, meetings run faster when there are fewer people who need to comment or ask questions on an issue. I would expect this to be especially true for political meetings, in which politicians (understandably) want to be on the record on whatever’s being discussed. On this note, I respectfully disagree with Councilor Yates’ defense of the current large council above. He asks who will do the work of the councilors eliminated in either new plan; I suspect that much of that “work” will disappear with the councilors themselves.
Regarding the new proposal, while I find the “Ward Councilor” argument intuitively compelling, I still think a “Yes” vote is best for Newton. Here’s why:
1. We cannot be certain that voting down the new charter will result in the very recently docketed proposal to be enacted. While I respect the co-sponsoring councilors who I’ve met, their support for this item today is a different thing entirely from finally getting it approved by the voters a year or two hence. I am not confident that that would actually happen – there are a lot of veto points before we’d have this new arrangement. A “Yes” victory in November is certain to result in a smaller city council.
2. I’m not sure that the the very recently docketed proposal is actually better for democracy and city government than the long-considered and deeply researched charter commission proposal. Links in posts above make good arguments that the all at-large system proposed by the commission might actually increase minority representation in Newton, and Sue Flicop’s posts make a good ordinary voter’s case for the practice. I’m not personally up on all the stats and arguments on this question, but that’s why I elected a charter commission: so they could do that research, talk to voters, et cetera. I trust their work and their recommendation.
3. The Charter Commission’s proposal does more than just shrink the council. It includes term limits and other changes that would not be enacted by the very recently docketed proposal in the city council.
So while I appreciate the city council’s new-found enthusiasm for charter reform, for me it’s too little too late. I’m still “Yes.”
@Rhanna — I’m definitely setting up our dedicated “agree to disagree” web page debate summary for us soon :-).
“14 Councilors want to interfere with a democratic process”
This doesn’t interfere. It helps assure the downsizing you are shooting for in either outcome.
“We had more feedback in support of having all councilors answer to all voters”
Can the public record of your written/email feedback be reviewed at city hall? I have noted that the feedback summary seems to leave out 8-8 feedback delivered in public comment on 8/24/16.
“still way too big”
Is 16 really that much bigger than 12, particularly given its compatibility with current number of wards and committee structure?
“2 councilors per ward is redundant”
So then what are 2 to 5 councilors per some special wards in the proposal. If you presume that councilors-by-ward are representing their ward, what do the extra councilors-at-large do with their time and focus? Will they have a different job description?
“]In contrast, the charter proposal puts us in a tie for last with no local representation.’ Paul, this might be a key fact if it were actually a fact”.
Can you go lower than no local accountability?
“Best practice solutions”
This council composition is NOT in the model charter options. It doesn’t include this particular composition, nor does any other city in state. Do any of the 3000 cities in the United States of America have 12 councilors, 8 with residency, 4 slate? Does any city other than Metheun term limit its city councilors? This proposal feels more like an experiment than a best practice.
I agree with Mike on most of his points. This does seem a bit of a cynical move. I’d have a lot more respect for it if they stuck with the same ratios. 4 ward councilors, 8 at large. But then some of the ward councilors would lose their jobs. What happened to all those folks who said the council needed to be large because it was such a time consuming job? LOL.
If the council had brought this up a year ago, I’d spend the time to debate it with Jack and others. But as others have pointed out, we don’t have a binary choice here, we have a fully fleshed out charter proposal that can be debated and argued and has many other points than just lowering the size of the council vs. a potential Home Rule petition, with a long road ahead, which is likely to disappear into the mists as soon as the election is over. And this feels oh so cynical.
I give the “No” on Charter Reform credit for being inventive and getting the process further along than I would have anticipated. I can’t say I’m all that surprised that a majority of our city council would vote for this, especially since it is so unlikely to happen and since the status quo keeps them pretty happy. I can say I won’t be voting for any of the at-large councilors that did vote for this.
But if anything this has made me MORE likely to support the yes campaign. I’m not a big fan of this type of game playing.
@Greg: I ran at-large for two reasons: 1) I wanted to oust my at-large City Councilor and hold them accountable for their unresponsiveness and 2) My issues were city-wide – concerns about accountability and transparency in government, environmental preservation, and responsible development.
@Bryan: Thanks. Yes – I remember now. That was a special election to fill Sal’s seat and wasn’t it a four-way race? Barbara’s greatest strength was her ties to the community – as a teacher, parent and active volunteer.
@Mike: I respectfully disagree. The docket item does in fact, respect the decision of the voters –
Voters get to decide whether they support reducing the size of the Council by eliminating Ward representation. It ensures that there will be reduction in the size of the Council with the added benefit of keeping local representation.
@Jonathan — Good to see you Sunday!
1. re: certainty — I’d say let’s see the timeline that emerges in coming weeks. This proposal has been fully vetted by Lipof and Vance previously. Its ready to go. I think historically its not unreasonable that 16 at-large councilors found it difficult to agree to face their fellow colleague incumbents, but in this council you have 4 departing at-large councilors and 7 additional endorsing the change, which leaves only a few that might be against. Of those, some see strong benefits in the current configuration and some seem to not like ward-elected councilors….
2. “Long and deeply reached proposal”
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/we-had-100-percent-agreement-on-day-1
3. “other improvements”
Ask them, but I presume other non controversial improvements can be enacted with a separate HR petition similar to alderman to councilor switch.
I do respect you are making an informed vote in any case. Thanks for engaging.
@Amy – Just to be clear, you did lose in your ward the first time you were elected, no? So by virtue of being elected citywide, you got to represent ward 4, and have served quite well for many years I might add.
Of all people, I have to say it is quite strange that you became the crusader for ward-only voting when you wouldn’t have won your first campaign on those terms.
@fignewtonville
When was the appropriate time for this set of councilors, most elected since 2006 to undertake this task? For the last few years and up until May 5th it was the charter commission/process role. A submitted home rule petition in parallel with a charter commission process is a non starter. Read the statues.
Since then they had budget to focus on, the Orr block, the Trump impeachment vote (one that Charter Commissioner Barash insisted was a key priority for them) and then the summer months. Like I said, the repeated accusations of refusal to change by YES have ramped up exponentially in recent weeks.
I’d hoped the charter commission would propose this configuration and am glad the council will offer it up as a subsequent option for ratification while the city is focused on the issue. http://newtonwatch.org/2017/03/07/charter-proposal-needs-improvement/
@Bryan: I had to run city-wide, as a newbie and with an 18 month old in tow. In retrospect, it would have been easier to knock on all of the Ward 4 doors then to have to run city-wide. But if you haven’t already noticed, I am a woman of principle and because I felt the at-large representatives needed to be held accountable, I decided to run against them.
You see, Bryan, it’s never been about me, it’s always been about the issues. I thought you would have realized that during my mayoral campaign.
@Bryan — Are the 8 at-large seats in the 8-8 HR proposal not enough to allow candidates benefiting from citywide support, or the support of slate-distributing advocacy groups like yours, to have access to office?
There is nothing magical about the pick-4 non-head to head seats for minorities. Lowell has 9 at-large seats, but block voting and low turnout manages to get the 9th white more votes than the 1st minority, despite a 49% minority population. Residency requirements don’t necessarily address that. District voting does. http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/league-of-women-voters-make-the-case-for-ward-elected-city-council-seats
Far be it from me to be the voice of reason… But I think there are good points to both sides of the Charter argument, and we should get back to debating the merits of a yes or no vote. Hopefully this competing initiative can be put on hold, so the voters can have a clear picture of their immediate choices this November.
Jack:
“When was the appropriate time for this set of councilors, most elected since 2006 to undertake this task?”
1o years ago, 5 years ago, 2 years ago. The City Council has known for years that voters wanted the City Council to be downsized.
When NOT to do it? Six weeks before a vote on the issue. Disingenuous, disrespectful of voters, dismissive of the democratic process that the No vote claims to hold so dear.
@Mike Striar – good plan!
OK — last comment (that should get some up votes :-).
re: voting for everyone
I personally don’t feel the need to vote for everyone in the state house, the house, or the senate or the full council. In today’s council, in a sense we vote for 3 votes. We have 8/8th influence on 1 seat and 1/8th influence on 16 seats. The charter gives us all 1/12 influence on 12 seats. Why can’t we trust each other to vote for the best candidates in our wards for a portion of the council?
Consider the recent Mayoral primary with clones of the three candidates running in all races and the results maps we saw after election night. Leaving aside that citywide campaign cash distorts ward results, an 8-8 model gives us eight Ruthannes at-large, and then a ward councilor group consisting of an Amy, a few Scotts, and the rest Ruthannes. The Charter gives us 12 Ruthannes. Nothing against Ruthanne, but I’d like a council with a mix of all three of them.
@Jane — 2 years ago on 9/25/2015, the charter commission and commission candidates were on the ballot and charter commissioners were campaigning. How confusing would it have been to start a HR petition in parallel with that election? 5 years ago the LOWV had already collected 2500 signatures toward a commission and that was likely seen as the mechanism to adjust the council composition. 10 years ago there were a different set of councilors involved.
As Mike S. says, lets debate the merits of yes and no and educate voters the best we can together, but go ahead and attack the councilors if that helps your case.
In other news, the mailer for the City Solicitor summary of the ballot question along with 250 word statements for and against was approved by the election commission earlier this evening:
https://twitter.com/newtonwatch/status/912884715274883072
Apparently that “last comment” statement on my part was fake news.
Then how about 5 years ago, or 10 years ago? The City Council has had every opportunity to docket an item that would downsize itself. A significant number of the 14 Councilors have stated that they want to retain a City Council of 24 members.
Think Lucy and the football.
It took the League of Women Voters YEARS to collect signatures–and that was after picking up where Tom Sheff’s group left off. They had collected about 2400 signatures over the first year or two. It was a long process explaining how the charter commission would work to each person, and that slowed us down far more than we had originally anticipated. The same is true now about the ballot question in November–it takes a while to explain and discuss what the ballot question is about. This new proposal just puts a whole additional layer of complexity on top of that.
But about the truly at-large councilors, look at it from the point of view of someone who wants to run for office. It can be difficult to run against a neighbor you like or an incumbent who you think has strong support–running at-large without a residency requirement gives you another opportunity to join the Council. As someone who ran for School Committee and lost in a very expensive race, I had to choose whether to do the same thing all over again two years later (against someone who was then an incumbent) or not do anything. There was no possibility of running at-large, and my chances looked pretty slim, so I sat it out. With the City Council, it’s often the same situation–times 3. That’s why I feel strongly about the truly at-large positions–it opens another door for potential candidates who have a lot to offer the community.
The summary of the charter changes for the ballot question includes items I think Newton residents will find important. These will be lost if the proposed charter is defeated.
From the summary:
Effective with the adoption of this charter, school committee responsibilities will be updated to reflect current practice and state law.
Current practices will be codified for financial reporting, including an annual financial audit. A newly required inventory of capital assets will accompany the capital improvement plan.
Voters’ access to initiative petition and referendum will be maintained, adding a minimum of 20% participation in such votes.
Charter review will be required every 10 years.
@Sue Flicop — The school committee has this issue because it only offers 1 seat option to any resident. The HR allows 2 while the current charter allows 3. Do we really need 5 from one neighborhood? On that topic, why wasn’t the concept of adding 2 at-large seats to the SC considered?
As Rhanna says, at-large-without-residency seats are common, but most city councils have 4 or less of them balanced by 6 or more ward-elected seats. In all of Mass, only Everett has a hybrid all at-large/some residency model. It is an experiment, not a best practice.
On the topic of Everett, it has been brought to No’s attention Yes is privately selling the charter on basis of reducing total councilor salary cost to city. How did that play out in Everett?
They began with 25 members making an average of $5976 a few years ago. City councilors there now make $28,056 a year.
Total salary compensation:
Before: $149K to 25 members
After : $308K to 11 members
@Jack: Personally, I hope councilor pay goes up regardless of whether this passes. They are severely underpaid compared to similarly sized cities and this limits the income range and work circumstances of candidates who can run for the council.
However, you left out an important little detail: Everett also excluded councilors from receiving benefits in their charter. The city potentially being on the hook for lifetime benefits for councilors who serve at least ten years is easily more of a liability than their paltry salaries.
So does it actually cost Everett more now than it did several years ago? You’ll have to ask them, but I’m fairly certain the answer is no.
@Bryan — That is a good point. Should also note that removing benefits from the position likely further impacts they type of residents that can pursue the office.
Note the numbers I quoted above are incorrect for current Everett salaries. The comp sheet I had found was for Everett’s twin in WA. The alternate universe where the LOWV advocates for district-elected seats. Sorry about that. I’ll dig up the MA numbers. Greg R. — make sure you call me out thoroughly for my mistake.
The Everett, MA city council total expenditure for 2018 will be $413,538
http://cityofeverett.com/DocumentCenter/View/2608
Salary and benefits in 2013 for 25 member body were $331,000
http://archive.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/12/08/everetts_bicameral_government_will_become_historical_footnote_in_2014/
Jack – It has come to the attention….?
The truth is that the Charter Commission discussed City Council compensation and not one person thought that Newton City Councilors were adequately compensated. The issue centered around whether the compensation should be codified in a charter, not whether the Councilors should be paid more. Everyone was in agreement on that issue.
So when you use a term like “it has come to the attention…” without verification of the facts, it muddies the water. I spoke with you just 3 days ago at N’ville Village Day and you could very easily have asked me that question and received an accurate answer.
@Jane — I didn’t mention the Charter Commission and I’m aware of your research; just someone conveying how they were privately sold the case for Yes, so I thought sharing the Everett case study was illustrative for educational purposes. This came up after we talked. Sorry for phrasing.
As Bryan says, the the net financial impact of the council size change is unclear, but it very likely isn’t going to be half of what is is today.
Everett appears to have increased council costs by 25% with its 50% council size reduction, and that does not include work shifted to full time staff.
In the larger scheme of things, the council is making decisions which have very large impact on city finances, so I don’t think we should be looking at or selling reduction as a cost saving mechanism.
So about the “No” campaign use of the Snohomish County LWV example…I contacted that League and found that we are not comparing apples to apples. Specifically:
1. Newton: 80,000 people; Everett, WA: 110,000 and growing
2. Newton: 18 square miles; Everett, WA: 50 square miles
3. Newton: 8 wards for over 100 years; Everett, WA: no wards, no districts, no division in its history
4. Newton: 24 City Councilors (to maybe be 12 soon?); Everett, WA: 7 councilors
The goal of their campaign is to add geographic representation, which we already have and which continues in the charter commission proposal. The Everett, WA charter commission and their own city council had refused to add districts and so the LWV there has taken up that cause and hopes to collect enough signatures for a ballot question.
@Sue Flicop — thanks for looking into this. Here is the statement from the LOWV on Everett, WA:
http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news/league-of-women-voters-make-the-case-for-ward-elected-city-council-seats
“After considerable study and discussion, the League of Women Voters of Snohomish County adopted a position in support of bringing more representative government to the city of Everett. We believe that democracy is best served by having a City Council that represents all areas of the city. What better way to bring this about than to divide the city into geographic districts. Then the citizens of that district would elect a representative who knows them, and knows their needs and concerns.
Because of our belief that City Council representation will be increased by going to a districting system of electing council members, the league has joined with other like-minded citizens and groups to form a grass-roots coalition called Everett Districts Now. The League of Women Voters of Snohomish County fully supports the initiative drive of this group to divide the city into five geographic districts while maintaining two at-large positions. We believe that this mixed-representation model has the potential for bringing to Everett’s government the diversity that it now lacks while keeping the needs of the city as a whole in focus.”
Re: your comments:
1. 80,000 vs 100,000 is not very different.
2. How different 18 square miles is from 50 depends a lot on traffic.
3. Fair enough
4. OK
Then you say:
“The goal of their campaign is to add geographic representation, which we already have and which CONTINUES with the charter proposal”
I wanted to call you attention to one particular line in the LOW statement above:
“Then the citizens OF THAT DISTRICT would elect a representative who knows them, and knows their needs and concerns.”
That continues with the charter proposal? Strange, because I thought the charter proposal essentially says
“Then the citizens OF THE WHOLE CITY would elect a representative who WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE IN that district, WHO PROBABLY knows their needs and concerns, AND CAN FINANCIALLY MOUNT A SUCCESSFUL CITYWIDE CAMPAIGN. FURTHERMORE, IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE VOTE FOR EVERYONE”
Mitt Romney lives in Belmont. Donald Trump lives in New York. Sheldon Aldeson lives on Dudley Rd. A resident is not always representative.
@Jack
Thanks for the thoughtful posts. You have honed in on EXACTLY what I see as the crux of the problem with the CC proposal. I believe that the success of anything is built on a solid foundation. Be it a building or a city’s charter, a flaw in your foundation is going to cause problems.
The CC proposal opens up the possibility that a ward(s) other than my own can determine who will represent my interests. A candidate can win the ward by a landslide and still lose the seat.
I believe this constitutes a flaw in our city’s governing structure. I believe that at the most micro-local level, a resident needs to know that they have a one-to-one vote in who is representing them. The dynamic this sets up is disempowering for a resident. From day one, this has been what has driven my passion around this issue.
And a quick note on process – I’m a web designer – I know that although analysing a competitor’s website before designing their site has some anecdotal value, it doesnt replace the hard work of discovering what is best specific to my client. And sometimes this ancedotal information is detrimental. Often I don’t want to see what others have done because it immediately puts me on a path.
My point here let’s not spend so much time on what other cities have done, let figure out what is best for us.
So Jack,
You had to find a quote from Everett, Washington to find someone who agrees with you???? lolol.
OK, I want everything in this city just like ward 8!!! Ward 8 is wonderful and everything has to be for the advantage of people of ward 8…screw the other 7 wards,,,ward 8 is the best!!! Make ward 8 great again!!!! Rah, rah.
Come on.
I want to build a wall between ward 8 and the rest of the city!!!! And you all will pay for the wall!!!!
Hi Tom — I personally became aware of Everett due to ease in which google searches have it come up instead of Everett, MA by mistake (happened to me again this week). I find it ironic that surfaced this story.
You don’t have to look far find examples of the importance of district representation. Lowell, many cities in California (voting rights act), etc. Some links off early posts here: http://www.newtondemocracy.org/news
If the ACLU or the NAACP has come out for 100% citywide elections, I haven’t found it.
I don’t follow the rest of your point. There are stark economic contrasts across Newton’s wards. Having balanced representation (rather than 5:1 concentration of power) is a good thing no? Or is it that the best people may just live in one neighborhood?
What I’m still curious about is whether in all of the 3000 cities across America, how many councils are there with 12 at-large elected members, 8 with ward residency requirements, and 4 slate? Everett, MA is close. Are there others, or is this an experiment rather than a best practice?
Bruce Henderson wrote:
“…to Newton voters for approval at each step. The process would be expected to conclude in the November election of 2018 or 2019, depending on how quickly each step is completed. This is the same process that was used to change the title “Alderman” to “Councilor.”
The only problem with this statement is that it is not true. When the name of the Newton Legislative Body was changed from “Board of Aldermen” to “City Council” the voters did not have an opportunity to vote yea or nay on the issue…by design of the City. I personally spoke to both Senator Creem and Representative Balser and both said they would give “due deference” to elected officials rather require that the matter be put on the ballot. The Mayor likewise told me that he would not insist that the voters have a voice, which voice I merely characterized as good “small ‘d’ democracy”. Josh Krintzman, then on the state Senate staff and routinely reviewing charter change requests remarked to me that near universal practice in such matters is for cities and towns to stipulate that such change would be on the ballot… but surprisingly not Newton.
Then note the effect of the new proposal: whereas under the current charter, all Newton voters have the right to vote on 71% of Councilors…100% in the case of the Charter Commission proposal… only 56% in the case of the Council proposal. What next? a hereditory Council?…maybe Mayor for life!
It’s great that people are grappling with these issues. Some, however, are objecting to specific details of Charter reform with hypothetical arguments. We should dig into the details to see if these theories hold water. At least one of them does not.
For example, in this thread, it has been asserted that in city-wide elections certain wards will band together to vote against another ward’s favored candidate. This suggests wards are as adversarial as noble families in Westeros and that someone could marshal wards without an army or dragons. That seems a stretch, but let’s follow the question.
One approach would be to examine past election results. In 2009, we had six contested School Committee seats, so I’ve used that data for the analysis below. Under the proposed Charter reform, the City Council would look a lot like the existing School Committee of 8 members, one member from each ward elected city-wide. (Of course, the proposed Council also would have 4 at-large seats.)
To see if ward voters gang up on other wards, I tallied the in-ward votes and the out-of-ward votes in each race. In three of the six races, the winners’ in-ward and out-of-ward vote percentages were virtually identical.
Ward 5: 51% and 52%
Ward 6: 58% and 58%
Ward 8: 70% and 72%
In two of the six races, candidates who won handily within their wards also took the most out-of-ward votes, if by a smaller margin.
Ward 4: 66% and 57%
Ward 7: 69% and 54%
In only one of the six races was the winning margin narrower in-ward than out-of-ward.
Ward 1: 54% and 59%.
So, in all six of the contests, candidates who won their ward also won the most out-of-ward votes. No candidates won their ward only to be spurned by voters outside of the ward. Not even close. I have not had time to look at other election data, but I would guess Charter Commission members have done more extensive number crunching than this. If they have, please share.
Hi John – I thought the issue was Ward Councilors would be stumbling blocks in getting legislation through the Council. Do you have any data on how Ward Councilors vote after they are elected versus City-Wide Councilors?
@George — A change in council composition clearly requires voter ratification. It is much more significant that a name change.
@John — Consider 2015 Ward 2 At-large races. Combined the challengers got roughly 20% more votes inside the ward than the incumbents with the opposite true in the remaining wards (incumbents beating challengers by ~20%).
The issue is not one of wards ganging up on each other, but rather the nature of the races — door to door vs. signs & mailings. That financial escalation impacts in ward results as well as the whole city. And then of course that escalation can lead to multiple well-financed/centrally-backed canidates in one area prevailing.
@John
Ward 2 last election:
Albright beats LeBlanc 65%-35% outside of Ward 2
In Ward 2, Albright won by 6 votes over LeBlanc
That’s a pretty significant difference, and a handful of votes from the City overturning the Ward’s preferences.
Not hypothetical.
I guess we should dig into the data on (1) voting behavior by councilors and (2) comparative campaign costs. Data on the former may be qualitative and difficult evaluate because of the wide range of issues voted upon. Someone must have examined the latter, and the analysis should be fairly quantitative and straightforward. Campaign finance data is online.
And I would question the assertion about “centrally-backed candidates in one area prevailing.” It seems like fear-mongering to suggest that one ward’s candidates will rise above all others. Our two mayoral candidates come from different parts of the city, could not be more different, and are both solid councilors and excellent candidates. Of the 24 current City Councilors, which ones would folks consider “centrally-back-able”?
Jack Prior wrote:
“@George — A change in council composition clearly requires voter ratification. It is much more significant that a name change.”
Jack: I was noting Bruce Henderson’s saying this would be just like the name change. If true, no vote for the voters. Changing a then 102 year old title unilaterally by a few elected officials while purposely bypassing the electorate struck me as being abusive. Bruce has clearly misspoken or misrepresented the facts.
Read more: Majority of City Councilors co-sponsor a plan for downsizing the Council | Village 14 http://village14.com/2017/09/25/majority-of-city-councilors-co-sponsor-a-plan-for-downsizing-the-council/#ixzz4u6mxnw8M
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @14thVillage on Twitter | Village14 on Facebook
Paul raises an interesting point. I looked back at the 2015 races, http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/82932, and the in-ward votes in the Ward 2 at-large race were even closer than 6 votes:
Auchincloss 948
Albright 795
LeBlanc 791
Johnson 647
So, in that race, two candidates almost tied for in-ward votes, but one garnered almost twice the out-of-ward votes as the other. It was not “a handful of votes from the City”; it was a decisive at-large election.
To examine the whole picture, we need to compare in-ward to out-of-ward vote percentages for all four candidates.
Auchincloss: 30% and 26%
Albright: 25% and 31%
LeBlanc: 25% and 18%
Johnson: 20% and 31%
The two candidates who won the most in-ward votes also won the most out-of-ward votes. The candidates who placed third and fourth in-ward were fourth and third out-of-ward. So, it’s inaccurate to describe the result as “overturning the Ward’s preferences.” The race was a nail-biter, but the in-ward votes and out-of-ward votes aligned.
I think most would agree that races with 3-4 horses competing for two spots have different dynamics than the head-to-head contests I cited from 2009. And a certain polarizing issues no doubt influenced voting in the 2015 election.
But one example does not prove a rule. It’s important to examine multiple races, rather than a single data point. Let’s look at the two other contested at-large races from 2015.
The Ward 3 race had the following in-ward and out-of-ward voting percentages. Voting was close, but the first three candidates for in-ward votes finished in the same order for out-of-ward votes.
Hess-Mahan: 36% and 40%
Cote: 34% and 32%
Malakie: 30% and 31%
The Ward 5 race had the following in-ward and out-of-ward voting percentages. Again, the first three candidates for in-ward votes finished in the same order out-of-ward.
Crossley: 38% and 40%
Yates: 36% and 38%
Pitts: 26% and 26%
There may be an instance of an at-large candidate winning in-ward and losing the election because of out-of-ward votes, but what is the norm and what is the outlier?
@John — re: centrally backed candidates — the 9 elected charter commission members were exactly those candidates backed by some central interest groups in Newton. One of them (Progressive Newton) seems to have cleared this old blot entry now (perhaps to make room for 2017?) so can’t confirm that.
With regard to current candidates, I think its fair to say there is a pattern around the city of 4-7 of the same signs showing up on many yards together, and that there seems to be a strong commonality in the sources of the $250-$1000 dollar donations supporting those signs and those candidates. It’s transparent and above board, but much more concentrated than I would have assumed as an average resident before starting to follow these things closely http://www.ocpf.us
It’s not just a matter of one ward being more powerful, but central/special interest groups selecting who our councilors will be, where ever they may live. Bryan has stated the NDCC may back a slate of council candidates in 2019. Shouldn’t that be done via a primary system if elections are to be partisan?
@Jack – I know you well enough to know you didn’t intend to lie there, but what you said is untrue. I did NOT say NDCC may back a slate in 2019. I said NDCC now has bylaws that allow it to endorse in non-partisan races with a 90% vote of both the executive board and the membership.
Having the possibility of endorsing individual candidates as opposed to putting up a slate are very different.
@George – The HR process is the same, it just includes an additional final voter ratification step given the change is associated with the composition of the council initiating it.
@John — I think you may have Johnson’s out of ward % off? Seems high? I’m away from my spreadsheets. Lynne came within 3 voter’s choices out of 2000 of beating long time incumbent Susan in the ward and strongly beat Marcia in the ward. This has allowed this example to be excluded from all commission and LOWV analyses.
In the Ward 3 race you cite, Ted did disproportionately well citywide where signs, name recognition from past races, and of course his good work and long service to the city, played a larger role. While the candidates raised similar amounts of money, its striking that over a quarter of Ted’s campaign funding for that race came from a single activist family ($2000) and over half from 4 families. This is all transparent http://ocpf.us and acceptable; it was just very surprising to me prior to joining the world of campaign finance awareness via my treasurer role in http://newtondemocracy.org
@Bryan –I didn’t see a difference between “may back a slate” and “may endorse several candidates in non-partisan races”. I suppose “back” implies direct financial support, so noted and apologies for brevity.
I wasn’t aware it required 90% approval from full membership. How many votes from Newton 85000 residents would you expect that would typically entail?