This just in from the Yes for A New Charter Campaign
Mayor Setti Warren announced he will be voting yes on the ballot question in November. The question to amend the city charter would reduce the city council size from 24 to 12 members, impose term limits on the mayor and city council, and modernize the city charter.
“As Mayor for the past 8 years we have worked hard moving Newton forward, but I know we can accomplish more. The voters have a chance this November to make our local government more effective by voting to reduce the size of the city council while maintaining ward representation, implement modern reforms, and codify regular 10-year reviews of the charter. I’m proud to support Yes for a New Charter because it’s the best choice for Newton,” said Warren.
In 2015 79% of Newton voters approved the formation of a commission to review the city charter and elected its 9 members. The members of the Charter Commission served the City of Newton throughout a review process intended to modernize and improve local government. The Commission unanimously voted on April 27, 2017 in favor of the proposed charter. A yes vote would adopt those changes.
Setti Warren was sworn in as Mayor of Newton in January of 2010. Mayor Warren guided Newton to be one of a few select municipalities to earn two AAA bond ratings and a rainy day fund approaching $20 million. While under Setti’s leadership, Newton’s innovation-based economy has been reinvigorated. The city has slashed its carbon footprint while investing in housing, transportation, and infrastructure projects that reduce inequality and strengthen the community. Mayor Setti Warren is an Iraq war veteran and also worked in the Clinton White House. A lifelong resident of Newton, Setti lives with his wife Tassy and their two young kids, Abigail and John, in the home where he grew up.
The Board of Directors of the Newton-Needham Regional Chamber also endorsed the charter this week, here’s our statement:
CHAMBER URGES ‘YES’ VOTE ON NEWTON CHARTER
“The Newton-Needham Regional Chamber’s Board of Directors voted unanimously, with one abstention, in support of Newton’s proposed new city charter at its Sept. 20 meeting.
“The board believes the revised charter would be vastly superior to the city’s current city council configuration and make City Hall more efficient, more diverse, more accountable and more responsive to new ideas.
“Newton’s current configuration of 24 city councilors is too large, often dysfunctional, and has at times been beset by cronyism that stood in the way of initiatives that would have benefited the city’s economic and cultural vitality. The proposed new 12-member council would establish a smaller, more efficient body of representatives elected city-wide who would place the entire city’s needs above everything else.
“The proposed revised charter before voters is the result of a thoughtful multi-year process, extensive deliberations, a review of best practices and public hearings by a commission elected by voters in 2016. It does what a municipal charter is supposed to do — which is to ensure responsible and responsive governance for future generations — not benefit current office holders, including those who have ignored past citizen votes to reduce its size.
“The chamber opposes a proposed Home Rule petition that has recently been proposed as an alternative because, while it reduces the council’s size, it gives voters less say in who their elected leaders would be and ignores term limits and other thoughtful reforms recommended by the Charter Commission.
“The chamber urges Newton voters to vote yes on the adoption of the revised city charter on Nov. 7.”
Thank you Mayor Warren!
I so appreciate that although he’s extremely busy running for Governor, he was still willing to speak out in favor of moving Newton forward.
“I so appreciate that although he’s extremely busy running for Governor…”
Isn’t he supposed to be extremely busy as Mayor?
Smart move…for himself. He’ll need all the big dollar contributions he can get.
The TAB got it right. Voting NO is the right move, if you value truly local representation.
http://www.newtondemocracy.org has good info.
Interesting point:
Amherst Mass is in the same place we are, finalizing a Charter Commission.
They offer their citizens, “a 13-member council, with three members elected by all voters and 10 elected from five distinct neighborhoods. It provides many ways for residents to participate in government.”
Why is Newton bucking best practices?
They will also revisit the Charter in five years. This allows them to tell voters that they are not married to the results forever. If you don’t like everything in the charter, we will continue to work on it.
Why does it seem so hard here?
@ Terry Malloy,
“Why is Newton bucking best practices?” So what is your source for best practices? The Model City Charter, published by the National Civic League, is widely considered the definitive on city government. It considers our proposal a best practice.
Perhaps people in Amherst are looking at Newton right now and saying “Why is Amherst bucking best practices?”
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/70907
Setti went around promoting the reduced representation change way before the charter came to its conclusion.. No surprise he is endorsing it!
I guess best practice is in the eye of the beholder.
“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.”
@Emily: Thank you for pointing out that geographic districts are the best practice in forming a city government. That’s why we included local representation in the proposal, as you well know.
Of course Setti endorsed the changes. He had a direct hand in shaping the changes. He wants Newton completely transformed to his vision of the future. So many of the best department heads left over the past 7 years because they disagreed with the wholesale destruction of historic Newton. Why is Setti giving up as Mayor? Because there is strong community opposition to his terrible plans for our future. How weak is that? He can’t stand any opposition. Of course this new Charter will destroy our city as we know it. Just look at the developer Bob Korff buying up land along the Washington corridor. He has a green light to transform the corridor into a high rise housing mecca regardless of residential opposition. Of course Setti endorses the new Charter. He wrote it.
Bryan – “That’s why we included local representation in the proposal” by this do you mean someone living in Newton as opposed to Boston or Brookline?
The proposed new charter removes locally elected representation and replaces it with all city-wide elected representation. It centralizes power.
Emily,
Did you not really research the proposed change in Everett, Washington, or are you trying to mislead people?
Everett WA is a city of 50 square miles. They have a council that is all truly at-large with no representatives from districts. Certain large, less wealthy areas of the city never have a local person elected to the council. The average size of each proposed district is more than half the size of Newton.
Under the charter commission proposal, you are guaranteed to have someone who lives in your ward serving on the council. Just like you have now.
Newton is 18 square miles. The average size of a ward is 2.25 square miles*. In the proposed charter, the councilors from other wards are also accountable to you. Do you shop or worship or walk your dog or ride your bike or send your kids to school or soccer practice in a different ward from the one you live in? Good news…the councilors from those wards are accountable to you for addressing issues such as traffic or public safety that affect your daily life.
*Wards are set by population, not geographic size, but the variation in size is not huge.
I’m all in on this one. Time and perspective really does provide clarity.
Our “local representation” was
nonexistent for years. Our “local” elementary is a cluster of modules, and nearby Needham St is a mess.
I support John Rice, but too many years of neglect and antipathy by Newton Villages Alliance favorite Ward 5 alderman Christine Samuelson has left us way behind the eight ball.
The president and leadership of the Newton Highlands Area Council are Samuelson era devotees, so there’s no change there. It’s time to return the favor.
Time to “fundamentally transform” the city. Had our “local representation” spent more time or interest in all of Ward 5, I never would have voted for this. As a 45 year resident of Newton, I would never have even considered this previously.
There’s nothing left to lose in this area.
The horse has left the barn.
@Rhanna – To be fair, the document you referenced lists several options and doesn’t pick one in particular, unless it’s in a different section.
These are the options listed on page 34, with the comment that the specific choice depends on local conditions:
1 – Election at large
2 – Election at large with district residency requirement
3 – Mix of at large and single-member district
4 – All single-member districts
5 – Proportional representation
It’s worth noting that the charter proposal’s composition is not one of the five listed above, it’s a hybrid of option 2 and 3. Could you elaborate why the commission went with this approach rather than one of the five listed in the document?
Thank you for asking, Patrick. I’ll describe what was the general consensus in the end.
Our proposal combines 1 and 2. After studying them all, we felt like 2 was very well suited to Newton. It guarantees a representative from each ward. It also makes councilors from other wards accountable to you as a voter. We are geographically small and ward lines are arbitrary…they cut through neighborhoods. They don’t divide the city into meaningful regions.
We thought 8 councilors would be a radical change from 24. We considered alternatives that would enhance the 8 councilors from the wards. We ultimately decided that adding 4 truly at-large councilors (MCC option 1) would strengthen our local democracy. Seats that are geographically unrestricted allow you to run for office if you have a strong ward incumbent. Those seats tend to be contested in every election, so those councilors are more accountable than someone who holds a ward-based seat for years with no opponent.
Rhanna-
Amen! You got that right.
Ward lines are VERY arbitrary.
I’ve been trying for at least 10 years to get answers from city hall and various
councilors etc as to where EXACTLY Ward lines are. No one knows, and more tellingly, no one WANTS to know. This squishy, mealy mouthed
approach has led to a canabalistic, every ward, every district approach for itself abuse of local government. Providing a loophole this big, that is a tempting tool for manipulation is not acceptable.
There are streets that are within the Newton Highlands area council that are clearly outside of their purview,
yet there are considered within their
service area. I think you will be or already have been shocked by the size and areas that are considered to be within a council area.
It’s a sleazy, cynical approach to local governance. The larger the service area, the more voters within that service area and the bigger the voice and more power. The drive for exclusive historic districts have made use of these larger council represented areas to push their agenda.
@Bryan — See my comment to Sue Flicop in other thread. As the Everett LOWV points out, “representation” is election BY the district, not FROM the district.
@Rhanna — If you model a city as a circle, 50 square miles equates to ~8 miles across, while 18 square miles equates to ~5 miles across. So 3 more miles makes it an entirely different animal? 8 miles without congestion can mean 8 minutes. 5 miles with congestion can mean over 30.
Re: model — so you are confirming that the proposal is not enumerated in the model charter; that our situation here in Newton is SO unusual that they didn’t think to enumerate it as a best practice?
The model charter is also adamant that all city councils be odd numbered. Again, our situation is SO unique to not to follow that practice?
There are 3000 cities in the USA. How many use a “best practice council” that matches this proposal exactly? The extensive research must have surfaced many identical best practice councils?
Obviously neither the CC or HR proposal match the model charter recommendations (and both are even) , but the HR is a balanced combination of options 2 and 4 and not a radical idea (75% of mass cities have majority ward representation compared with equal balance here. .
Everett, WA is different from Newton, and has more economic inequality, but Newton should be modeling a progressive city government that works for all, both here and elsewhere. I don’t think Lowell, MA’s voting rights act situation is going to be resolved by adding ward residency requirements; it will ultimately involve ward-elected councilors, which will leave Newton in the even small minority of <3% of Mass communities with all at-large representation if the CC is not voted down.
Vote No. http://newtondemocracy.org
Another benefit of moving to an 8 and 8 model is voters will have a fewer number of candidates to choose from. With the Charter Commission proposal, they have 12 options. With an 8 and 8 model, they only have 9.
@Emily: I wish you would stop giving voters the false hope that a 16 member council is an option. You filed a docket item at the last minute because you want the ballot question defeated.
You can’t promise voters that it will be passed by the council, signed by the mayor, passed by the legislature, and then it goes to the ballot. Who’s going to run the next ballot campaign, you?
I wish we could’ve let the voters pick which council configuration they prefer, but that wasn’t how the Charter Commission process works. The choice is a 24 person council or a 12 member council.
@Paul Green: Christine Samuelson was a Councillor (Alderwoman) way before the NVA was founded by a group of concerned residents wanting responsible development and she was not involved with the NVA. We were (and still are) concerned about zoning ordinances not being respected, the FAR being too high, allowing MacMansions and the loss of many trees, as well as new developments changing the architectural character of neighborhoods with their tall stories.
@Bryan, I have spoken to one of our State Representatives about it. You might try that before making baseless accusations. The change from “Alderman” to “Councilor” went through this exact process. You’ll note we are called “Councilors” now. Just as there will be 16 of us after this process is over. And there will be no need for anyone to run a ballot campaign; an 8 and 8 model is what the voters prefer, as we know from votes going back 20 years.
We have no idea what people want based on the two referendums. I voted Yes because I wanted the city council to be downsized and because it was nonbinding, I was able to vote in support of the concept. However, I absolutely did not support the specifics as it related to the size or composition included in them.
If the referendums had been binding, I would have voted No on both. This is nothing more than a
self-serving ploy to save your own position, and you are not fooling anyone.
Emily,
Really?? You honestly know that the majority of residents want an 8 and 8 configuration?? Wow you must be out talking to people 24/7. Good for you!! We will never know if people want a 16 over 12 since they are never going to be in opposition. IF the 12 model doesn’t pass, you will have people like me vote for the 16 model, but if I had to have one or the other I prefer the 12. And there’s lots of people that I have spoken to, that feel the same way.
Also, if the charter loses, there could be other reasons for the loss. For instance, many people still don’t understand the ramifications of their vote. Some people even think that the charter talk is still about charter schools, so they will vote against it.
Unfortunately, I suspect, if the 12 model doesn’t win, the 16 model will never make it to the ballot box.
Tell you what Tom and Jane… take a break from attacking me and come door knocking with me. Or hang out with me outside the Newtonville Star Market. That way you can judge for yourself.
Emily,
You’re on. When they get both sides of the story, maybe they can make an informed decision.
Emily,
Last thing. I’m not attacking you. I don’t blame you for trying to save your job or having a viewpoint on the issue. I am questioning certain comments that you are making. Peace.
So…Emily, you do realize that Jane has spent the last 2 years hearing feedback on this exact topic as an elected official? In public meetings and emails, all in the public record. Not in private conversations at the Star Market. Not while she knocked on doors and opened the conversation with a statement about how the charter commission proposal will result in large condo developments in all of Newton’s parks.
Interestingly, the feedback the charter commission received does not coincide with what you are hearing.
“There will be no need for anyone to run a ballot campaign.” Thank you for being very honest about the fact that if you succeed in convincing Newton residents to vote down the charter, you will wash your hands of the whole thing.
@Rhanna — did I run over your dog? If so I’m really sorry. @Tom: Just sent you an email to schedule our door knocking. Will be fun! I’ll post photos to Twitter so all can see it happened 😉
Lovely comment from an elected official to a member of the public.
Emily,
We’ll have some fun!!!
@Rhanna: I guess you got a whole lot more correspondence back from residents since I made my request for your emails and correspondence because I do not believe there were any comments made about eliminating Ward only representation. Will the Charter Commission share your updated information?
I’d be really interested to see that feedback as well. Not that it matters – we know the Charter Commission came into the process already decided to eliminate local representation, in fact we have it in their words: “we had unanimous agreement on this council from day 1 that we all thought the entire city council should be elected at large.”
@Isabelle-
As a member of the NVA, you already know, or should, that the NVA was FOUNDED BY AT LEAST TWO ARDENT CHRISTINE SAMUELSON SUPPORTERS who share her vision of what THEIR Newton, or THEIR neighborhood or THEIR village should be, everyone else be damned. The NVA was not formed by a group of “concerned”, independent, naive, do gooders. The shameful hypocrisy and NIMBYISM of this group continues the legacy of
Samuelson whether she was involved in it’s creation or not. Unfortunately,
living in a city means eventually you will have skin in the game, whether you want to or not. It sounds like your ward, district etc is the next man up,
and your neighborhood is no longer on
a sheltered island. I’m pretty sure you’re a Wabanite, right? You would be surprised what “irresponsible”projects leading members of the NVA have supported in the past, but I suspect you already know what those are also.
No, Emily, you didn’t run over anyone’s dog. You merely assumed that you’re the only one with a sense of what people in the city want. For people who’ve spent hundreds of hours talking with voters throughout the city for two years, that’s galling. Do you really think that the members of the charter commission haven’t been talking to any and everyone we come in contact with about this and other issues for the past two years?
So no, none of us are engaging in the inane behavior you accuse us of. We’re speaking our minds about an 11th-hour political maneuver – led by the head of the No vote – that’s intended to save her position. It’s nothing more than that. If you really wanted to attend to the will of the people, you could/should/would have done it at any time over the last 4 years and you didn’t. Instead, you chose to wait until 6 weeks before the election to use the Home Rule Petition ruse as a cynical political ploy to get residents to vote the way you wanted them to.
I’m sorry that the councilors who believe the council shouldn’t be downsized and did not sign onto your docket item are being dragged into this.
Amy – As you know, you can request the information you want at any time. All emails are public documents.
@Jane wrote: “Do you really think that the members of the charter commission haven’t been talking to any and everyone we come in contact with about this and other issues for the past two years?”
I can’t speak to your process, but I can tell you I really think most people don’t like the proposal you’ve come up with. But happily it’s not up to what you or I predict, the voters will get to decide.
Emily, to add the appropriate context to your sound bite…Day One was April 13, 2016. That was the first meeting where we deliberated city council compositions.
By Day One, we had held two public hearings with feedback on the city council and two panel discussions with city councilors from Newton and other cities. We had also read the recommendations of the Model City Charter and reviewed a research packet.
At our first deliberation, on Day One, we all agreed that a council with no ward representation would not be right for Newton. And we all agreed, based on our research, that Newton would be best served by having all councilors accountable to all voters.
@Rhanna: The group had decided at the outset there would be no more ward councilors, it’s in your own words. Boston has 9 district councilors, 4 at large. Framingham just become a city and went with 9 district councilors, 2 at large, and made their School Committee seats elected by districts. They also conducted research in the process of determining their new structure and came out in a very different place. There is a reason 75% of Mass cities have majority ward-elected city councils. What the Charter Commission is proposing is not best practice, it is an extreme outlier.
How about the idea that should NO prevail, Emily would not run for ward councilor next time around, and instead run for an at large seat, thereby speaking to her motive.
If for instance I were a person on the Charter Commish making the rules of municipal organization, I would certainly not look to stepping immediately into those rules which I had just had a hand in creating.
Ethics defined by state rules of conduct are not always translated by accurate public perception.
Emily, would it literally kill you to just wait until the people vote instead of deciding you know what they want? I can’t even count the number of times you’ve presumed to know the will of the majority.
I mean, why don’t we just make you dictator if you’re so certain that you know exactly what the voters think and the rest of us mere mortals have to wait until they tell us at the ballot box?
@Bryan: Perplexed as to what you’re talking about, I will be waiting for the results at the ballot box, just like everyone else. (And anyway I would not want to be a dictator, philosopher queen more my style.
@Harry: I don’t want to run citywide. Citywide seats are expensive and time consuming, which means people who are not wealthy and/or connected, and have to work for a living, are automatically at a disadvantage. With a ward campaign I was able to knock on every door and actually meet voters, while holding down a day job and with 3 kids at home. If we move to an all at-large system, we are going to be limiting the pool of candidates to those who are more well off, connected to existing power structures, and able to raise or self-fund large sums. That’s not the Newton I grew up in.
Reminiscent of 2010’s Coakley v. Brown – Nov. 7th will decide whether this is Setti’s seat or the peoples’ seat..
@Rhanna – “to add the appropriate context to your sound bite…Day One was April 13, 2016. That was the first meeting where we deliberated city council compositions.”
Article 2 hearings started on March 30th. On April 13th, with limited discussion, the commission voted 9-0 for a 100% at-large council. That is a 2-week process. Not a 2-year process. Not a multi-year process. A 2-week process.
In April 2016, the Commission had the privilege of interviewing current and past city officials from Medford, Everett, and Waltham. One councilor really stood out to me. His name was Anthony DiPierro, a student who defeated an incumbent to earn a seat on Everett’s council.
I talked w/him after the panel. The campaign tool he used to earn his citywide spot was Facebook, which is free. Other tools that are available for all candidates~ “wix.com” for a self-designed website, Staples online printing (500 business cards for $10), mailchimp (free for “x” number of users or less), etc. He must have been very busy meeting his obligations for school, but obviously he could campaign flexibly and let his sites do a lot of the work . (click here to donate! click here for a lawn sign!)
I do not think it is productive to generalize about individuals’ economic status or life situations. I have always observed a mix of backgrounds with our elected officials and candidates.
Our OCPF data reflects a very mixed picture. Several of the Charter Commission members have been well known for decades and raised/spent nominal amounts, and no one raised extravagently. A ward councilor who is well known can easily raise as much money for an uncontested race as a newcomer in an at large race. If the race is particularly competitive, then there will be spikes. We all know there are many variables at play.
This is an emotional election for all of us with something at stake. Hopefully we can stay civil and respectful to each other during these last weeks before the election.
Karen – Emily is not generalizing. She is repeating what the research finds – a move to citywide from ward/district elections makes the average elected official whiter and wealthier.
There are always exceptions to the rule (outliers). Mr. DiPierro may have been one. But there is no way to get around the fact a citywide campaign involves reaching 8 times as many voters as a ward campaign. This requires more time, more money, and/or more support from established networks (like the Democratic or Republican Party). This increases the costs and limits the pool of candidates. I’d rather have more diversity and less money in politics – on a local level (as well as state and national).
I’d just like to reiterate the deep respect I’ve come to have for Andy Levin and I say this as one who has been on the opposite of several issues since he came to Newton to toil for the TAB. He’s fair and he’s a straight shooter who will give space to those he may disagree with.
One thing we do have in common is that we try not to judge other peoples motives for why they do or say things pertaining to the welfare of this City.
This charter thing is getting a bit too heavy and we still have more than a month before the voters weigh in on it. I’m a firm NO on the Charter, but I’ve never believed that the members of the Charter Commission were trying to pull a fast one with their decision for 12 Councilors elected at large. I’ve worked with many of them on a variety of issues over the years and consider many of them friends. I just think they made the wrong call on this issue.
That said, I also believe that the proposal for a home rule petition on the 8 and 8 sixteen member Council was made in good faith by people who see the smaller, at-large Council as favoring the formation and election of powerful like minded slates . I’m also pretty sure that the 14 Councilors who support this plan will follow through on it. I personally favor keeping the current arrangement. Others who share this view are also acting in good faith. But again, we should stop questioning the motives of those we disagree with. If this keeps building over the next month, we might start resembling the national political scene. Not good.,
Lucia – As the data relates to Newton, every person of color at every level of our government has been elected at-large. That includes the Mayor, City Councilors, School Committee members, and the Charter Commission.
The only position in our city government that has never elected a person of color is the Ward Councilor seat. That’s not opinion, that’s not data from other communities. That’s our history. Newton’s history.
Another observation: open ward seats are virtually always competitive. Open at-large seats? Not so much. Even this election season Josh Krintzman is going to walk on to the at-large Ward 4 seat and Becky Grossman is going to walk on to the at-large Ward 7 seat, no opponents. Is it because voters in those respective wards literally agree 100% that they are the best candidates so not one person was willing to step up? Not likely. More likely anyone considering running against them realized what a steep hurdle it would be due to their name recognition and the knowledge that you can’t knock on doors to make the case for yourself. In fact we already have sitting at-large councilors who walked onto their seats too, Marc Laredo and Rick Lipof. There may be others but those are the ones I know of. In contrast, the only ward councilor seat I can think of without an opponent is John Rice.
If you like contested elections, you should want to preserve the Ward Councilor seat.
I have been wavering between “yes” and “no.” Last week I was “yes.” Emily’s post just switched me to “no.” She makes a great point. It also squares with the reality that at-large-elected officials live in much more expensive homes.
@Emily Norton –
what am I missing here. I just checked the Newton election site and it shows only 2 out of the 8 ward seats are contested. Yours is one of the uncontested ones.
4 of the 8 (8 of the 16) at-large races are contested
Jeffrey-The problem is that that information is inaccurate. In 5 of the last 9 election cycles, not one of the 8 ward councilors had an opponent. All 8 ward councilors walked on to their seats. Of the sitting ward councilors, the only time a ward councilors had a contested race was in their first election. Allison Leary is the only ward sitting ward councilor who has had an opponent after. Her first election. After the first election, ward councilors walk on.
At large seats are contested at a much higher rate than ward seats.
CC v. CC, they still have a play – will they option?
@Jane and Jerry — Emily is describing contested races for open at-large seats vs. open ward-elected seats. Because ward-elected seats tend to be contested when they open up, perhaps the winners in those elections tend to subsequently be challenged less.
I said “open seats”. That means there is no incumbent running. In theory those should be the most competitive. But in at large seats we have many with only one person stepping up. Why? Because anyone else who would think about running decides the cost and difficulty of an at-large race makes it not worth it against a well-known name.
I think ward seats are challenged less because ward councilors know they’re more vulnerable than at-large councilors so they work extra hard to represent their wards. Remember an at large councilor can even lose the vote in her ward yet still easily win reelection. Not so a ward councilor.
@Emily, Jack – thanks for clarifying.
On the more general point. i.e. ward seats are more often contested, this election would seem to contradict that. This election we have twice as many contested at-large seats as contested ward seats. As Jane Frantz pointed out above, that appears to be consistent with recent elections.
There are certainly other good reasons to preserve ward seats but more contested elections doesn’t appear to be one of them.
@Jerry I’m talking about open seats. There is one open ward seat in ward 1. It is contested. There are four open at large seats (wards 1, 3, 4, 7). Two of them are uncontested.
For those who may not follow politics closely, it is much easier to win an open seat rather than take out an incumbent. So you would expect to see contested elections during open seats, frankly every open seat. The fact that so many at-large seats are filled by people who never had to make the case for themselves to voters should be troubling to our citizens.
I just remembered another sitting at-large councilor who walked on unopposed – Scott Lennon when he ran in a special election for the open seat vacated by the passing of Carlton Merrill.
Yes, I do get it Emily – you’re talking strictly about seats when an incumbent steps down. Yes, if you limit the discussion to only those seats then yes there are more contested open ward seats -agreed.
My point was more general. In this and previous elections OVERALL there have been fewer contested ward seats than at-large seats. In this election, six out of your 8 fellow ward councilors are running unopposed (1/4 of ward seats challenged), while 8 of 16 a-large seats are running unopposed (1/2 of at-large seats challenged). That appears to be the same trend as in most recent elections – more contested at-large seats than contested ward seats.
Agree with @Jerry. I think people are looking for more contested elections. It seems as though many do not want to run against the Ward councilors because it is “his or her” seat. What swayed me towards YES for the charter is the term limits. That in itself will get more people to run and open seats as @Emily and @Jack highlight. Having councilors in seats for 20, 30 and in the case of Councilor Baker ,40 years…is not good for Newton. And no disrespect for any of the councilors as I am sure Councilor Baker does a great job, but we should not encourage “lifetime” councilor seats.
Jerry wrote: “My point was more general. In this and previous elections OVERALL there have been fewer contested ward seats than at-large seats.”
And to that I already responded above, “I think ward seats are challenged less because ward councilors know they’re more vulnerable than at-large councilors so they work extra hard to represent their wards. Remember an at large councilor can even lose the vote in her ward yet still easily win reelection. Not so a ward councilor.”
@Emily Norton –
Could be, but that’s a huge leap. There are plenty of other possible and more likely explanations (see Woody above) than “ward councilors work harder than at-large councilors”.
We can all come up with interesting theories of why, but regardless of the reason, ward councilor more often run uncontested than their at-large colleagues.
@Jerry: Do you agree it is possible for at large councilor to win re-election while losing the vote in her ward? And do you agree it would be impossible for a ward councilor to win re-election while losing the vote in her ward?
Emily – You’re conflating the data.
The fact remains, in 5 of the last 9 election cycles, all 8 ward councilors ran without opposition.
A second statement must also be refuted. All seats won by minority candidates have won have been at-large seats. We have had minority candidates elected to the mayoral, at-large councilor, school seats, and the charter commission. The only elected position that has never elected a minority candidate is the ward councilor seat.
@jane
What does it matter if, in 5 of the last 9 election cycles, all 8 ward councillors ran without opposition? Maybe the ward is satisfied with who is representing them. In a democracy, it’s really no one else’s business who runs and is elected to represent a ward.
If ward X consistently votes for an obstructionist, racist blow-hard, and no one runs against that person, so be it. I don’t think in a democracy we get to alter the ground rules for our own benefit.
@Mike,
The point is that the No side argues that seats are elected by the ward only are easier to obtain, and if we have a city council with no ward-only seats, we will be making it harder for the average citizen to serve.
Jane’s point is that the data does not bear that out. Going back through 2005, at-large council seats were contested 2.3 times more often than ward seats. If the ward-only seats are so much easier to run for, why don’t people go for those seats more often?
OCPF data also shows that ward-0nly candidates often raise more than at-large candidates. Ward-only seats are not necessarily cheaper.
@greg reibman
Elected official or not, it sure made me laugh …… ok, shame on me 😉
I’m still hoping that Councilor Norton or one of her co-docketers addresses Sue Flipcop’s question about how they coordinated their Home Rule petition in accordance with the state’s open meeting laws.
Thanks, Greg. I’m still waiting too, and noticed that conversation stopped on that thread once I asked that question. I’ve checked the OML guide and found the info below. If it was all done over the phone or by email, is that in a “serial manner?”
To be a deliberation, the communication must involve a quorum of the public body.
A quorum is usually a simple majority of the members of a public body. Thus, a
communication among less than a quorum of the members of a public body will not be
a deliberation, unless there are multiple communications among the members of the
public body that together constitute communication among a quorum of members.
Courts have held that the Open Meeting Law applies when members of a public body
communicate in a serial manner in order to evade the application of the law.
@Woody. I think we should thank our lucky stars that a tiny fraction of the City Council (Yates, Baker and Gentile) have been willing to stick around to provide what we loosely term “institutional memory” to newer members who may serve only two or three terms before moving on to other endeavors. There aren’t enough of them to hold things up and I don’t think they try to do so with any more regularity than other members. They don’t seek the limelight and are often oblivious to it. Every newcomer comes in with a passion to change things quickly and sometimes dramatically. It’s the old timers who can point out whether the newcomer’s “new idea” has been attempted before and what the results of that effort were. They may even help the newcomer avoid pitfalls that may have doomed past efforts. I saw the value of institutional memory in my own work with the federal government and I see it even more here at the local level in Newton.
Brian Yates is my go to guy because he’s bluntly honest about what he knows and doesn’t know. He also has a quiet but uncanny ability to draw on multiple references from the past to formulate how he thinks present developments will work out. He’s right far more often than he’s wrong. We shouldn’t be in any hurry to get rid of anyone who has had the perseverance to accumulate this kind of knowledge.
@Emily: “@Jerry: Do you agree it is possible for at large councilor to win re-election while losing the vote in her ward? And do you agree it would be impossible for a ward councilor to win re-election while losing the vote in her ward?”
It is exceedingly rare that it happens, but I find it somewhat ironic that 2 of those times elected supporters of the NO campaign: Amy Sangiolo and Brian Yates, both of whom wouldn’t be councilors right now except for at large voting. I would think you would say they have done a great job representing their wards since they were elected citywide (but not by their wards).
If you disagree, feel free to tell me how they’re doing.
@Woody — Note that term limits sometimes become term minimums, if people just wait out a seat vacancy. It should also be noted that of the 54 city councils in the state, only Matheun has implemented term limits. Furthermore because the term limit is not proposed to be implemented retroactively, the council may face a sudden extinction of council experience 16 years after implementation. Many see some upsides to term limits, but I wanted to point out some of the downsides in the proposal in the context the charter commission proposal.
@Rhanna — The commission proposal is not enumerated in the model charter. It is an experimental hybrid with no establish precedent that I’m aware of in the US.
@Greg — Both Emily and Rihanna are elected officials.
Minority candidates can benefit from both ward-elected and citywide seat constiuencies, but the voting rights act actions drive for need for a portion of councils to be elected BY districts, not FROM districts, By districts.
My apologies folks for being a bit behind, but reading these posts in full after some time away, it really strikes me this debate has really been defined by the “no” side. The issue of local representation, how it is defined, who defines it, and what its value is: this issue is that hard combination of fact and opinion.
It can be true that ward councilors are one definition of local representation. It can also be true that for some of us, having at least one city councilor have to live in our ward is enough on that front. Those are the facts, but the value placed in who defines local and if that “local” is local enough, well that is where we seem to be going in circles.
Ideally there would be equal talk about the other aspects of the charter. Because for me, those other issues are far more important. No discussion on this blog about term limits? Who will take on what tasks with a smaller council?
Instead we’ve got reams of comments on ward councilors, often by the same few folks, and reams of comments from the same 4 or 5 responders rebutting the arguments given. At this point, most of us on this blog have already dug in pretty deep, and frankly I’m not sure this debate between folks so invested in this process gets us very far. We are deep into the confirmation bias portion on a community debate.
Let me give an example that struck me from the comments above, regarding confirmation bias.
Emily Norton mentioned to Tom and Jane that “Tell you what Tom and Jane… take a break from attacking me and come door knocking with me. Or hang out with me outside the Newtonville Star Market. That way you can judge for yourself.”
I’m am 100% sure that if I go follow Emily around knocking on doors, a majority of folks talking to us will talk about voting no on the charter. Of Course they will! Emily, you are not an independent actor here, you are the actual face and leader of the no campaign. At this point, I’m betting that the majority of folks who disagree with you on this issue aren’t so invested that they want to get into a debate with the very person who leads the no campaign, and who will lose her job if the charter passes. I know I don’t (at least face to face). None of my neighbors do as well. Very folks in Newton are intentionally cruel. So you have no idea (absent indepentent polling) who really agrees with you or not.
So what you get is a self-fulling prophecy. It is a bubble of agreement. And it proves nothing except that it is human nature to look for facts that confirm the correctness of your position, and ignore other facts disproving your position. That is why many candidates for office are secretly hoping they will win despite bad poll numbers (“when I walk the neighborhood…everyone loves me!”)
I’m also sure if I follow Jane around, once she explains she is a charter commission member, she would be in the exact same bubble of confirmation bias. I do note that the situations are different in that Jane on this blog isn’t stating that she has her finger on the pulse of the city (and to come walk its highways and byways with her), instead she is stating that the commission tried to take that pulse through soliciting testimony and emails from the entire city. I’m sure some on this blog would say that the charter commission was in its own bubble, defined in the start to support a certain outcome. But from my attendence and following this issue, I give them credit for spending countless hours trying to figure out a path forward, and for at least in my view trying to come up with a plan that works for the city as a whole. I’m sure the no side would argue confirmation bias from the start (and indeed they have… the charter commission election was unfair due to a progressive list being elected, the league is progressive so they set the agenda, the charter commission is really just designed to get rid of those hated ward councilors)
So where does that leave us? With a lot of heat but very little light.
So no need to walk the ward with Emily. Or read through reams of email with Jane. My advice is simple.
Ask yourselves how often you access your ward councilor over the past 5 years.
Ask yourself do you feel you’d be able to access and discuss issues with a councilor who lives in your ward but is voted on city wide.
Ask yourself is my concern minority rights of voters in the ward vs. the city, or the ability to vote on every ward councilor. Do you want hyperlocal control or city wide voting rights?
Ask yourself do I want term limits on the mayor/council?
Ask yourself are the other items in the charter important to me or my community?
Each of us are going to have other key questions in that list. That’s just MY list. And my attempt to ignore confirmation bias and the two bubbles from the yes/no side. My answers won’t match your answers. And my vote may not match yours as well.
I’m voting yes based on my answers to those questions above. The answers aren’t as important as the questions, at least to me.
So my advice to the casual voter: Step away from the sign campaigns, the Home Petition October surprise/legitimate proposal, the accusations of dirty tricks and minds made up from the start. When there is more heat than light, it is too tempting to warm yourself by the glow. Read the summary of the charter. Decide how much the reduction of the size of the councel and the answers to the questions above mean to you based on your experience thus far with our local government. Formulate a few other questions for yourself. And make a decision based on that.
And for all that is holy, vote.
And after this is over, no matter which side wins, life will go on. The city will go on. We’ll have a new mayor and some new blood in the council. Perhaps they will find away to create a little more light, and a lot less heat.
Cheers to all.
Totally agree with Fig, except on one point.
People keep referring to the emails the commission received as being the primary means by which we gathered community input. It was not. Most emails came in clusters on one issue from one area of the city, expressing the same point of view. The commission would not be the first elected group – and won’t be the last – to receive emails that are generated by an “email campaign”.
I sought out people in as many venues as possible to have substantive conversations – the two farmer’s markets, every special event I heard about, community events of all kind, asked to have coffee with people who represent various advocacy groups, had coffee with anyone who asked to talk to me, tried to be present in all sections of the city, etc. These conversations were far more influential in helping me understand the ways in which the structure of Newton city government needs to move in the future.