The main editorial in last week’s Newton TAB expresses concern about the Charter Commission‘s proposed revision of the City Council to be 8 ward-resident Councilors plus 4 other Councilors, all elected city-wide. The editorial states that eliminating Ward Councilors (elected by their wards) is not in residents’ best interests. Instead the TAB supports an alternative plan put forward by 14 City Councilors that would also reduce the size of the Council but would retain representatives elected by each ward. This alternative calls for 8 Ward Councilors each elected by their wards plus 8 At-Large Councilors elected city-wide. The City Councilors’ alternative would be pursued only if the Charter Commission’s proposal is not approved by voters in the November 7 election. It would then follow a Home Rule petition process requiring approval by the City Council, the Mayor, the state legislature, and finally Newton’s voters.
Titled “Reducing City Council’s size… sensibly,” the TAB’s editorial says in part: While not perfect, we think the City Council’s plan is a far better option because it would preserve exclusive ward representation. In other words, councilors elected by the ward, for the ward. This system of government has served the Garden City well since the late 19th century, ensuring that each section of the city has a representative directly accountable to its residents… and their specific needs. An entirely at-large City Council, regardless of residency requirements, would not do that.
As we stand at the road fork of municipal future, both sides passionate of their vision, optioning for a life after Nov. 7th. Heated arguments might that be of the cases, so much so that the mainstay of class struggle becomes a secondary landscape. For what effort would serve as a lingering angry resentment post election, would there be universal healing toward unification of loving municipal embodiment? So easy is the opposition to criticize, yet might there be a peacemaker among us?
Both mayoral candidates are passionate for their embodied cause, sustainability of goodness in spirit -the ‘neutral gate’ is before us ready to bind both sides in progress, noble are the causes, respectful of the intended heartened result.
Will one of the candidates recognize and give of themselves for that future, sacrificing for a healing, bettering of community?
The neutral gate awaits.
The City Council / Board of Aldermen has attempted this route and failed 12 times in the last 40 years. This petition is not a viable path to downsizing the Council.
In reporting on this “breaking news” last week, the Tab failed to question the likelihood of a home rule petition ever being enacted. The HRP goes through lengthy legal process, during which it could stall out at several different points. Then it requires a vote from the citizens of Newton…another Yes/No campaign fight. The No side opposing a council of 16 will be highly motivated. I personally don’t want a City Council where 44% of the members are not accountable to me…that is a real loss of democratic power.
Many of the 14 co-docketers have argued for years that we need 24 councilors. If the charter commission proposal is voted down, will they put in all the time and effort required to get this through? They don’t really want it…it’s just better than a 12-member council.
After November 7th, Newton have a City Council of either 12 or 24. Those are the only two choices.
With a council of 12, you are guaranteed to have one councilor from your ward to advocate for you. With 24…well you already know how that works.
“With a council of 12, you are guaranteed to have one councilor from your ward to advocate for you.”
I don’t believe I’ll be ‘guaranteed’ anything. The numbers for this proposal work against such a made-for-TV claim. Whereas now my ward councilor is beholden to me and my immediate neighbors of about 7,000, under the proposed rule change, this person will be concerned with the wishes of at least 50,000 voters.
The reality of these numbers, (and basic human nature), quite simply, work against this proposal and make it less democratic.
Any concerns I express to a “ward” councilor will be mathematically swamped by this person’s understandable concerns of larger interests and the greater number of people. This leads to a diffusion of responsibility, and most importantly, less justice and time for the least economically empowered among us.
@ Mark,
When it comes to ward-specific issues, your councilor will only be concerned with your ward. He or she won’t be taking the lead on an unsafe crosswalk in a different ward.
If a representative who answers only to your ward is the only thing that makes the city council work for you…if that is the cornerstone of democracy…then why do we marginalize this type of representation in Newton? Today, your ward councilor gets 1 vote of 24…they can control 4% of the outcome of any vote. Our current system gives the ward councilor almost no power at all…hard to understand how that one person makes the government more democratic.
For me, the 12-person council is more democratic because all of the councilors are accountable to me. Just one example…I live in Ward 6, but my teenagers go to Newton North, and they are in Newtonville (Ward 2) every day. If the councilor from Ward 2 is being ineffective or unresponsive at improving an unsafe crosswalk in Newtonville, I would like him or her to be accountable to me on that.
@Rhanna,
All fair points, certainly worth the pondering. Since 1992, I’ve thought 24 were unwieldy for the reasons we’re both alluding to: diffusion of accountability and responsibility.
But among my other objections is the belief that this has gone too far in the other direction. Okay, not 24…but 12? Half??? I believe and trust that everyone on the commission did their homework and came to their conclusions honestly. (Well, all but one of you, at any rate). The net result, however, looks like something attacked with a blunt ax instead of a scalpel.
Rhanna wrote: “When it comes to ward-specific issues, your councilor will only be concerned with your ward. He or she won’t be taking the lead on an unsafe crosswalk in a different ward.”
That’s the beauty of our system – he or she doesn’t HAVE to take the lead on an unsafe crosswalk in a different ward, because the Ward Councilor in that other ward will do so. In fact I have numerous times had people from outside ward 2 complain to me about something in their ward, so I raised it with the ward councilor from their ward and it got dealt with.
@ Mark,
RE: the size of 12, our logic was this…the 20 biggest cities in Massachusetts have an average city council size of 10. The Model City Charter recommends a council of 5 to 9. We are not likely to have another charter commission in the next 46 years. We should get it right…not live with a somewhat unwieldy structure just because we currently have an extremely unwieldy structure.
We had testimony from 2 councilors from Everett, which downsized its city council from 25 to 11 in 2011. (Coincidentally, they adopted a council with 6 councilors elected from wards, citywide, and 5 councilors truly at-large.) One of them served for decades on the 25-member council and serves now on the 11-member council. He also served on Everett’s charter commission and entered the commission thinking that the city council did not need to change. He was unequivocal that the smaller council has been a huge improvement for Everett.
“In reporting on this “breaking news” last week, the Tab failed to question the likelihood of a home rule petition ever being enacted. The HRP goes through lengthy legal process, during which it could stall out at several different points.”
We literally *just* went through this for the name change from “Alderman” to “Councilor”. It was not lengthy and did not stall out; note we are called “Councilors” now.
Are you really trying to equate the state legislature voting on gender-neutral language to the state legislature voting on a city council’s composition? And the gender-neutral language did not go to voters–it did not require anyone to spearhead a ballot question campaign.
Our City Council / BoA has made many minor modifications to our charter by home rule petition. And they have failed 12 times at downsizing themselves via home rule petition.
Emily,
Surely you recognize the difference in complexity and controversy between the HR petition to change the name of the aldermen to city councilor and the one to change the city council composition. It may be the same process but the changes are entirely different.
Ms. Norton’s comments here should be taken as a reflection of her general appreciation for the complexity of the issue at hand. If she truly understood the issue and really respected the voters of Newton beyond the one’s in her ward, Ms. Norton would have either (a) lead the effort to reduce the size of the CC years ago or (b) allowed the current process to play out before introducing this proposal. That she has done neither but chosen the current path speaks volumes.
This move by the City Council is without a doubt the weaseliest action I’ve seem them take in the 10 years I’ve lived here.
Regardless of what any of us think the ideal size/makeup of the City Council should be, we all should be concerned that the City Council is trying to undermine the Charter vote by muddying the waters a few weeks before the election with this cynical move.
Should the Charter vote fail, the City Council could of course take up a Home Rule petition to shrink the board however they so choose, just us they could have last year, or the year before, or the year before, or after the electorate repeatedly voted in support of shrinking the board years ago.
The fact that they only introduced this resolution a few weeks before the Charter election, and the fact that it is supported by Councilors who have clearly said their preference is to retain a 24 member council makes it clear that the intent is to undermine the entire lengthy Charter Commission process.
Shame on you all.
Thinking ahead to either 12 or 24, what committees would the councilors recommend be disbanded? Or joined together? Or would they recommend fewer councilors required to be on the various committees? And how much time would there be to institute these new suggestions? By what method would these modifications be made?
@Jane: Excellent questions. Many city councils in other places have fewer committees, hold fewer committee meetings and they typically don’t last as long. Other councils do much more of their work, especially on complex or controversial issues, as a committee of the whole.
For obvious reasons, committee of the whole is not an effective way to work through complex issues in a 24 person city council.
I’m really shocked and rather disturbed that the Tab fell for this.
Oh my God, a city councilor who has to be accountable to the city…..the HORROR!!!! lolol
Jerry wrote: “Should the Charter vote fail, the City Council could of course take up a Home Rule petition to shrink the board however they so choose, just us they could have last year, or the year before, or the year before, or after the electorate repeatedly voted in support of shrinking the board years ago.”
That’s exactly what we’re doing.
The language of the docket item reads, “COUNCILORS BROUSAL‐GLASER, BLAZAR, CICCONE, COTE, DANBERG, HARNEY, KALIS, LAPPIN, LAREDO, LIPOF, NORTON, RICE, SANGIOLO AND SCHWARTZ requesting that if the Charter Commission proposal is not approved by voters on November 7, 2017, the City Council seek Home Rule Legislation to amend the City Charter to change the composition of the City Council from 16 Councilors‐at‐Large and 8 Ward Councilors, to 8 Councilors‐at‐Large and 8 Ward Councilors. [09/25/17
@9:03 PM]
See the bold. It only moves ahead if the Charter Commission proposal is voted down on Nov. 7.
BTW – I should leaven the opprobrium with a clear shout out to those councilors who are clearly on record as NO on the new charter yet refrained from joining this turn-over-the-gameboard-if you-think-you-might-be-losing move by the council.
Brian Yates, Lisle Baker and Lenny Gentile come to mind. There may be others that I don’t know about so feel free to call them out for kudos if there are.
@Emily Norton – Yes, I quite understand what the docket says. I do believe you’re being a bit disingenuous here. If not, I’ll explain it more clearly.
The charter process has been a big undertaking, unfolding over years, with an elected body of citizens taking on a big task – i.e. to review the current charter and propose an updated charter.
In a few weeks the citizenry of Newton will be asked to vote Yes or No on this new charter. A good case can be made for either vote. In fact, up until recently I wasn’t certain which way I was going to vote myself.
Suddenly, at the 11th hour (OK 10th), the City Council introduces a bill BEFORE the election to try to muddy the water, and convince the voters that there are three choices on election day – not Yes/No. Rather than trust the voters to make up their mind on the merits, the council is trying to send a message to the electorate that if they just vote No to the new charter, the council will shrink the board (differently) on their own – something that can in no way be guaranteed by anyone at this moment, and something that there is a heap load of evidence that many councilors are not really in favor of.
The time to enact that proposal was long ago, or after election day. The fact that the person most vocal in defending the council’s action is the same person leading the charge against the new charter speaks volumes.
Trust the voters. Let them vote on the proposed charter on its merits.
As I said previously, don’t turn over the game board because you are worrying that you may lose the game.
Emily, here’s a serious question for you.
Why would voters trust you to push forward the HRP if the charter question loses? To my knowledge, you’ve been on record over and over again as opposed to cutting the size of the Board…then the charter question would have to lose, which means this issue won’t be in front of the voters for another 40 years (most of us will be in a wheel chair or dead), why should the voters trust that you will all of a sudden decide to push the HRP through??
Please don’t answer well, I’m doing the will of the people. The will of the people didn’t matter to you last year or 5 years ago, so no one will buy that line. What’s your motivation to get it done, when you oppose it and it doesn’t have to get done???
Here’s another serious question to all 14 sincere co-docketers of this item. Several months ago, on this very blog, I asked if there was any councilor who would get up and docket an HRP and no one answered the call….dead silence. Why all of a sudden did you all change your minds???
It’s kind of a shame that all of the other good measures (imo) in the revised charter proposal might fall victim to this one highly contentious issue of council makeup.
This was totally expected, as previous earlier 24 set Boards have seen this type of related activity. ‘Charter’ type motions are explored in numerous parliamentary type actions. Jerry, call me later in the week, I’ll give you strategy sets to come. Don’t get your feathers in a fluff – not worth it at this point.
@Harry Sanders – I do like these fluffy feathers 😉
So were there public meetings that were announced so that all 14 councilors could communicate on this docket item? Just wondering (genuine question) how it worked to avoid any violations of OML….this seemed to come from nowhere and I’m wondering what the process was.
Sue asks an interesting question. I hope Councilor Norton or one of the other docketers will respond.
The signatures were gathered for the Charter Commission with the stated purpose of reducing the Council size. Eliminating Ward Councillors was never mentioned as even possibility. Granted, many people likely never imagined that anyone would try to get rid of Ward Councilors… But they were wrong.
With virtually no debate, ignoring all input…the Commission chose the one thing that people truly actually care about as the first things to dispose of.
This was is a bait and switch. The TAB recognizes it for what it is…a really bad and wrong idea.
I’m enthusiastically voting NO in order to keep our Ward-elected Ward representation intact.
Saying a residency requirement is the same… is simply an attempt to obfuscate the reality and counts on the uninformed to stay that way.
Huh? How could any person of average intelligence or better not realize it was a “possibility”?
If the council was to become smaller there’s only a finite number of ways to slice it.
@Rhanna — “When it comes to ward-specific issues, your councilor will only be concerned with your ward. He or she won’t be taking the lead on an unsafe crosswalk in a different ward.”
Can you clarify how the 4 non-residency seats councilors will behave with regard to sidewalks? Will they delegate crosswalks and other “local” concerns to the councilor next door who happened to seek a residency requirement seat as their election method gives them a different role? As you known, at best, half the wards of the city will have 2 councilors, while the others have 1.
I may be wrong, but on a previous thread, Ted Hess-Mahan said that he was not aware of the 14-member maneuver. Were all 24 Councilors notified about this action? If not, how did this docket item come to be? Is this action in keeping with the OML?
This is truly a low moment for the Newton City Council. My issue with the City Council has been the way in which the structure inhibits effective actions on the part of capable individual Councilors, not with the Councilors themselves. This action undermines the trust and faith the residents have that the City Council, as well as a majority of the sitting Councilors, will act transparently and with a respect for following established processes. Call me naive, but this just shocks me.
This will dog the City Council for years to come.
Jane H. asked the really good questions about how the workload of the Council is to be handled under the proposed new Charter. No good answer was provided because no real thought went into it. Rote review of ‘”Best Practices” or model charters is no substitute for careful analysis of the what the City Council really does and how it could be done differently. Special Permits could be dispensed by the Planning Board (which can’t make quorums at all its meetings) or the Zoning Board of Appeal which is buried in the 40 B threshold arguments. Does anyone think these unpaid city boards who are not accountable to the voters are up to this task?
How are the smaller number ofCouncil members going to exercise the Checks and Balances on the Executive Department that any American government should have?
How are the smaller number of Councilors going to provide services to the citizens.?
These basic questions have not been answered by the Charter Commission or their fellow travelers. The people should vote no on Election Day.
Thanks to Jerry Reilly for his kind words about me, Lisle Baker, and Lennie Gentile.
Please keep in mind that we are all no Votes on the Charter.
Charlie:
You keep speaking as if you speak for the majority. But many of us care a lot more about being able to vote on all candidates than we do about our ward councilors. the “one thing that folks care about” Charlie? Ward councilors aren’t even in my top 5.
I completely understand that it may be your number one issue, but I think most folks care a lot less than you think about the ward system, especially since wards are so arbitrary.