As Village 14 reported earlier, the City Council has proposed an alternative way of downsizing itself: To a 16 member council, via the arduous home rule petition process.
After much debate both here and in a multitude of emails to the Council about the timing of this proposal, tonight the Council decided to defer action until after the November 7th election. The item will be heard by the Programs & Services Committee at their next meeting after the election, on Nov. 8.
An excellent decision! Let’s see what happens in November, and move forward from there.
More importantly, the Programs and Services committee will not even take this proposal up until after Election Day, so as not to unfairly influence the vote on the proposed Charter Amendment.
It is still beyond me why the Chairman of P&S was so adamant about taking this item up immediately and holding a public hearing before Election Day. Even Councilor Gentile, who is strongly opposed to the Charter Amendment, thought that everything about this Hail Mary pass just 6 weeks before the election really stinks.
Lenny told it like it is last night. All protestations to the contrary from the co-docketers notwithstanding, those of us who voted against referring this item to committee saw this for what it is: a naked attempt to influence the outcome of the vote on November 7 by muddying the waters. And if Councilor Gentile is correct, it may well backfire.
I hope this action informs voters that there is no guarantee that voting no will result in anything except the status quo.
I appreciate those councilor’s who listened to voters and recognized the last ditch effort to get a no vote on the charter for what it was – a travesty to interrupt the ongoing democratic process.
Just one of the bumps that this HR Petition would hit. These 14 councilor’s won’t even get to vote to move the legislation forward if it doesn’t come out of Programs and Services with a yes recommendation – not that it will probably even make it that far.
These tactics solidified my yes vote. My Ward Councilor, Emily Norton, spearheaded this effort. She is an example of a Ward Councilor who wants what she wants and will use any means necessary to get it – regardless of her constituents opinions on the issues or the democratic process. My 2 ward-at-large councilor’s are not co-docketers. They listen to all voices not just a minority.
The right decision. Thank you Councilor Gentile taking a leadership role.
As expected, Council backing off, ‘NO’ base defaulting to SL win as lesser of 2 evils, game/set, RF still has Hail Mary op, football season brings strange tailgaters, where do I get me one of those candidate bottle openers?
I’m proud to have voted against the alternative Charter Amendment to cut the size of the Council just as I’ll be proud to vote No on the Charter itself because it will cut the quality of services to the citizens and reduce the Checks and Balances on the power of the Executive that should be part of any American charter or Constitution.
What a pleasant surprise form a group whose actions usually reflect feeling rather than thought.
@Elmo,
You are singing my song!
😀
Scott at Angier today, when asked if NO prevails, would he sign on in support of the City Councils’ 8/8 kicker.
Yes, he stated, as heads turned.
And Ruthanne didn’t answer what was posed as a Yes/No question. If anything her answer seemed to muddy waters even more
Surprised that moderator didn’t press her to answer Yes/No
But not really sure if heads turned or not.
@ Claire
Are you referring to the question about whether she’d support a vote for 16?
Because she did answer that as far as I can remember. She doesn’t support it because it would change ward representation from 1/3 to 1/2.
Instead she offered a different approach that should be explored. 8 at large councilors, and 4 that would each be elected by 2 wards. To me this seems to be an interesting compromise that deserves exploration.
@Patricia Loewry the question was very clear. IF the Charter is rejected (NO wins) will she support advancing deliberation the 8/8 alternative.? The biggest objection of the 8/8 alternative is that it muddies the water and so that has been addressed by punting it until after the vote. So why can’t Ruthanne give a clear answer to what was a clear Yes/No question irrespective of offering yet another alternative. With all due respect, she dodged the question
Timing is everything. Charter question drawing more footprints to the election gate than mayorship question. For a candidate to not recognize and seize on the potential would lead to defeet.
Halloween clincher a comin’?
Claire, Can you explain what you feel is wrong with RAF coming up with a different, thoughtful approach to this question? The Charter Commission spent a year and a half deliberating; a group of councilors tossed together a proposal as a last ditch effort to stop the Charter Commission in its tracks. Don’t we deserve a more thoughtful approach? Thank you, RAF, for NOT giving in to this tossed-together rebuke of the hard work of the Charter Commission.
In 2012, residents of the City of Austin, Texas voted to approve a charter amendment which changed the structure of their City Council makeup from a 7 member at-large Council to a 10 member Council elected by districts plus 1 – a Mayor that is elected at-large: https://austintexas.gov/department/10-one. This position was supported by their League of Women Voters: https://lwvaustin.org/blog/page/21/.
@NativeNewtonian. My issue was it was a Yes/No question and she just seems incapable of answering Yes/No. If she is throwing out other options, fine. I’m a NO so I am all for that as I do want to see a smaller city council I just don’t like this plan. When you say, “don’t we deserved a more thoughtful approach”, more thoughtful than what? I’m all for exploring the 8&8 plus any other idea. If she had said yes IF the charter question is defeated she is open to looking at a number of alternative options including 8&8.
Claire,
This inststance is one time taking a stand and projecting into the future without furthur study is not a good idea. Fuller did not give a yes or no answer for several reasons I’m sure. She deals in facts and this fact doesn’t exist right now. She’s willing to let the charter vote play out without any interference. She doesn’t want to discredit the work the CC did.
Lennon stating he would sign the 8/8 coucil configuration is sending a signal to the No on the charter supporters. Vote No and you’ll get what you want. Now I understand more fully why Sangiolo endorsed him.
Of course, there’s not one iota of guarantee that the 8/8 council docket will ever pass.
@ Claire,
I’m not sure where you’ve been for the last 2 years, but the charter commission did “explore 8&8 plus any other idea”. We rejected the council of 16 because it is a very flawed model, and because it did not have broad public support. It will not pass in a citywide vote, and Emily has stated that she won’t work on the Vote Yes campaign to try to make it pass. None of her 13 co-docketers have said they would work to get it to pass, which is not surprising since they are mostly on the record as preferring 24.
Ruthanne chose not to dignify this “option”. It is not an option, it is a ruse.
Rihanna:
Could you please explain:
“We rejected it (the 8 + 8)because it is a very flawed model?” It seems to be perfectly balanced representation. What is the “flaw?”
Also, I just heard that it is possible that all of the non-resident representatives could potentially be voted in from the same ward. Is this true?
Thanks.
I get the ward councilor argument, But this whole four “non-resident representatives could potentially be voted in from the same ward.” is such a red herring. Is it possible? Is it likely? Well mathematically yes but realistically, does anyone really believe it would ever happen?
But even if it did come to pass, it would have to be because Newton voters city wide decided those were the best four candidates.
And why should anyone be opposed to letting voters choose their elected leaders?
@Rhanna “I’m not sure where you’ve been for the last 2 years, but the charter commission did “explore 8&8 plus any other idea”.
In all honesty, I was not paying attention as I would speculate many other Newton voters weren’t. But now I am as many are. We shall see how the vote comes out.
I will say I sense a bit of pompousness among the YES contingency as if those of us are NO just not understand. Don’t take not paying attention before to not understanding now. I totally get that there are likely NO votes in CC motivated to preserve their seats. But that are also NO votes among the citizenry motivated to preserve of representation.
“The Austin-area League of Women Voters says it now supports the “10-1” plan for geographic districts for the Austin City Council.
The plan, supported by single-member district advocates Austinites for Geographic Representation, would create a city council comprised of members representing 10 individual districts, with only one member – the mayor – running city-wide. Currently all council members are elected city-wide.
The League of Women Voters spent a year studying how city council members are elected, and looking at what happened in other large cities that changed from an at-large system to one that was fully or partially district-based.
League president Stewart Snider says the league decided to endorse the 10-1 plan because it thinks the change will benefit voters. He tells KUT News that the proposal “will increase civic participation, and we think it will get people closer to their elected representatives on city council.”’
I’ve asked Bryan P. Barash this question many times, but he never responds. As such, I’ll ask again: Can someone please show me a single example of a city that 1) moved to an all at-large elected council and 2) saw a correlated increase in civic participation or diversity of thought/representation/anything?
Link: http://kut.org/post/austin-league-women-voters-endorses-10-1-geographic-representation
Does anyone know if a video is available yet of yesterday’s Charter debate?
Greg: Speculation aside, I’d like to know if it is a potential outcome before judging it. So, if anyone could confirm or deny this, that would be appreciated. Thx.
Bill, yes it is possible. It is also possible that Donald Trump will start putting the interests of the American people ahead of his own ego.
@Bill, as I understand it, under the proposed plan, 4 of the at-large councilors have no ward residency requirement. So, yes, it’s absolutely possible that these 4 councilors could live in the same ward, which means 5 of the 12 councilors would be from one single ward. A bad idea.
Honestly, Scott to me seems completely weak here. He was a strong yes for charter reform, except he is willing to entertain the 8 plus 8 option, which is a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
As for Ruth’s 4 plus 8 model, hey, what do you know, that’s exactly what I was hoping for months ago. That said, while I’m glad it got airtime, it doesn’t really help much to endorse it now.
But I’ve got to say, Scott’s dog whistle for the no crowd makes me less likely to vote for him. It isn’t a litmus test, I just prefer my politicians to be less…well…politician-y. Generally the politicians who try and appease everyone appease no one.
Rhanna wrote: “Emily has stated that she won’t work on the Vote Yes campaign to try to make it pass.”
#FakeNews! I will absolutely work to get the 8-and-8 model passed. It shouldn’t be too hard since a majority of the City Council agrees with it. My guess is most citizens do too. In fact I’ve already reached out to our State Legislators about it.
Re the likelihood of 5 out of 12 councilors all coming from the same ward, I will just point out that the Charter Commission was elected all at-large, and 6 of them come from 2 wards. (In fact 2 of them live across the street from each other.)
OMG!!! That’s outrageous!!! And were they cloned from the same cells too? Because I know lots of people whose neighbors are quite different from them. In fact, all you need to do is drive across the city today and you’ll see very different groups of lawn signs across the street from each other!
That is, 6 out of 9 Charter Commissioners come from 2 wards (for those who didn’t remember how many there are)
Bill – And all 5 are going to come from Waban!! Oh, wait, there isn’t one city councilor from Waban under the current charter and there hasn’t been in the 10 years I’ve lived here. Two live in Upper Falls and one in Newton Highlands.
Nor are there any councilors from West Newton Hill which covers Wards 2 and 3. All three Ward 3 councilors live north of the Pike in the more affordable section and the three Ward 2 councilors live both north and south of the Pike, but not in the very wealthy section of West Newton Hill.
And look at Ward 1 – all three councilors live in Nonantum and not one lives in the wealthier section south of the Pike.
Look at the facts. There’s been way too much fear-mongering in this campaign and not enough clear thinking about the reality: where our councilors tend to live.
Greg: Thanks for the clarification. If it is mathematically possible, then it is possible. Nobody can predict whether this would get exploited that way or not, but it does point to a structural design failure. Why invite such externalities when it could be avoided? Now, not later, is the time to get these things right.
@Bill: The “externalities” would be this thing called voters. They would be the ones who would decide each election day who they wanted as their councilors.
It’s a radical concept, I know.
Greg: Voters select from choices provided. Externalities are unanticipated outcomes. Ergo, voters are not externalities. However, if not appropriately-structured, a flawed system of voting may produce an unwelcome number of unhelpful externalities. The argument here is whether this proposed system provides the ability to make those selections in a way that arrives at equal and appropriate representation.
@Bill: So why you’re saying is, if Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, FDR and JFK all live in one ward and Richard Nixon lives in another, you’d want Nixon to get one those four seats rather than allow voters to choose the four best.
Why?
@ Bill Brandel,
It is both mathematically possible, and nearly mathematically impossible.
54 out of 56 cities in Massachusetts have some portion of the city council elected this way–it’s a popular feature for a reason. It’s understandable that people in Newton don’t understand how these seats work, since we have no experience with them.
As part of the commission research, I spent time calling city clerks in cities with truly at-large councilors and asking anecdotally whether this “concentrated in one ward” was ever an issue. They all thought the question was odd. “They don’t represent a ward, so why would that matter?”
@Emily,
The charter commissioners were elected from 6 of 8 wards. All but wards 7 and 8.
You said on this blog, “And there will be no need for anyone to run a ballot campaign; an 8 and 8 model is what the voters prefer…”. I inferred from that statement that you do not intend to fund raise, hold house parties, put up yard signs, or canvas in support of the 16-member model.
Meanwhile, the 8 and 8 model was not well-supported by residents who gave feedback to the charter commission (at our 7 public hearings and 38 meetings with public comment). The city council proposed it without holding one single public hearing, so I understand why the 14 co-docketers don’t understand how little support it actually has.
@Rhanna ” It’s understandable that people in Newton don’t understand how these seats work, since we have no experience with them.”
This is exactly my point in my previous post. The Charter Commissioner and more than a few of its supporter always chalk the NO voters to just not understanding. It is VERY condescending!
I get that you put a lot of time and energy into your work, but it will get put to a vote and the people will decide.
Emily – Where are you getting your information that “most of the city agrees with me”? I was not invested in any particular composition of the council and would have happily voted for the one that people could rally around. It simply didn’t exist and your saying so doesn’t make it so.
Your entire life may be wrapped up in Ward 2, but that’s not the case for most people. Please be honest about the bare bones facts of who the members of the Charter Commission are. We are not cardboard characters who have just a ward residence:
-Bryan Barash lived in Ward 1 when he was elected and moved not even a mile from his old apartment to one in Ward 2.
-Howard Haywood lives in Ward 2 north of the Pike and has been closely associated with Myrtle Baptist Church.
-Brooke Lipsett currently lives in Ward 2 but lived and represented Ward 1 as a member of the City Council, and currently serves on the Zoning Board of Appeals in a position that requires her to review issues throughout the city,
– Karen Manning lives in Ward 2 and is closely associated with the Underwood School in Ward 1.
-Anne Larner lives in Ward 3 and served in a citywide position for 16 years.
– Josh Krintzman lives in Ward 4, Lower Falls, and I may be wrong, but one of his kids goes to school in Ward 8
-Chris Steele and I live in Ward 5, west of Chestnut St. and his daughter goes to school in Ward 8
-Rhanna Kidwell lives in Ward 6, her kids go to school in Ward 2..
-I currently live in Ward 5 east of Chestnut St., but spent most of my waking hours for 20 years in Ward 4 (Burr School) North of the Pike. I also lived in Ward 2 and 4, and my kids went to school in Wards 1 and 2.
Thanks, Rhanna. I think you hit on two important points:
– I would guess that a lot of us are just unpacking this proposal now. And yes, it is very different. Not a bad thing by itself, but it is important for the uninformed to get informed. So, I do appreciate those who support the YES vote who can shed more light than heat.
– Second, is that we do have local ward representation in Newton. It is something that some undetermined number of us feel is an appropriate and meaningful level of representation. And, I think it is worthwhile to debate the merits of this representation structure.
So again, thanks for the information. And while I don’t agree with the new structure, I very much appreciate the time and effort that you commissioners put into this effort.
@Bill Brandel,
Thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to understand this important issue.
Just to follow up on your earlier question about how the 16-member model is flawed…
16 is way too big by any measure. Our peer group’s average city council size is 10. The average city council size across the country is 6. The Model City Charter recommends a council of 5 to 9 members.
2 representatives per ward builds in redundancy and duplication of effort. The standard is one representative per ward.
The 16-member model would increase the influence of ward councilors from 33% to 50%. Our research showed that both in theory and in practice, vote trading and bloc voting are serious risks. With ward councilors making up only 33%, we haven’t experienced this downside of ward councilors. Imagine a council where almost half are not accountable to you…that would be a radical shift.
The charter commission started with a blank slate. No one would start from scratch and design a 16-member council with two reps per ward. The model of 16 comes from starting with 24. Just because we’ve had an extremely dysfunctional model for 120 years does not mean we should be stuck with a moderately dysfunctional model for the next 120. Let’s adopt a strong, best practices model now.
As I’ve said, the 16-member council was not broadly supported by the public. The City Council docketed it without holding a single public hearing, so they would have no way to know that. It would not pass in a citywide vote. Most of the co-docketers prefer 24, so they would be fine with that outcome.
People can legitimately disagree with the charter commission proposal. But the only viable alternative is 24.
I disagree with this: “But the only viable alternative is 24.” To me, it seems the 8 by 8 proposal was created because the Yes campaign was promoting the idea Newton only has one opportunity to change its charter. As in, if you don’t vote Yes you will never see a reduced council or any charter changes. Which struck me as now or never pressure tactics.
There are many improvements that were not taken up by this charter – like longer terms (4 years) with staggered elections (only vote for half the board) and ranked voting – which I see as more beneficial than term limits, which could throw out a perfectly good counselor that voters want for an abstract reason – time.
If we vote YES the implication is the Charter won’t be examined again for 10 years. And we will have changed the charter in a way that increases the costs of elections and reduces the diversity of opinion. If we vote No, it seems to me, the opportunity to get a better Charter is stronger. The downside, staying with the Charter we have, I prefer to increasing the cost of elections and reducing the diversity of opinions.
@Jane: My entire life is NOT wrapped up in Ward 2. A couple years ago I went to Trader Joe’s and it was ok.
Thanks, Rhanna, for the analysis. I apologize in advance for this post length.
This proposed structure would be a dramatic change from what we have today. It begs the question of: Why are we changing the Charter? This City has no crisis. Our schools are excellent, our bond rating is strong, neighborhoods safe, real estate values are through the roof. Unlike most other cities, we boast a number of attractive villages, schools, parks and fields, which anchor community life for most of the City. One would think that most other municipalities would swap places with us in a heartbeat (perhaps we are on to something). So, understanding that there could always be improvement, what is the practical problem that we are trying to fix with this new Charter?
I appreciate your model regarding the power equation. So, who wins and who loses with this new model? No matter what model is adopted, the voter’s power will be 1/n of all voters in any election, which would be a miniscule fraction of 1%. (Besides, the bigger issue is always turnout). Per the proposed model, it does, as you note, increase the power of councilors. The trade-off, of course, is that it does so at the expense of eliminating ward representation and accountability, the existence of which I believe is tied to our village and community preservation.
Over the last few years, we have seen councilors from outside a community attempt to eliminate village library branches; impose their concept of traffic regulation; push development projects, dog parks and affordable housing, etc. I am not against these things; any one might be beneficial to the City at large, and each should be considered on its own merit. However, it points to the tendency of “at-large” councilors to impose their will on communities in which they do not reside. What is their risk? In these instances, who speaks for the impacted village or neighborhood? Who is held accountable? How do you get to the best possible outcome if all sides are not given voice?
Government exists for many reasons, which include providing the public a voice against strong interest groups. The public is not simply defined as everyone in Newton; it also consists of the sub-groups and individuals. The City at large and the smaller communities should each have a voice. And until we arrive at a new governing structure that provides that voice, I think it would be a mistake – particularly with no pressing reason to change – to adopt a model that eliminates that representation and inherent accountability.
Sorry again for the long post. And again, thanks for all you have done in this effort. However the vote goes, I hope that you continue in this effort to improve City government.
So how likely is it that an election under the proposed charter would result in all 4 “Councilors Who Can Live Anywhere” residing in the same ward? It’s certainly not “nearly mathematically impossible” — as has been claimed. The probability of all 4 living in one ward is 11% (=4 of the 35 ways to distribute 4 people among 4 wards). In another 34% of the cases, one ward would get 3 “Councilors Who Can Live Anywhere.” (These numbers do not include the additional Ward Councilor in each ward.) Of course, elections are not random. Whoever is constructing slates might do so in a way that avoids these cases of concentration. 😉
4 0 0 0
0 4 0 0
0 0 4 0
0 0 0 4
3 1 0 0
1 3 0 0
0 3 1 0
0 1 3 0
0 0 3 1
0 0 1 3
3 0 1 0
1 0 3 0
0 3 0 1
0 1 0 3
3 0 0 1
1 0 0 3
2 1 1 0
1 2 1 0
1 1 2 0
1 1 0 2
1 2 0 1
2 1 0 1
2 0 1 1
1 0 2 1
1 0 1 2
0 1 1 2
0 1 2 1
0 2 1 1
2 2 0 0
0 2 2 0
0 0 2 2
2 0 2 0
0 2 0 2
2 0 0 2
1 1 1 1