A strongly worded letter released this morning and signed by seven city councilors, including the two mayoral candidates, opposes the Home Rule Petition that is docketed by another 14 candidates. This suggests that even if the petition passes the city council, it may run into trouble with the new mayor, no matter who the city elects.
October 2, 2017 NEWTON, MA – Last Monday, 14 of our colleagues docketed a measure to reduce the city council from 24 to 16 members. This is a separate proposal from the charter commission’s, and it would only proceed if the people rejected the charter commission’s proposal on Election Day. As a Home Rule petition, it would require approval of the city council, mayor, and state legislature.
We oppose this measure. It was put forward without analysis or public comment and it muddies the waters ahead of Election Day. Voters deserve a clear choice on the charter commission’s reforms, which are the product of two years of public input and careful deliberation and which go far beyond reducing the size of the city council.
Irrespective of whether we support or oppose the charter commission’s proposal, this measure confuses public deliberation and undermines the integrity of the city council.
We urge our constituents – on both sides of the issue – to provide public comment at City Hall at 8PM on Wednesday, October 4th.
The city council should stay out of the way and let the voters have their say.
Signed:
Susan Albright
Jake Auchincloss
Deb Crossley
Ruthanne Fuller
Ted Hess-Mahan
Alison Leary
Scott Lennon
What’s interesting to me is that the letter doesn’t oppose the petition on the merits, but the process by which it has been handled. The opposing comments here on Village 14 tend to lean the same way.
Signers are Councilors Susan Albright, Jake Auchincloss, Deb Crossley, Ruthanne Fuller, Ted Hess-Mahan, Alison Leary and Scott Lennon.
Question:
Legally speaking, Is it too late for CC to alter their recommendation – Reducing the size of the council in a way that includes one councilor per ward voted exclusively by the ward?
Even though there are other points in the CC proposal I don’t agree with, I would be happy to Vote YES, if that point in the proposal was altered.
It seems that most agree to a smaller council, it’s just the method to get there that has sparked quite a lot of public contention since this was announced back in the spring.
It’s heartening to see members of the City Council speak out so clearly on this.
@Mike. I don’t believe they can amend it, but I also don’t think they should. The CC spent 18 months researching and deliberating. Anyone who wanted to attend those meetings and offer feedback were free to do so. Just because people are complaining about something at the last minute doesn’t mean they should change it.
This is a process, we are deep in the process. We need to let it play out.
This is entirely disingenuous, and it twists the intent of the majority of the City Council when it proposed the alternative reorganization plan. The intent was to be informative and offer an alternative that would follow a “No” vote, so voters would not be put in position of making a false, binary choice between the current bloated City Council and the anti-democratic, flawed proposal put forward by the Charter Commission. Councilors Lennon, Fuller, Albright, Auchincloss, Crossley, Hess-Mahan, and Leary are doing the voters a disservice by telling the majority of their colleagues to “stay out” of this democratic process and misleadingly trying to cast this decision as only a “bad current system” vs “bad Charter Commission proposal” proposition. What’s more, by making insinuations about the intentions of their colleagues, these seven councilors open themselves up to be questioned about their own motives. Never a good idea. Let’s stick to the merits of the proposals.
@Jerry, the Charter Commission rejected this proposal on its merits. 16 is still way to large. 2 reps per ward still allows duplication of effort and redundancy. 44% of the Council not answering to you is less democratic than what you have today. Newton has a small geographic footprint and we all live our lives in more than one ward.
@ Ralph, Newton’s City Council / BoA has tried and failed 12 times in the last 40 years to downsize itself via home rule petition. The 14 co-docketers are encouraging voters to vote No and hold out for a council of 16. The home rule petition is very unlikely to succeed. The timing of the HRP is questionable, at best.
@Ralph Renalli – Hmm. I think you have that backwards.
This election day we do indeed have a strictly “binary choice” Yes or No on the proposed charter. Regardless of which way the vote goes, the City Council can always proceed with a Home Rule petition in the future on any matter they choose.
Trying to convince voters that there is a 3rd choice on election day is misleading at best. “Vote no and we’ll shrink the board in the future, I promise” is a proposal designed to undermine the charter commission vote by the public.
Starting to get interesting, as RF will lose in Nov. by not going at least to neutral gate, capturing change momentum of AS base. Setti needs this ‘YES’ more than ever for next years gubernatorial; a ‘NO’ win will seriously affect his stump.
Hard to say what RF is either seeing or not seeing, as these are all her endorsers with SL going along for Sett’s baton.
@ Jerry
Respectfully, you just put words in my mouth. No one, including me, is saying there is a third option on election day. It’s saying there’s life after a “no” vote. Read more carefully next time.
@ Rhanna
Respectfully, the timing of the proposal isn’t questionable at all. It’s perfectly understandable. The Charter Commission failed and forced everyone’s hand on the “No” side by coming up with an undemocratic, flawed plan that will skew Newton politics badly in favor of moneyed interests. I would have been happy to vote for a plan that included some purely local representation, but the Commission blew it. I’ve commented on this issue many times in several forums and I have yet to have a “Yes” backer address that issue in a substantive way. Care to try?
@Ralph Renalli
Yes, you did not say “there is a third option on election day”. – my apologies.
I would say though that there is no “false binary choice”. The choice on election day is indeed a binary choice. If there is a “false choice” it would be the implied promise by the Council that we will be guaranteed an 8/8 council if we vote
NO on election day. There is no such guarantee and history and common sense would suggest otherwise.
Bravo to our seven councilors for taking this step!
The years-long, voter-sanctioned, charter review process and the commission’s recommendation deserves the opportunity to evaluated by the public on its own merits.
I hope Programs and Services Committee votes No Action Necessary on the Home Rule petition so as to remove this from confusing voters prior to the the election.
In 2002 I actively spent time and money in working to defeat that ill-advised “please-save-our-ass-we spent-too-much” David Cohen/Jeff Young override because of the impact it was going to have on seniors and what myself and others felt would lead to some having to leave the city. To this day I remain disgusted by the tactics of the ‘Yes’ side of the time including an 11th hour ‘letter’ and similar dirty tricks against their well-meaning fellow citizens. When I think of the tears in the eyes of those election night who realized they had been crushed by selfishness, I find it hard to forgive and forget.
With a somewhat familiar feeling, I don’t feel comfortable with what’s happened here with the 14. Even if it ‘helps’ an issue I feel passionately about, I’d prefer letting the mechanisms in place run their course. Basically, I didn’t like it when it happened to me and my neighbors, and would prefer surprises not happening to others.
If the 17 pro 8/8 optioners back off at this time, this will most suredly default to the head nod for SL. Trying to figure what RF’s team is thinking – they obviously are missing, or are being duped.
For me, this entire discussion is a Red Herring. The real issue is what the Commission was trying to fix, and why, and does their proposal address this?
In my view the Commission was hopelessly biased from the start with a fixed set of goals already in place…
Yet the issues of benchmarking Newton’s staffing and experience levels, gap analysis between Newton and successful comparison municipalities didn’t get much, maybe any focus. Our issues go beyond the makeup of our City Counsel, its size, and selection process.
We need to reject the current proposal. Then we need a new Commission with different membership to go back and do the job correctly.
Harry, with all due respect, I can’t tell if your posts are troll comments or real comments. How would it benefit Ruth or Scott to back the proposal? To win over Amy’s voters? I’m not following your logic, probably because most of your posts are meant (I think) to be humorous. Do you have any proof Ruth is losing? I really have no idea.
Anyway, as I’ve stated before, this for me is all about integrity. The charter commission was elected. There were dozens of folks running, these 9 got chosen. It took years to get the matter on the ballet. The council never cared to vote on a Home Rule petition for many years. Even some of the supporters of the Home Rule petition acknowledge that the timing is “unfortunate”.
All these facts are true.
I hope the yes vote on the charter prevails. If it doesn’t, let me offer a prediction on this Home Rule petition. It will disappear. One roadblock or another will suddenly appear. No one will own it and fight for it. Emily will wash her hands of it, so will the rest of the council. It will never make it up for a vote. Even if it does, the mayor won’t vote for it, having publicly derided it here. Even if he or she has a change of heart, it won’t pass the city.
It is all certainly possible. But unlikely enough that I’ll gladly place a wager on the path (or lack thereof) above.
But the folks pushing this ill conceived petition know all that. This is a political move. I’m glad this letter calls them out for it.
Once again, on this comment, and here and many times before this, Fignewtonville proves why he is the Yoda of Village 14.
Greg, I’d prefer to be the Chewbacca of Village 14. And from the various up and down ratings your comment received, I’m pretty sure folks both agree and disagree in equal measures.
Let the Wookie win, people. C’mon now.
Michael Slater is right.
The reduction in size of the Council, however implemented, will result in poorer services to citizens trying to get coordinated and responsive services from the city government and will weaken the necessary Checks and Balances that should be part of any American government system. I will vote No as a citizen on November 7 on the proposed Charter and No on the alternative as a Councilor because I feel based on decades of experience as a citizen activist and elected official that the interests of the people will suffer if either of these measures passes.