Lost in the middle all the discussion about ward councilors and the proposed Newton Charter is any substantive discussion about the proposal to impose consecutive term limits on the office of mayor and city council.
Under the proposal, the mayor would be limited to 12 consecutive years (i.e. three terms in a row) and city councilors to 16 consecutive years (or eight terms in a row).
Term limits for school committee members remains unchanged at eight consecutive years (or four terms in a row).
In all instances, a person could take one election off and run again.
Do you like this idea? Dislike it?
*And let’s try an experiment here: Given that we have about a gazillion threads here about ward councilors, please limit the discussion here to term limits only. Comments off topic will be unpublished but of course you can still make those comments on other threads.
I put together a comment explaining my thought process behind supporting term limits but it was way, way too long. Take a look at it on my website: http://bryanbarash.com/term-limits-in-Newton
“I cannot support a charter that includes term limits for mayor and city councilors and would vote against it.”, Ted Hess-Mahan, 9/16/2016.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2016/09/16/should-newton-adopt-term-limits-for-its-mayor-and-city-council/st9aY72DAvrWd1gULg8EDP/story.html
I’m trying to understand Jack’s point too. How does the fact that Councilor Hess-Mahan has apparently changed his mind and now supports Charter Commission’s recommended charter support the No campaign’s narrative?
I agree with the Commission’s recommendations. I left the Board after 12 years, took 6 years off then came back. I feel that 16 consecutive years to serve on the Council is long enough to be effective contribute fullyI also agree that 3 terms as Mayor is also reasonable.
Jack-
You continue to take comments out of context, or a first reaction to a particular item. We all made statements that didn’t reflect our thinking on the total document at the end of the day.
You can spend your time going through the audio of each meeting picking out statements that were part of an individual’s thought process, but you need to let everyone make his/her decision about the total proposal. Ted’s made his case during the deliberations on term limits and on the total proposal, and those positions may differ. Quote yourself. Leave the rest of us out of it.
@Jane — this isn’t an offhand quote out of context. It is a published Boston Globe Editorial that Ted authored. Did you click on the link? Here is full context:
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies.” — Groucho Marx
“Like the League of Women Voters, I oppose term limits as anti-democratic because they deny voters choice, exclude experienced and knowledgeable public officials from serving, reduce accountability of elected officials in their final terms, and encourage “quick fix” solutions to long-term problems. Tellingly, the only member of the commission who ever served as alderman voted against term limits. And Newton voters hardly demonstrated a desire for term limits by repeatedly reelecting mayor Teddy Mann, who served for 22 years until his death, and alderman Wendell Bachmann, who served for 55 years — 24 as board president. The City Council chamber is named after him. And, significantly, incumbency does not guarantee reelection, as we saw in the most recent municipal election.
Citizens should have the right to elect persons they believe will best represent them. Wisdom, knowledge, and experience are far more valuable than “new blood,” particularly given the increasing complexity of issues confronting city government. The loss of institutional knowledge, in particular, would handicap decision making on issues like fiscal stability, long-term planning, and promoting housing diversity. Even though term-limited city officials would be permitted to run after a two-year hiatus, issues with citywide impact — like large mixed-used developments, financing, and building new schools — can arise at any time. Regardless of which side voters fall on these important issues, they ought to be able to elect a mayor and city councilors who represent their views to lead and decide those questions.
For these reasons, I cannot support a charter that includes term limits for mayor and city councilors and would vote against it.”
In addition to Ted’s well argued case above:
* Term limits often become term minimums, if people just wait out a seat vacancy.
* Of the 54 city councils in the state, only Methuen has implemented term limits on its council.
* Because the proposed term limit is not implemented retroactively, or in a staged manner, regardless of turnover, the council will face a sudden “cliff” of experience loss 16 years after implementation.
@Jack: This year’s elections don’t suggest term limits become minimums. This year there will be 4 new school committee members, 2 because of term limits, and 2 because people who are not term limited are not running for re-election.
I don’t believe in term limits. They manipulate the process. They are a motivated by greed, desire or contempt. Voters should be able to elecect who they want to represent them. Any argument to the contrary is irrelevant.
@Rick Lipoff
‘I feel that 16 consecutive years to serve on the Council is long enough to be effective contribute fully’
This comment makes absolutely no sense to me. If a counselor is effective and does a great job, after x years their constituency should elect someone different? … And there should be a limit on how long a person is allowed to contribute fully? I don’t get the logic in this at all.
Thanks, Jack, for telling me what I think and where I stand. Now, here’s why I will vote YES anyway.
I don’t like term limits. Nor did I like being told that after 14 years I had exceeded my “Sell By” date (at least, until the Charter Commission extended the term limits for Councilors to 16 consecutive years). But when I spoke to the many supporters of the Charter Amendment whom I have heard from, they overwhelmingly approved of term limits in order to promote competition and turnover. And I suppose they won me over, seeing as they get to vote.
And, truth be told, I do believe that elected officials ought to be be changed from time to time and for the same reasons as a baby’s diaper (albeit perhaps not so often; or maybe more often). Entrenchment leads to insulation and isolation from the the real issues that the public are concerned about. In short, I knew when it was time to go, although I freely admit that some of my colleagues probably don’t.
Let’s face it, if Newton maintains the status quo, incumbent schmucks like me can keep on getting re-elected until they carry us out on a board (unless, of course, we rob the widow’s and orphans fund or vote for parking meters in Waban). New blood, new ideas, young turks with no idea they have no idea, they all ought to have a chance to get elected and try to govern this unruly city.
So, stick that in your pipe (vape?) and smoke it.
By the way, not for nothing, but the argument I laid out in my oped was fecking brilliant. Unfortunately, it was not persuasive. But I cannot tell you how many times I have had the best argument in court and lost, or had the worst argument and won.
C’est la vie.
@Ted Hess-Mahan – I’m really beginning to like your lame-duckness.
Me too, Jerry. In 14 years, my wife never once complained about all the nights and weekends I was away from my family. But when I told her in January that I wasn’t going to run again, I turned around and then I looked back and saw her doing a little happy dance.
Welp, that will probably be the last time Jack quotes Ted.
Ted, I hope you continue to post here. Wouldn’t be the same place without you. And on one thing I do agree with Jack, thank you for your service to the city.
@Jack @Newtonville
Thank you. The pleasure was all mine (just ask my colleagues who have had to put up with me all these years).
Hey all, this morning I took down several comments related to a misquote on the blog. The author has been contacted and invited to repost with an accurate quote. When using quotation marks for another post, just make sure you do so word for word.
My original reaction was to edit the comment, but it was brought to my attention that we don’t edit comments, even quotes in comments. Apologies.
Hey all: Several comments were removed from this thread today related to a misunderstanding about our moderation policy. I see no benefit in rehashing the whole thing except to say that Village 14 does not edit others’ comments but we do reserve the right to unpublish them.
This is a volunteer blog and with tens of thousands of comments. Some times stuff happens. I’d ask everyone to move on; republish any relevant remarks related to term limits only; and continue to focus on the issues at hand.
Discussion of this matter is closed. Thanks.
In discussions with many residents over the 18 months charter review process, one area with broad support was the establishment of term limits on the city council and mayor. At the federal level, 75% of those polled favored term limits on Congress. The feedback I received indicated about the same level of support.
Years ago, the average length Aldermen served was 6 years, providing a healthy turnover rate on the Board of Aldermen of 30% with each election cycle. With this level of turnover, the council retains enough institutional knowledge, while ensuring that new people with new ideas and approaches are included in the mix.
In recent years, the turnover rate on the council has dropped to an unhealthy 15% in each election cycle. When citizens don’t see any path to entering the political process other than running against a councilor with very high name recognition, then interest in local issues flags, residents have a sense of being powerless, and frustration increases.
If you want to talk about something that is truly anti-democratic, then term limits would be a great place to start. In an age of universal suffrage, what is less antithetical to democracy than artificially limiting the choice a voter can have as to whom should be their representative?
Nonetheless, I look forward to voting for the new charter despite this flaw given the overwhelming good that will accrue from limiting the negative impact parochially minded ward councillors have on the development of Newton.
@Jane – It would better if you provided some context to your charge of me quoting out of context. I attended your key meetings. When someone misstated how the discussion proceeded, I pulled up the audio/minutes to confirm and share, WITH the associated context.
@Bryan – At 10:15pm last night you said: “@Jack: This year’s elections don’t suggest term limits become minimums. This year there will be 4 new school committee members, 2 because of term limits, and 2 because people who are not term limited are not running for re-election.”
Shortly thereafter, with your full comment sitting just above, I wanted to make the point that, on average, if the school committee recently had non-term-limited turnover, you wouldn’t expect 2 of 8 members to remain there to term limit out now. In order to focus on that weakness in your argument, I quoted you; using ellipses to indicate the omitted text: “This year’s elections don’t suggest term limits become minimums…2 because of term limits…”. Ellipses are the proper way to shorten a quote. Google it.
Now I can’t prove that’s what I did, because my comment doesn’t exist, as you used your apparent admin privileges on V14 to CHANGE it. http://newtonwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/revisionist-v14.png
After realizing this is not a common “practice” on V14, you deleted your revision, along with your comment above. Now that is a shame, because apparently, I said something nice about Ted.
I would just like to ask one thing.
Where in the free world is it even remotely OK for an elected official to embellish an electronic comment of a citizen with opposing political views without consequence?
I think I’ve more than said my peace on the charter on V14. I hope others will continue to fact check the commissioners. On to Nov 7th. – Jack
Is Bryan still a moderator on this blog? If so I’m wondering what one would have to do to have moderating privileges taken away. In 10 years of posting on this blog and previously the Newton Tab blog there have been quite heated discussions but NEVER have I seen or heard of someone’s post itself literally being edited by anyone.
If I decide to continue posting on here I’ll take screenshots of anything I post and encourage others to as well, as long as Bryan is a moderator.
@Jack Prior, Emily Norton – Yes. Bryan was absolutely violating the moderating rules of Village14 when he edited that comment. When he posted the comment it was picked up by other moderators, who rang the alarm about it. There was no disagreement or argument about whether or not this was allowable. It is not and Bryan definitely now knows it.
It was a mistake. He owns it and it won’t happen again.
Feel free to take photos of your posts until your confidence is restored that this won’t happen again.
Damn. I guess I should have taken a screen shot of Jack’s post. Now no one will know he said something nice about me.
Jack – The context I refer to covers months of discussion about a topic. An individual might have advocated strongly for a particular position on an issue in June and after receiving feedback over an extended period of time sees the issue through a different lens. I’m just one commissioner who changed positions on an issue after listening to input from the community and from other members of the commission. On the other hand, you look only at what was said at a particular moment at one meeting. I don’t consider that to be looking at context when discussions on several key items were held at different points over a period of months.
When you take quotes from an individual at a particular meeting and ignore the changes that may have occurred over time, you’re taking that person’s full thinking on a topic out of context. In addition, many people take issue with one part of the proposed charter and expressed it at one point, but see it as superior to the current charter.
Bryan P. Barash is an attorney, an elected official, and one of a select few individuals who have moderator privileges here on V14. That he would see fit to manually edit another persons post because he disagreed with it – and then go back and delete the evidence of his wrongdoing – is more than an innocent mistake. If he has served the Charter Commission in any type of quasi-legal capacity, as a fellow attorney, I would take professional issue with his clear lapse of values or judgment. In my opinion, but for the fact that he has managed to bring the discourse of this whole debate to a new low, Bryan should be held accountable for this.
I’m sorry folks but this is not a major political scandal. Somebody made a mistake, which in my humble view is not nearly as egregious as the efforts by others to exploit it for political advantage (which in of itself is silly because, really, the average voter doesn’t care about this; they’re just starting to learn what a charter is.)
Anyway, Jack, Emily and Tom have had a chance to air their indignation on behalf aggrieved humans everywhere. I am now closing this thread but not before noting that starting an all-volunteer, community blog is easy. Keeping it going, not so much. But I’d encourage anyone who wants to to try.
I think I’m a fairly informed voter and I don’t want to be told that a public official I respect and admire has been somehow term limited out of office. That should be decided by voters during each election cycle. I think it would have been shameful if Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank were term limited out of Congress because so much of their most productive work was done in the last years they held office. I also would not want to to lose the services of Ruth Balser, Kay Khan and Cindy Creem before they are ready to retire and I’m certain all three will know when that time arrives. I know there are some sound reasons for term limits, but there is also a serious down side that I’ve tried to articulate here.
In fact, I’ll add one caveat because Newton has a strong mayor charter that will essentially remain in effect even if the new charter is approved in November. As such, I might give a nod to term limits for Mayor, but keep the present arrangement for City Council elections. I believe most people will agree that a mayors first two terms are generally the most successful and that things tend to go downhill after that. I don’t see the same dynamic for people that serve on the City Council.