Here’s one thing that the YES and NO sides of the charter debate agree on: Ward representation is important — so much so that both sides feature the phrase in much of their campaign materials. The YES side says that the proposed new city charter “preserves ward representation.” The NO side says that the proposed new city charter will “eliminate ward representation.”
So what does “ward representation” mean? The YES side seems to be saying that to represent a ward, a Ward Councilor need only be a resident of that ward. The NO side seems to be saying that to represent a ward, a Ward Councilor needs to be elected by the voters of that ward.
There’s something here that’s clearly an important concept. Something called “ward representation” is seen as something highly valued by Newton voters — something to be preserved. But what is it?
Here’s a graphic illustrating the YES campaign’s view:
And here’s a graphic more illustrative of the NO campaign’s view:
Ward representation in which people live in a ward, but are elected at large, has been a cornerstone of Newton democracy for over 100 years. Our wards are represented on the school committee in this way and 2/3 of our city councilors are elected this way.
The idea that this isn’t adequate ward representation is a new concept, something that was never in the popular conscience through decades of discussion around downsizing the charter.
In fact, this system is so popular in Newton that even the flawed 16 member council ploy includes 8 ward councilors elected at large. It’s the only commonality between the Charter Commission’s proposal and the last minute hail mary proposal.
Why the Charter Commission’s Proposal Doesn’t Preserve Ward Representation. Andrew Martin, October 18, 2017
Supporters of the proposed charter change from Mayor Warren on down claim it preserves ward representation. This claim is simply false: by eliminating ward-elected councilors and making all councilors elected at-large, the change unambiguously eliminates ward representation. The contrary claim relies on the requirement that each of eight at-large councilors live in the ward for which they are designated as councilors, as at-large councilors are now. But this is not equivalent to, nor a substitute for, election of ward councilors exclusively by ward voters. To pretend otherwise is, at best, to misunderstand the basic logic of representative government or, at worst, disingenuous.
Representative government works by the way elected representatives are held accountable: a “representative” elected by a geographically defined electorate – a nation, state, city, or ward — is accountable to that electorate because it alone can vote that representative out of office. So if the electorate is a whole state, the electorate within a subdivision of the state (e.g., a city) can’t hold the representative accountable since it can’t vote the representative out of office. And if the electorate is the whole city, the electorate within a city’s subdivision (e.g., a ward) can’t hold the representative accountable for the same reason. So whether a representative chosen by the voters of a whole jurisdiction lives in a subdivision of that jurisdiction or not makes no difference to the inability of the subdivision voters to vote the representative out of office.
That residence isn’t what makes a representative accountable is implicitly recognized in the US Constitution. In specifying eligibility for membership in the House of Representatives, Article 1, Section 2, ¶ 2 does not require that House members live in the districts they represent, stating only that “a Representative . . . [shall] be an Inhabitant of that State in which he (sic) shall be chosen.” As a practical matter, our members of Congress are expected to live in our districts, as our ward councilors are currently expected to live in our wards. But that isn’t what enforces their accountability to us. What does it is the fact that the district and ward electorates, respectively, can vote them out of office. Thus, the charter change requirement that eight of the councilors elected by the whole Newton electorate must live in designated wards in no way enforces the councilors’ accountability to those wards’ electorates since they are nevertheless deprived of the possibility of voting the councilors out of office. So all the talk about a representative elected by the whole city being a representative of a ward in which the representative lives obscures this fundamental point.
The charter change designers’ aim of limiting local influence is signaled by the provision that there be no ward residence requirement for 4 of the 12 councilors. This makes it mathematically possible for there to be five councilors living in one ward to be elected, leaving seven to be elected elsewhere so that there will be no councilor living in four wards. While this is not probable, it is probable as well as possible for there to be no councilor living in one or more wards. If residence matters for representation as the designers claim, then they’ve made representation likely to be unequally distributed among wards, with some wards having none.
Ward representation can obviously be kept both real and equal while also achieving the objective of reducing the council’s size simply by retaining the ward councilors while eliminating 8 of the current 16 at-large councilors. The charter change supporters haven’t provided a clear public explanation why the didn’t support that alternative. However, 14 of the Council’s current members have proposed exactly that alternative, to be achieved through a Home-Rule petition. That option would become available if, but only if, the proposed revision is rejected in the November election. Voting No on the revision would thereby open up a way to reduce the council’s size without sacrificing local representation. If reducing the present at-large:ward ratio of 2:1 to 1:1 is unacceptable, then the only way to preserve real and equal ward representation is to vote No and leave the 24-member Council as is. Either way, a vote against the proposed charter change preserves the local representation inherent in the basic logic of representative government.
For as long as I have lived in Newton, I have heard the city council described only one way:
“We have 3 representatives per ward, two elected at-large and one elected only by the ward.”
I guess the No campaign would now describe it as:
“We have one representative per ward and two other folks who happen to live in the ward, but don’t represent it. Like Amy Sangiolo, for example. Just ask folks who live in Ward 4, they will assure you that Amy can’t possibly know and care about the local concerns because she answers to voters citywide. Never mind her leadership on the Auburndale Library, Riverside, Turtle Lane, etc, she does *not* represent the ward.”
The Model City Charter describes ward councilors elected at large as a configuration that “builds geographical representation into an at-large system.”
What is a ward? Ward lines change every 10 years based on the city census. This happens to voters without their input or influence. I have lived for 30+ years in Ward 2 and the Ward 1 line has come closer and closer every time the lines are re-drawn. I anticipate at the next re-drawing my house will be in Ward 1. So again, I say what is a ward.
Most wards have multiple villages contained within its temporary lines. For example Ward 1 represents Nonantum and Newton Corner. Do you think that their needs are always the same and are ever in conflict…I would think that might happen. Does the ward councilor always win all precincts…no that is not true
Today 2/3 of the city council [your at-large councilors] have a residency requirement and all of them, as far as I recall, won their wards along with their city races. Are you saying that they do not represent local interests? I would say they do.
Within the last 2 years there was a great deal of discussion about the Cabot School re-construction & design. I think people would agree that Councilor Albright [at-large] and Councilor Norton [ward] were equally active in the process. So who represented the ward better or was it equal? Did Ms. Norton because she is the ward councilor…good question for residents. Or, was it Councilor Auchincloss [at-large] who was not as intimately involved as he was a new councilo?
Food for thought ….Does a councilor elected by a ward, who actually receives between 500 and 1000 votes better represent the needs of a ward and the villages contained within it than the at-large councilor who typicallyreceives a greater number of votes within the ward? Something to think about!
Rhanna cites the Model City Charter. But the Model City Charter makes clear that councilors elected at large and subject to a district residency requirement are just that. The MCC doesn’t call them anything else, and does not use the confusing term “councilor-by-ward” to refer to an at-large representative. Also there is no recommended alternative in the MCC to adopt the unusual structure the Charter Commission has proposed: all at-large with a residency requirement for some and no residency requirement for others.
The only “mixed” structure the MCC recommends is what we currently have: a combination of councilors elected at-large and by district. The MCC commentary on this option states that”[t]he mixed system combines the citywide perspective of the at-large council members with the local concerns and accountability of district council members.” In the MCC, the term “district council members” is used to refer to councilors elected by district.
A residency requirement may provide geographic representation, but it does not provide representation of the ward electorate.
Most people I know see the virtues of a mix of at-large and ward-voted city councilors. The people I see advocating for this charter proposal – mostly the commissioners themselves and allied electeds – seem to be focused on proving that the ward residency requirement makes this ward representation. They’re working hard to say, no, no living in the ward is just as good as only needing votes from the ward. They’re still focused on the ward, of course.
This line of reasoning does not impress me. It’s painfully obvious that if you want accountability to a neighborhood, you would have voting just in that area. So to answer the question in the post, the only way to ensure a councilor represents a ward is to give that ward the power to determine whether that councilor gets to continue to represent it.
Instead of trying to insist that where a person’s house is determines where their loyalties lie, I want to hear compelling proof that ward councilors are, in fact, bad and need to go away. A sentence that starts with “Historically, ward councilors have hurt Newton because…” would be good. The point that it’s not fair they voting on city-wide issues is a non-starter for me. State representatives vote on matters affecting the whole state, as do US representatives vote on matters affecting the whole country. Newton has diverse and distinct neighborhoods and they deserve to have their own voice. Prove to me why they must lose that voice.
If we are going to take such a drastic measure as to completely eliminate a whole class of legislators from this city, shouldn’t there be an open and shut case for doing that? And since so many people seem to be attached to this notion of real local representation, wasn’t it incumbent upon the charter commission to honor the wishes of those people? They certainly heard that point of view over the past 18 months. Why not emulate the founders of the nation and find a way to include both types of representation, the way we ended up with a bicameral Congress?
I draw the conclusion that the problem the charter commission sees with the city council is that it is too deliberative and has too much headwind from the locals. One neighborhood shouldn’t get to gunk up the pipeline at the expense of …fill in the blank. The US Congress is designed to be slow and difficult to ram things through but municipal government should be agile?
Democracy is messy, as Obama used to point out all the time. It means everyone having a voice and sometimes those voices are not aligned. I say, split the difference – eight of each – to get a balance of interests at work doing the people of Newton’s business.
@Steven Feinstein Your wish is our command! 14 of your City Councilors – ie a majority – have filed legislation that would reduce the City Council to 16, with 8 ward, 8 at-large councilors. It only moves forward if voters vote NO on November 7 however.
I’m convinced. The No-voters have the better of this semantic argument. “Representation” connotes more than residency. It’s odd to say, “We want a council accountable to all,” and “We really preserve a ward voice.”
That said, I’m still voting Yes, because the charter proposal is better than the status quo, the 16-member council-proposed, home-rule alternative is an awkward kludge, and I don’t trust that the council will actually reduce the size of the board.
Is the charter question driving the mayoralship? Why did SL not join in the 8/8 kicker resolution should NO prevail? Has the Charter question become a battle of the ‘haves v. ‘havenots’ ? RF has the YES locked up. SL stumps his roots of his humble upbringing, the working class, yet sides with the affluence of ‘YES’ – go figure. Will he see the conflict of true image in time to save his electability? Neutral gate on charter is his ticket..
@Harry Sanders at the risk of drawing too many conclusion from lawn side some observations:
I see many combinations of Fuller and Yes signs. While I am sure there are some out there, I don’t recall seeing a single combo of Lennon and Yes and have seen many Lennon and No. So I think it is fair to conclude that a No position from Lennon would please his supporters.
That said, I think most voters are treating those two votes quite separately. I don’t think many Lennon voters will withhold their vote based on his position. And frankly, having heard him speak on the issue he seems more neutral to me. I don’t see him changing his position out of political expediency. My impression he is approaching it from a perspective of thinking he will be fine with either outcome.
As both candidates will tell you, I am supporting both with as much charge, institutional knowledge, insight, and premonition as a Newton lifer. Reverse political engineering, contrarianism embraced by opportunity; always helping to better a cause by attempting to recognize the unintended consequences.
It is ironic just how conservative all these “liberal” Newtonians are. You all fear change and reason (if you can even call it that) using arguments that assume the worst possible outcome will be that which is realized. Over and over and over again in my nearly 18 years in Newton has this been the case starting with everyone who assured us that the Teddy Bear Club would turn Comm Ave into a parking lot. It did not happen. Guess what: Austin St will go up, the Orr Block will go up and the impact on all of our lives will be epsilon. The same will be true when the new Charter passes. So, reject the fear, embrace the future, and get on with your lives.
Elmo,
Epsilon? Seriously? That’s awesome.
Greg,
Comment of the decade for the use of “epsilon.” Please ensure that Elmo receives his award.
Sean, I respect your position and take heart that you understand what you are voting for when you vote yes. But you are politically plugged in and have spent a lot of time looking at both sides of this issue. I worry that the nomenclature adopted by the Charter Commission will mislead average voters and they will believe that a YES vote retains ward representation.
I supported charter change because I hoped it would result in a structure that was less confusing to the average voter. But the Charter Commission has settled on a complicated structure that is not recommended by the Model City Charter and that is used (to my knowledge) in only one other city in Massachusetts — Everett. If the proposal is not easily described in plain english and has you inventing misleading terms like “councilor-by-ward” it is probably not a great model for a structure that will be in place for decades. We could have gone with one of the four alternative structures in the MCC, all of which are easy to grasp and are commonly used throughout the commonwealth and the country. Instead we are throwing our lot in with Everett. And I’ve nothing bad to say about Everett, just not sure why that city should be our sole inspiration for good local government.
@Kathy,
As I am talking about this subject (all day, every day) I encounter plenty of voters who feel they were misled by the No campaign’s claim that the charter proposal eliminates ward representation. They say things like “how can they put that on their signs? It’s not true.” Many people just want to know they will have someone who lives in their ward on the council. Many like the idea that the councilors from all 8 wards will be accountable to them.
The point is, neither side gets to define “representative” for the voters. Voters get to read the charter proposal and decide for themselves whether a 12-member council with one councilor from each ward elected citywide will be more effective, responsive, and accountable.
Question becomes whether the WGC will be able to handle a ‘NO’ prevailing? – as 2 CC members have confided in me that, should ‘NO’ prevail, not only back to square 1, but KISS as originally suggested by Ruth Balser decades ago will be the formula for success with the voters.
I look at it this way: would you eliminate the House of Representatives and elect only Senators? In smaller states that would probably not be an issue – in larger states, districts lose their voice. Newton is a not a small city by any measure. No, it is not apples-to-apples, but it does illustrate the concept of local representation that I think is vital to this city. That, along with my positive experience in the past giving feedback to (and getting it from) my ward-elected councilors, is the reason I am firmly a “No” here.
Incidentally (or not), it is the main reason I support Scott Lennon in the Mayoral race- I know from experience that he is responsive to residents and cares about the city in a way that cannot be replaced in my mind- and that means a lot in a race where it is harder to separate the candidates on demeanor and broader issues.
I don’t care whether the board is reduced, but would rather keep it large than go with the Charter Reform’s proposal. They councilors work part time and the city is diverse enough that there is plenty to do. Some ward reps are great, like Emily Norton and Amy Sangiolo. Others, are pretty much incognito. Therefore, the greater number of councilors increases the chances of having a great local rep. If we reduce the number of councilors, we may have the majority incognito or so swamped with so much work, that they will not have enough time to respond to a local, specific issue. Some towns have full time councilors, which make their lives easier handling one job and sometimes one ward or neighborhood. Plus, the current reform proposal on the ballot stinks to high heaven of creating a system to increase development in Newton. So I and most of my neighborhood…….voting NO!!
Rhanna, you have favorably cited the Model City Charter more than anyone. But that document in no way describes at-large councilors (regardless of residency) as district/ward councilors.
It does state that a residency requirement builds in geographic representation (the full quote you cited is: “Although this alternative builds geographical representation into an at-large system, depending upon the local situation, it may be subject to the same objections under § 2 and § 5 of the Voting Rights Act as Alternative I”). But it never equates residency requirements with district/ward representation.
The MCC is intellectually honest and clear when it comes to acknowledging the trade-offs to each of its four preferred city council structures (none of which resemble this proposal). Anyone interested should read through pages 26-29, it’s helpful. Why not acknowledge the trade-offs of your recommendation?
I think this discussion is putting semantics ahead of substance. Can we agree that elected officials should be accountable to the people they represent? If a person elected citywide can represent a ward, then isn’t it an inescapable conclusion that the person elected citywide to represent a ward is not accountable to the ward he or she represents? So either councilors elected at large cannot be ward representatives or they are unaccountable to the ward they represent. Either way, we get to the same place: a no vote is the only way to preserve ward representation AND accountability.
Sure Ken but then we should also agree that a councilor elected by a ward is unaccountable to the rest of the city.
My problem with Ward Councilors is not that they don’t represent their ward well its that they get to vote on issues important to wards that are not theirs.
That’s why I’m voting yes.
Greg, thanks for the intellectually-honest response. You don’t like ward representation, you prefer at-large representation. If only the Yes campaign were so honest, rather than claiming that their proposal increases accountability AND includes ward representation.
@Ken: Don’t get me wrong: I love my ward representation! I just don’t love that there are seven other ward councilors out there that can vote on issues that impact my ward and our city that I can’t elect. (That’s not to say I don’t like those seven individuals, we’re talking about revising our system of government, not current occupants).
I sill want to be sure that someone who lives in my ward is on the council.
But I’m willing sacrifice the ability to elect a person solely within my ward in exchange for greater accountability from seven others who will also be making decisions on my behalf but without my input.
Greg, you position is crystal clear. You correctly identify the central tradeoff between at-large and ward representation. Thanks for the clarity and honesty. I’m voting no because I value accountable ward representation (among other reasons).
I agree wholeheartedly with Sean’s take on the proposed new charter. He has posted on another thread an excellent breakdown of the probable consequences of the new council composition.
I also will be voting yes for the same reasons – it’s better than our current charter and I’m skeptical about any downsizing the council will accomplish on their on.
There are many examples of ward-at-large Councilors being very involved in their ward. There are examples of ward-elected Councilors going against the wishes of the majority of their ward. The opposite of both are true also.
The mayoral candidates both support the charter but also say they will, of course, work with whatever the voters decide. No contest there. Anything else is pure speculation.
I also think Elmo’s use of epsilon in a non mathematical sentence deserves a comment award. I haven’t used that word since my post graduate days.
I’ve been looking for just one sound reason as to why I should vote YES on the charter question based on the drastic proposal to eliminate the eight ward elected Councilors. I have been unable to come up with anything beyond the hypothetical arguments of YES supporters, or the suggestions of consultants who know absolutely nothing about my village or the generally positive way that village and Citywide institutions already interact within Newton. The current system has flaws, but it’s produced a remarkable degree of tolerance and stability over the years.
On the other hand, I can point to several tangible examples of the benefits of the current mixed ward and at-large system. I’d like to discuss just one of them.
I’ve been a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council for the past 6 years. I can’t begin to describe how helpful both Ward 5 Councilor John Rice and Ward 6 Councilor Dick Blazar have been to fostering a strong and respectful two way communications process between City Hall and members of our area council. Both are what I term “free spirits”. By that I mean that have a deep knowledge of the people and places in our Village, but they don’t always vote with each other or with what our area council is proposing. There’s a lot of friendly give and take on all sides It’s impossible to argue that this is anything but healthy. Both John and Dick show up at most of our meetings and you can see the room light up when they come through the door. That’s because we know they are beholden to no one person, interest group or clique. We know they only have the welfare of the village and City as their focus. We also know that their very presence will enliven the discussion and clarify one or more issues we continually grapple with.
SoccerMommy, you said: “Some ward reps are great, like Emily Norton and Amy Sangiolo. Others, are pretty much incognito.“
Are you conceding that councilors who are elected citywide but have a residency requirement are representing their wards? Such as Amy Sangiolo who is a ward councilor-at-large? As such, she has been very involved in her ward as well as city-wide.
Soccer Mommy you are basically saying that since some Councilors are great but others are not visible/active we should have more so the chance that some might do some work is increased? How about less so that they are all accountable and expected to do the job they are elected to do.
With all due respect to the “Yes” advocates, there is a sizable, practical difference between ward councilors and those at-large. First, the council is a legislative body intended to provide representation to constituents. Currently, should the ward councilor not well-represent their constituents, there is a clear remedy available to voters. This is not true of at-large councilors, and certainly would not be true in the “Yes” structure. In the “Yes” arrangement, should voters in Ward XX get incensed at their councilor, they have no more say in the matter than voters in Ward YY. In fact, it would be very difficult to vote out *any* particular councilor in the “Yes” structure.
If voters in a ward cannot determine who represents them, then they do not have ward representation. Period. Why would anyone argue with this? And as the Charter proposal does not provide this connection between the ward resident and
their representation, it eliminates local representation. So, if ward representation matters to you, then vote “No” and push for the Home Rule option.
Bill: Ward representation matters to me. But so does the fact that there are seven ward councilors who don’t represent me. That’s why I’m willing sacrifice the ability to elect a person solely within my ward in exchange for greater accountability from seven others who have the power to make decisions about things that happen in my ward.
Call me cynical but at a time when one of the major concerns of the NO votes is that the new structure could increase the leverage of big money in CC races, I’m having a hard time taking the opinion of the President and CEO of AIG Global Real Estate too seriously.
http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20171019/commentary-put-newton-on-better-path
Greg: In any of these structures, there will be other councilors who have a say over your ward (or any other). So why give up your ward representative?
Think of this in practical terms. Say some City-blessed project/program will take place in your neighborhood that will disrupt or reduce your quality of life, or home value, or might be dangerous, wrong or offensive in some way. Who would you turn to? Try to find some councilor who is sympathetic to your cause? What if none were? You would have zero recourse.
If you had a ward representative, it would be their duty to at least consider going to bat for you. And if they did not, you and others could hold them accountable. Some might call that “parochial,” but parochialism is an essential component to the democratic equation. The individual should always have standing in our government, which is why government often has a bicameral representation structure. Everyone has a voice. I’m not willing to trade John Rice for the 15 most popular (and yes, well-funded) candidates across the City, who cannot be held accountable for what they do (or don’t do) for my neighborhood or village. IMHO, that’s not good democracy.
@Bill: John Rice is da bomb. I admire many of our other ward councilors as well.
But this isn’t about John or any other individual. This is about the best governing structure for our city long after John, you and me are gone.
I bet most people couldn’t tell you which councilor is their ward councilor and which are the at-large ones–it they could even name all three.
To me, the greatest benefit is being able to vote for 100% of the city council under the charter commission proposal. My life is not confined to my ward. I’ve lived in Wards 7 and 8, and my kids went to elementary school in Ward 6, ballet school in Ward 2, music lessons in Wards 4 and 8…need I go on? What happens in other wards definitely affects me.
And I hesitate to say which “village” I live in….I’ve been told it’s technically Thompsonville. But really….Thompsonville? Who thinks of that as a village anymore? I’d say that about half of the “villages” are a combination of more than one ward. I’m in Ward 8 now, and residents across the ward might say they live in Chestnut Hill, Oak Hill, Newton Highlands, Newton Upper Falls, Newton Center, and maybe Thompsonville. So talking about villages and wards together doesn’t make much sense to me. They are not interchangeable.
Long time lurker; first time poster. I’ve struggled with how to vote on the Charter. I’ve spoken with a number of Councilors on both sides of the issue, but ultimately I was convinced to vote “No” by a long time Nonantum resident who is not politically active. His reasoning — each Ward currently has three Councilors, and residents within that Ward are nearly certain to know at least one Councilor on a personal level and feel a certain level of comfort approaching that Councilor should they have an issue. If the Charter passes, multiple Wards will be left with only one Councilor, and residents within that Ward may not know that individual, nor feel comfortable approaching a Councilor who is a relative stranger. While it is clear to me that the proposed Charter is more democratic (democratic with a small “d”), it is less representative. Silly reasoning? Perhaps, but in a city of 90,000 people knowing at least one Councilor on a personal level gives me some comfort that someone on that august body may be looking out for my interests.
@Greg: “long after John, you and me are gone” Whoa! That sound ominous. The proposed charter stipulates a review every 10 years — in years ending in a “5” — so the next review will be in 2025, a mere 8 years away. I certainly hope that John, Bill, and you live well beyond that. 😉
@Bruce: I can’t speak for John or Bill but I hear folks in Wellesley are worried about becoming “the next Newton.” So maybe I will move there.
@Bruce: All kidding aside, you bring up another benefit of the proposed charter, which is the addition of scheduled reviews. The proposed home rule petition would not provide that.
Greg: We can go back and forth, but again, who ya gonna call?
Sue: Unless you have real data to back up that assertion, I will push back on this notion of what “most people” think about this issue in Newton. We all live different lives in this City, so it could be expected that people have differing relationships with the City government. For many, their experience may be defined by their neighborhood, their village, or their school. I would argue that there are far fewer people who buy into this Uber-Newton concept than say, the most politically active people.
However, we did in fact hold an election in 2007 that was largely devoted to the issue of the role of a ward alderman, as interpreted by Ward 5. Feel free to ask “most people” in Ward 5 (or if you prefer, Newton Highlands, Waban, Upper Falls) who is their ward alderman. I would guess that most do know that. And faced with the notion of losing our ward alderman (a real concern, not a conceptual one), I would guess they will not support this new Charter proposal.
We shall see!
@Bill: in my ward I’ve called John Rice, Deb Crossley and Brian Yates…not necessarily in that order.
If it is so important to have contested elections, and if it is so much easier for a woman/minority/newcomer to politics to run city-wide then please explain why there are two city-wide open seats going unchallenged. I’m guessing Brenda Noel wants to take out Dick Blazar – otherwise – why not run city-wide? That’s democracy in action. That’s what Dick did to get involved. Run against his Ward Councilor. But two seats go unchallenged in this election cycle – the Ward 4 seat – vacated by me, and the Ward 7 seat, vacated by Ruthanne Fuller. Shouldn’t people be chomping at the bit to run for those seats? I mean – they are open seats – not having to run against an incumbent. Is it because the two that are running – are fairly established – Josh coming from the Charter Commission and Becky Grossman – coming from a very powerful Democratically active family? Mind you – I think both are highly qualified on their own merits – but why oh why – have others not stepped up to run? Could it be – not easy to run at-large if you have no name recognition or not have deep connections? Could it be because it is so incredibly expensive and time consuming to run a city-wide campaign?
@Councilor Sangiolo: Perhaps the more appropriate question is: What’s up with Wards 7 and 4?
Ward 7 not only has only one contestant for an “open” large council seats but also only one contestant for an “open” school committee seat. And as Bryan reminds us Ward 4 wasn’t going to have a contested ward contest until Jay Harney angered people by his attempts to anoint his successor.
Meanwhile:
Ward 1 has contests for at-large, ward and school.
Ward 2 for at-large and school.
Ward 3 for at-large and school
Ward 5 for at-large
…and then yes there’s the ward 6 ward contest and a ward 8 school contest.
@Doug: Actually, Newton is a small to medium sized city by every measure. We are 18 square miles and 85,145 people. There are 10 larger cities in Massachusetts alone, by population. We’re 29th by square miles.
@SoccerMommy: Amy isn’t a ward rep, Amy is elected at large. She won her first election by winning at large, but losing in her ward. If her seat was elected by ward, she would’ve lost her first election.
@Bill: Actually, ward voters do have more of a say in who their ward-at-large councilor is than voters from other wards. They have the option to run against that person and do a better job, whereas voters from other wards do not. That’s why it works and has worked so well for Newton for over 100 years.
@Amy: I’m going to assume that it was an oversight that you conveniently forgot the other “uncontested” race on the ballot. The ward 4 council race where you endorsed the only person left on the ballot after it was too late for others to put their names in.
Bryan: C’mon. Ward residents lose the representative that they alone determine. It’s not even remotely comparable. I think you’re side is on stronger ground by simply conceding that you’ve eliminated local representation because you are advocating city-wide representatives. I do understand the argument for that model, but I obviously don’t agree with it.
Bruce: Maybe I, too, will move to Wellesley, which some people say is like the afterlife.
@Bill: Here’s the problem I think you’re missing, from our perspective. For most voters, the semantic argument is unimportant. Voters believe that ward-at-large, which is how we elect most of our councilors now, is ward representation. When you say the charter eliminates ward representation, many voters believe the proposal has no ward residency requirements.
So because of the NO signs, we constantly have to explain to people that NO is making a semantic argument, but yes, one councilor will still be from every ward. For a lot of voters, that’s the difference between voting NO and voting YES. I think there is a huge problem with this debate, in that the NO campaign is misleading voters about what’s actually in the proposal.
I fully admit that sound bites aren’t a great way to explain a system of government, but voters think ward representation means a different thing than you think it means.
@Bryan: No oversight. Alison is challenging Chris. Good for her. I’m just puzzled that she decided not to go city-wide since you Yes on Charter people say it is easier for women/minorities/less established folks to win a city-wide race. Why didn’t she run for the at-large seat and be accountable to the entire city?
@Amy: You know very well that she decided to run because you and your colleagues in ward 4 attempted to take the choice of who the next councilor would be away from the voters, and many people wanted to have an actual election.
I still haven’t heard you explain how Chris got your endorsement before he announced his campaign and before Jay had announced he was leaving office. Care to shed some light?
@Bryan: Are you accusing me of wrongdoing? That’s a very hefty accusation. As I said, I welcome Alison running for the seat and I would have welcomed anyone running against the other uncontested seats too. Chris pulled papers against Jay. Whether he would have actually run against him or not – that’s not my call but he was willing to put his hat in the race when Jay was running too. I am just asking, why are more people not running at-large – particularly if you are so pro-charter? Isn’t that the model you are all so much in favor of? Accountability city-wide?
I like Josh. Supported him for Charter Commission and supported him for School Committee. He has been the likely “successor” for an open seat for Ward 4 for years. I just think there should be more challenges for all races and find it interesting that two open at-large seats – which the charter commission is pushing as their “model” are going unchallenged. Maybe there should be write-ins for those seats too – but, oh right, that’s too hard to do for a city-wide race – unless you are established, well-funded and well connected. Kudos to Gail Spector for stepping up and running for School Committee. She’s got an edge, though, – being well-known and being well-connected.
@Greg: Kudos to those who are stepping up to run for office. I am affiliated with an organization, EMERGE, that encourages women to run for office. I’m just suggesting that for those who are pro-charter and for eliminating Ward only elected councilors, that I find it strange that more people haven’t stepped up to run for those at-large seats – which they claim are better and easier for women/minorities/less established people to run for rather than the Ward seat – where a person – who is not well-known or established – or well-funded – can knock on doors and meet every single voter.
And thanks for the reminder about the Ward 7 School Committee seat being uncontested. That’s at-large too, right?
Exactly! So why are there so few ward 7 residents who want to hold local office? As for ward 4, you tell us is it apathy there too or did any potential contenders not want to challenge Josh?
@Greg: I’m not a fan of the scheduled reviews as specified in the proposed charter. It seems to me that this much commotion should be triggered by a perceived need for a change, not an alarm clock.
Also, I noticed that the proposed charter does not specify how each future charter commission will be established (except “by ordinance”). Would its members be appointed or elected? And there’s no specific provision for how a charter commission’s report will be acted upon. Would signatures need to be collected to trigger a ballot question on the approval of any changes recommended by the commission? Perhaps these points are specified by state law.
@Greg: Is it because so few Ward 7 resident want to hold local office or is it because it is costly and time consuming and only those with means and times are able to run city-wide? As for Ward 4, I don’t know. Is it because so many people did not know I was giving up my seat to run for Mayor or is it because they think Josh is the only choice for the Ward or IMHO is it because it is difficult, time consuming and expensive to run at-large against someone who is already established and well-connected? I don’t know. And because Josh isn’t really out campaigning – I’m not sure if people in Ward 4 or the rest of the City know what he stands for or what he will do for the Ward or for the City – other than being pro-charter.
The claim that the new proposed charter retains ward representation is nonsense.
In our current charter, the *only* place that the term “representation” occurs is in section 2-5 (a), Legislative Branch, Filling of Vacancies, Special Elections:
“The election shall be by the voters of the whole city in the case of councilors at large or by the voters entitled to such representation in the case of ward councilors.”
This is very clear. The only voters entitled to representation by the ward councilor are those that live in the ward. The ward councilor represents the ward. The councilors at-large represent the entire city.
In the new proposed charter, all councilors are at-large, regardless of residency requirements, and all represent the voters that they are elected by, the entire city. This is also the common usage in politics, as well described by Andrew Martin above.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is better to have ward councilors, at-large councilors, or some combination. Reasonable people can also disagree about whether other changes in the new proposed charter outweigh any perceived disadvantages of the removal of ward representation. It is a fact that the new proposed charter eliminates ward representation.
Newton Highlands Mom- do you guarantee that if we elect fewer councilors, they will ALL be engaged? How will this be guaranteed? How can they address so many specific issues in all the villages by 85,000 people if there are so few of them?
The fact is that some councilors are great, some are not so great regardless of how they are elected. I don’t see the that current citywide elected councilors are more accountable so what makes you think they suddenly will be with the New Charter? They won’t be and then there will be maybe 4, rather than say, 12, that are responsive. Vote NO.
Bryan: I understand that you, Sue and others worked hard on the proposed Charter, and I commend you for that. However, the vote decision here is YES and NO, not RIGHT and WRONG. This proposal is akin to eliminating the House of Representatives in the federal government. It’s a large change. I would ask that rather than questioning the motives of people who differ with you – some, who have spent a large chunk of their lives attempting to make Newton a better place – that we just focus on facts and merits.
What Bret said above is exactly correct: The YES vote would eliminate ward representation. The fact that some of the councilors in the new Charter would require some to be *from* certain wards in no way resembles the existing structure. Further, as I and others have said, a ward could not elect or remove a representative with this new Charter. Perhaps that is what Newton voters prefer. Perhaps not. We will find out.
The other thing about only 12 is that it flies in face of common sense. 12 may be a good number for a board of directors at a for-profit company in which the needs are a unified ‘front’, and everyone pulling the oars in the same direction, but it’s too low a number for a democratic entity charged with deliberating on important issues.
Since 1990, I’ve been all for shrinking the size of the council, figuring 16 or 18 was a good number. But 12? I’ve watched and served on entities with only 8 -12 and what always happens is that 2-3 dominant personalities take over and set the agenda. These aren’t ‘bad’ people, it’s just what happens. What also happens is outside forces have easier times setting the directives. It’s more work convincing 20 or 24 people, and special interests would prefer not having to do so. Yes, the Austin Street situation took longer than most would like and it took the last-minute switch of a couple of councilors to pass it, but this switch took place after more affordable units were finally proposed when these holdouts had proved their point. In the end, as dragged out as it was, it worked out better for long run.
This proposal, beyond being ward-centric or not, is just plain less democratic. I know why friends will say it’s actually more democratic to be able to vote for all the councilors but their vote will be the first and ONLY part of this that will be democratic. The actual practice and performance of the subsequent entity will be less democratic and more prone to ‘group think’. Sorry, it’s just the way I’ve seen it end up time and again due to human nature and interaction. Despite what we all wish about these individuals being the best of the best, once they get together and there’s less of them, there’ll be a tightening of control by a select few.
It’s an irony: More people means a greater chance of creating a minority view within that entity.
At large councilors can come from any ward–we agree on that language, I think. So how do you describe those councilors who have residency requirements? I live in Ward 8, but can’t run for the Ward 7 councilor seat–so how is that NOT ward representation? Each ward will have at least one councilor from that ward. If that councilor completely ignores the needs of that ward, every other citizen of that ward can run against him/her–that is how our system works and how we can ensure responsive officials. Right now, if someone isn’t responsive, you might shrug it off and go to the next councilor.
So what words would you use to describe the councilors with ward requirements? I suspect that if we were building this system from scratch, using “ward councilors” wouldn’t be a problem. It’s just because the proposal moves from one system to another that there is this issue.
And going way back to Bill…when I collected signatures to put the charter commission on the ballot, I spoke to lots of people who didn’t know how many aldermen there were in Newton, who they all were, and who came from their ward. People tended to know the aldermen who were working on an issue that they were interested in, but if they didn’t have a reason to engage in local government, many didn’t. I’m hoping that this conversation that’s going on about the charter is also educating voters about our government structure and who, exactly, is who.
It does not matter what you or I call Newton’s current system – elected representatives represent exactly (and only) those people who are eligible to vote for them. Our current ward councilors represent their ward.
If you want some definitions from the literature, try Google.
Here’s one reference. From “Tracking the Court Through a Political Thicket: At-Large Election Systems and Minority Vote Dilution”, Packer, 1982
—
Footnote 14: “In a multi-member district all voters within the district vote for and elect more than one legislator to represent the district as a whole. In other words, the constituency of each of the legislators elected in a multi-member district is composed of the entire district and not some subdistrict. …” [That is, there is more than one district]
Footnote 15: “The at-large system is a special type of multi-member district. In an at-large district more than one legislator is elected by the voters and represents the entire district. In contrast to the multi-member district, however, the at-large district encompasses the entire political unit. … The ward system is a competing municipal election system where the city is divided into districts or wards with each ward electing a single council member.”
Footnote 103: “… Some at-large systems divide the district into subdistricts and require candidates for each seat to be a resident of a designated subdistrict. Although this feature prevents voters from concentrating their votes behind several candidates in their subdistrict, it may result in a more racially or ethnically diverse legislative body. ”
—
What Newton has now is a mix of at-large and ward representatives.
The proposed charter gives us a mix of at-large representative and at-large with subdistrict (ward) residency requirement representatives. Maybe there is a shorter name for this, but it doesn’t change who is represented (all representatives represent the whole city).
If you don’t like my reference, feel free to provide your own source.
In order to be eligible to be a US Senator, one must be at least 30. Does Elizabeth Warren represent all the voters of Massachusetts, or only those 30 and over? It’s the same thing – the representative represents all the eligible voters, not the set of people who are eligible to run for the office.
Sue, the problem here is the two tiers of at-large councilors, a confounding structure not recommended by the National Civics League and used in only one other MA jurisdiction. In any other city (except Everett) a mix of at-large and district councilors is understood to be just that — some councilors elected at-large, others by district. In this case, describing the two types as “at-large” and “by-ward” will mislead the average voter into thinking we are retaining what we all currently refer to as Ward councilors.
I can’t understand why we are contemplating a structure that has us inventing new terms. We’ve missed an opportunity to simplify the ballot. I don’t know of any other city that has an all at-large council of this size, let alone with two different types of at-large councilors.
“So what words would you use to describe the councilors with ward requirements?”
Sue: Councilor-at-large. Just like we do now.
If you want to really get into the semantics…. Representative –
From Google:
“consisting of people chosen to act and speak on behalf of a wider group”
“a person chosen or appointed to act or speak for another or others, in particular”
From Merriam-Webster:
“of, based on, or constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election”
Notice that the key factor here is that the person being selected is designated to speak on behalf of a finite group and the representative has to come from among their number. Nothing in any definition of representative requires a certain selection method.
More importantly, voters believe that ward representation means ward-at-large representation. When NO says that the proposal eliminates ward representation, regardless of what they think it means, it is misleading to some voters.
Bryan – what evidence do you have to support this statement? “More importantly, voters believe that ward representation means ward-at-large representation.”
@Lucia: I’ve been doing events almost daily and it comes up at least once in every event. Voters frequently assume that no ward representation means nobody will live in their ward or be responsible for it. The NO campaign messaging is causing misunderstanding of the proposal, whether it’s intentional or not.
Not really a scientific poll. And I completely disagree with you. Representation means people elected by the people they are representing. A leader chosen from a sub-group of people by a larger controlling group is known as a puppet – like the Shah of Iran and whoever we put in charge of Haiti the various times we’ve overthrown their government and the Coke executive we placed in charge of Afganistan….
“Voters believe” is not the same thing as “some voters believe”.
The fact that some voters are misunderstanding what ward representation means is not evidence that at-large with ward residency = ward representation.
Normally, domain specific sources are to be preferred over general sources such as dictionaries. However, as to Merriam-Webster, let’s look again at the definition of representative which Bryan quoted:
“of, based on, or constituting a government in which the many are represented by persons chosen from among them usually by election”
Nothing in this definition requires that the persons eligible to be chosen are the entire set of voters. In US Senate elections, the persons eligible for office (MA voters 30 and over) are a subset of all voters (MA voters). In the case of the new proposed charter, the many are the voters of the city of Newton, who are all eligible to vote for persons chosen from among them where the eligible persons are the voters who live in the ward. This is still at-large with a residency requirement.
Like many other commenters in this thread, I’d be more inclined to listen to arguments in favor of the proposed charter that actually focus on the merits of all at-large vs mixed at-large plus ward. The committee chose all at-large, so surely you can persuade us of why this is the right choice instead of trying to prove equivalence between the two structures, when they clearly are not equivalent regardless of what terminology is used.
If this Charter Commission has genuine confidence in the document they created for our city government, slaved over for months, and are asking us to vote yes , there should be no need to look at it again in ten years. Yet, this is one of their selling points! This like the hair stylist who promises to put your hair back on if you do not like the cut. The Charter Commission lacks conviction to their design.
Vote No New Charter.
In everything I have read about representative democracy (prior to this campaign season), representatives represent — and are accountable to — those who elect them. “Representing” = “Elected by.” At-large municipal elections select representatives of the entire city, not some section of it. Residency does not enforce or even imply representation.
Hi Janet – thanks for your comment. Perhaps you don’t realize this, but entire sections of the current charter have been rendered moot since its adoption in 1971 – for example, by changes in state law regarding the function of the School Committee. Our analysis of such sections during our 16 months of research and deliberations convinced us of the wisdom of including a mechanism for regular review and maintenance to prevent such discontinuities from ossifying in our charter in the future.
@Bryan: I have an even better source for you than Google or the dictionary: our existing city charter.
(a) Composition—There shall be a city council of 24 members which shall exercise the legislative powers of the city. Sixteen of these members, to be known as councilors at large, shall be nominated and elected by the voters at large, 2 such councilors at large to be elected from each of the 8 wards of the city. The other 8 members, to be known as ward councilors, shall be nominated and elected by and from the voters of each ward, 1 ward councilor to be elected from each of the 8 wards of the city. The city council shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its members.
Our existing City Charter also lays out guidance in terms of defining representation:
Sec. 2-5. Filling of Vacancies.
(a) Special Election—If there be a vacancy, by failure to elect or otherwise, on the city council within the first 15 calendar months of the term for which councilors are elected, the city council shall forthwith call a special election to fill the vacancy. The election shall be by the voters of the whole city in the case of councilors at large or by the voters entitled to such representation in the case of ward councilors.
As our proposed charter mirrors the unique charter of Everett, not Somerville, the all ‘at large’ council could move more easily into progressive economic strategy, such as a Casino.
Wouldn’t Riverside some day, perhaps, make a fine location for a family destination casino?