The editorial in this week’s Newton TAB says ‘No’ is the right vote on charter plan. It focuses on how the proposed charter will eliminate Newton’s eight ward-elected councilors and says:
“Ward representation has been a critical element of Newton’s political process for 125 years, ensuring the city’s diverse villages each have a voice on matters before City Council.”
“…[T]he ward councilor system provides built-in accountability for neighborhood representation and good local governance.”
“…[T]he position of ward councilor makes running for City Councilor much more accessible to many candidates, especially those who lack sufficient time and/or money to campaign across Newton’s 18-plus square miles.”
We’ve had several threads about the charter proposal, with about 600 comments in all in the last two months. What new points do you want to make? Or what points have not received sufficient discussion? What did the TAB miss or get right?
Beautifully put, Andy.
Andy:
I’ve got to say, I was fine with your opinion until you used the 8 plus 8 option as a reason to justify the no vote. Did you not pay attention to both mayor candidates Andy? How exactly is that a viable option?
I certainly respect your right to an opinion, but this isn’t a well thought out editorial. This is just a recounting of the no position. And the inclusion of the impossible 8 plus 8 option as if it is real, seals it.
I miss the old Tab. A great town needs a great paper. The Tab isn’t it.
They committed to the 8 and 8 model and now they doubled down on this huge mistake.
Tom:
That’s a good point. Well, sometimes I agree with Andy, sometimes I don’t. But a well thought out editorial on both issues would have been more detailed and able to respond to the arguments on the other side. They just don’t.
If I wanted to read the No campaign’s literature, I just had to open my mailbox for the multiple mailers.
A good paper does a lot more than this in an editorial. You’d learn far more from the back and forth on this blog.
Whelp, happily Andy and crew will have another shot at it next week.
Given that the Tab editorial appears predicated upon the viability of the 8 and 8 “option”, let me please revisit a comment I made on another thread.
The Board of Aldermen/City Council has a very poor record of acting to change its composition. The Board/Council docketed and debated the issue of downsizing itself in 1977, 1980, 1989, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2006, and 2009. Each of these actions was voted either Denied or No Action Necessary.
Councilors who were involved in the dialogues on the items discussed in this century are in fact still in office. Even for the earliest docketed items (the ones from the 1980s), Councilor Baker’s name is especially prominent in the transcripts.
Much has also been made of the datapoint of the current docket item having 14 co-docketers, implying a majority before debate. However, as is noted in the editorial, the debate has been postponed until after the election. Since the process will certainly take more than a month and a half to debate and then move on to the state, the current Council will then transfer the item to the newly elected Council when they take their seats on Jan 1.
Of the current Council, co-sponsors Harney and Sangiolo have decided not to seek reelection and will not be on the next Council. Likewise, co-sponsor Councilors Blazar, Ciccone, and Cote are in contested races and could theoretically not be on the next council. Therefore, at least in theory, the list of docketers who remain on Council after January first could be reduced to 9. This is less than a majority of the current total of 24.
Add to this the fact that several Councilors who are unopposed and will remain on Council have expressly stated their intent to oppose the item (for various reasons) when it comes before them. Both mayoral candidates have also stated their opposition to the item, which makes the discussion a moot point as even if the Council votes in favor, the mayor will not endorse the measure, rendering it a dead letter.
@Chris – Check the City Council calendar, there is plenty of time between now and the end of the term. John Rice, Chair of the Programs and Services Committee, is holding a hearing on November 8 in fact. After Programs & Services votes it goes straight to the full Council for a vote. Of course it would have moved a lot faster is the “yes” proponents on the City Council hadn’t insisted on a delay of even *discussing* it until after November 7. You’re so concerned about how long it will take yet your allies *caused* a delay, hmm… it’s almost like the “yes” side doesn’t really want to see it move forward, but wants the public to think it’s the City Council’s fault if it doesn’t.
@Councilor Norton, I think you once again have missed the point here. The discussions about why not to run a last minute docket item had more to do with the need for full examination and debate of the issues and outcomes of such a radical change in the absence of a systematic review of the Charter and all of the interactions with other aspects of government.
Since such a systematic review – one that the voters had petitioned and voted for overwhelmingly – was already going on (The Charter Review Committee) and that it’s report and recommendations were yet to be voted on by that selfsame electorate, certainly a parallel docket item would have been somewhere between a distraction, obfuscation, or an outright cynical attempt to confuse the voters.
However, you now say that the 6 or 7 weeks between Election Day and January 1 will be sufficient time to docket the item, debate the item in committee, review and modify it as decided in Council, notify and education the public, gain public input, respond to that input through further modification, bring it before full council and get a vote? All of this while also trying to gain the backing of a Mayor (whether the current or future Mayor makes no difference as all of the individuals involved has stated their opposition).
By the way, Thanksgiving and the Winter holidays are in those 6-7 weeks.
The process that you have outlined here, both in the original docket item with its timing, and in trying to get it done now before the end of the current Council term, absolutely subverts all of the principles of transparency, accountability, and engagement that you are purporting to try to save.
And I say again, it is a dead letter for all of the reasons I have given previously.
– and if candidates (electeds -to-be) were to now pledge onto the simple 8/8 for the rollover 2018 session – what would be the result?
and if the mayor were to lose his ‘YES’ endorsed play – how would the ‘governor-to-be’ meisterstump look to Howie Carr in the audience?
Scott is counting on the Setti endorsed ‘YES’ coatail, should ‘NO’ prevail will seriously affectnot just his future, but the machines’ as well.
And this is why the Tab is still sitting in its little plastic wrapper on my front lawn.
The following things should be pretty clear to anyone with a whit of intelligence:
– 8+8 = 0
– 8 ward-only elected councilors are a recipe for continuing the stifling parochialism that
hampers the development of this city into the 21st century. Of course, this is precisely what
folks seem to want here.
The Charter Commission did their due diligence in terms of evaluating what was best for this city. These are intelligent and thoughtful people who carefully weighed the options, explored best practices and delivered a recommendation that will ultimately help Newton. The primary arguments against the proposal are made out of fear of uncertainty and should be rejected out of hand. Others are made in a manner which is blatantly ignorant of (or willfully blind to) the objective facts put forth by the members of the CC and strike me as rather similar in spirit to what we here daily from the EPA, DoE etc. I guess that modern conservatism takes many forms.
I did raise an eyebrow when reading about the 8+8 proposal as a justification for a “no” vote, as if it was by any means a certain, or even likely, outcome.
I have gone through this same process with the programs and services committee. I brought up an item that is still sitting with them. Roughly 6 years ago, I brought up an item in September, went in front of them and they voted N.A.N. (no action necessary) on the theory that we will have a new committee make up that should be the people who vote for or against the item I was proposing. The same would happen here. Faces change, but the game remains the same.
@Andy–I consistently notice that those who use their real names are a lot more polite. I mean except for Ted 🙂
I don’t have time now to respond to the other comments about the 8-and-8 model, I will just point out that those who oppose it are so vocal about how impossible it would be for it to pass, it’s almost as if you know it has an extremely good chance of passage and are trying to do everything you can think of to thwart that.
Thanks, @Emily. I think the same way about you! 😉
Chris: You are right to say that the Board/Council has a poor record on this issue, but I don’t believe there has ever been as much public attention on the issue as there is now. I recall not that long ago, the same was said about debt exclusions. And lo and behold, we had a public discussion and now use those to effect.
I’ve heard confidence from several supporters of the 8-8 proposal that such a plan would be vastly more popular than the Charter Commission’s proposal. I disagree. I’m also well aware of how radical such a shift would be from where the city council is today and the other reasons for which the Charter Commission rejected the substance of this proposal. Here’s my question: if the 8-8 proposal would be so popular, why not commit to moving forward with this regardless of the outcome on November 7th? A Yes vote would mean that the people get to choose between 12 and 16.
I suspect that this is because the council proposal is actually designed purely as a mechanism to elicit a “no” vote and not to sincerely offer an alternative.
Bill and Emily:
I’m a bit cynical I acknowledge about this. Can you blame me and others for being so?
How about this. Putting aside the political ramifications of the timing of putting this forward, the proof will be in the pudding if the no vote wins. I say that even if the counsel passes it, the mayor won’t, and the city won’t.
If you are correct, I’ll be happy to post and eat crow. But if it goes nowhere, I expect you to do the same.
As for posting differently under my own name making a difference in tone, I can assure you that isn’t the case. But my intention is not to insult or demean, and I try my best not to make criticism personal. But my personal take is that unvarnished opinion is the best kind of opinion for forums like this. And I also think that occasionally when folks don’t like being called out on their b.s. (or challenged on their personal opinions) the response can be “those anonymous bloggers are so mean”.
Ok, I’m done posting for a while.
@Josh — “Here’s my question: if the 8-8 proposal would be so popular, why not commit to moving forward with this regardless of the outcome on November 7th? A Yes vote would mean that the people get to choose between 12 and 16.””
Being steeped in charter revision process and law I imagine you know the answer to this better than me, but this is my understanding –although the draft charter required a quick review by the State AG for legality, the charter commission process is the strongest exercise of Home Rule rights, enabling a local government to organize itself without any state approval. While the state legislature would legislate/advance the proposed 8-8 submission without issue for voter ratification if starting from the status quo baseline and previous referendums supporting 8-8, neither the city council nor the state legislature would want to contravene a “will of the people” vote with a revision to it if Yes prevails.
At its core, the pro-New Charter campaign is both arrogant and anti-democratic. The pro-New Charter folks just don’t trust some wards to exercise democracy without external help. In actual conversations with pro-New Charter canvassers or sign holders at political events, one hears the words ‘dead-wood’ and ‘ineffective’ used to describe some of the city councilors. These councilors are supposedly re-elected because of diehard supporters amid low voter turnout in some wards. This is presented as the problem to be fixed. Well, people are entitled to their opinions, including the pro-New Charter folks. However, there is a time-honored, straightforward solution already in the democratic process. If you don’t like the folks whom a ward, district or state is electing, then encourage or recruit people you do like to run in those areas and help them get elected. This goes on all the time, at all levels of government, and is fine. Instead of this, the proposed New Charter takes democratic representation away from the wards, and allows the entire city in on what were local elections. This strikes me as highly anti-democratic.
Why I am Voting No On the New Charter Proposal
After much consideration and conversations with many people on both sides of this issue, I am voting no on the proposed changes to the Newton charter. I very much appreciate the work of the Charter Commission and support many aspects of the proposal, including reducing council size and imposing term limits, but I think eliminating ward representation is a serious mistake.
Under our present system, there are 24 councilors, 16 of whom are elected “at-large” (but with residency requirements in each of the 8 wards) and 8 of whom are elected from within and by each of the city’s 8 wards. The new charter proposes 12 councilors, all of whom are at-large (but with ward residency requirements for 8 of them). I oppose this change for these reasons.
1. Contrary to some of the campaign materials you may have seen, the new charter does not “retain” or “maintain” ward representation, it eliminates it. A ward residency requirement is not the same as, and is not equal to, ward representation. To put that most starkly, someone living in a ward could be defeated by their own ward voters but elected “at-large.”
2. Each ward of the city of Newton has its own demographics and character. I have requested purely ward based demographic data from each side of the campaign, but neither has been able to locate such data, nor have I. But without it, it is not to hard to observe, even by visiting elementary schools throughout the city, that different parts of the city have different demographics. My biggest concern is that eliminating ward representatives on the council could have the effect of diminishing or limiting minority voices, whether those minorities are racial, ethnic, or economic, as well as the voices of newcomers to city politics.
3. On that point, it is worth noting that there has been a very substantial amount of litigation under the Voting Rights Act based on the claim that “at-large” versus “district” elections impair minority representation. I am not saying that Newton would be subject to that claim as Newton is, indeed, more homogenous than other cities that have been sued. But it is important to understand that utilizing “at-large” systems versus ward or district systems, has, in some contexts, had the effect of suppressing minority voices and participation.
4. I am concerned that the requirement that every councilor mount a city wide campaign might discourage or handicap those people who do not have the money, time, or political connections required to mount such a campaign. I note that the yes vote proponents argue that it is not more expensive to mount a city wide campaign citing some spending data from various city and ward-based races. I have no doubt that some people may have spent more on local races (although intuitively, bigger campaigns will cost more) but it is the other factors that concern me even more. It may be much easier to mount a citywide campaign for those that are already well connected to politics in Newton. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a political insider. Indeed, these are the folks that often drive the most important changes that affect our lives. But I don’t want to see our local government limited to insiders or those connected to insiders. Having ward elections mitigates that potential harm.
5. Finally, representative government is how both our federal and state system work. We don’t elect every representative or senator in either system. The reason for this is to give and reserve power to local voices. I don’t see a good reason to vary from that at the city level.
Make no mistake: there are great people who care deeply about this city on both sides of this issue. And the Charter Commission worked hard, motivated by a vision for a better government. For that reason, it has been important for me to listen carefully and learn as much as I can before casting a vote. Based on that, I must vote no.