Press release below received from the YES for a New Charter campaign.
Newton, MA – State Representative Kay Khan, representing the Eleventh Middlesex district, and Newton resident announced that she will be voting yes on the ballot question in November to reduce the size of the city council.
“Reducing the size of the city council will make it easier for residents to get to know their councilors, and will lead to more accountability and more familiarity with city government, which may lead to more interest in voting. A smaller city council will eliminate silos and facilitate collaboration between the state and city, so that we can continue to advocate for those issues which matter most to our constituents. Reducing the number of councilors from three per ward to one per ward will make Newton’s government more effective and accessible. Giving all voters the right to vote for all of the city councilors who will be influencing city policy is more democratic,“ said Khan.
In 2015 79% of Newton voters approved the formation of a commission to review the city charter and elected its 9 members. The members of the Charter Commission served the City of Newton throughout a review process intended to modernize and improve local government. The Commission unanimously voted on April 27, 2017 in favor of the proposed charter. A yes vote would adopt those changes.
State Representative Kay Khan has represented Newton in the Massachusetts House of Representatives since 1995, and currently serves as House Chair of the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities. Representative Khan is the founder and co-chair of the legislative Mental Health Caucus, the first of its kind in the country, and founder and co-chair of a task force on Women in the Criminal Justice System and their children, under the Caucus of Women Legislators. She served as the Co-Chair of the Caucus of Women Legislators several years ago and in recent years, she served on the Commission to End Homelessness and currently serves on the Unaccompanied Homeless Youth Commission and the Special Commission on Early Education and Care. Representative Khan has lived in Newton for more than 40 years where she and her husband raised their three children and now enjoys her seven grandchildren.
Does this mean Kay is more vulnerable to a challenge in the House should ‘NO’ prevail?
Doubtful
@genuine Harry M Sanders – I think those “charter vote is everything” glasses are beginning to blind you.
p.s. It’s a shame that Village14 has rules against multiple on-line identities. I really want to begin posting as “Fake Harry M Sanders”.
“Giving all voters the right to vote for all of the city councilors who will be influencing city policy is more democratic,“ said Khan.
Absolutely not! Running out of things to say about this issue. Try this.
1. The charter is not GIVING anything as Kaye states, rather taking away a ward’s representation.
2.Taking away representation is not more democratic, read the definition of “representation” in the present charter, and bone up on the type of democracy we live with in the USA; Representative Democracy. And always remember how we all got here, “No taxation without REPRESENTATION.
This is good.
The more visibility and discussion, the more people understand the issue and see the gaping flaw in the CCs proposal. I had assumed I was a YES until I became involved in the discussions. Now, I think my NO vote is one of the more important votes I’ve made in my lifetime.
@greg RE: “Doubtful” …
I’m sure that’s comforting for Kay, but a rather dismissive answer. I imagine deciding on this issue has been troubling for many of our candidates and elected officials. Sure, it’s possible she will be more vulnerable – Impossible to know how this will all sift out though – Which is what makes it fascinating to watch.
@Mike: Historically successful challenges to state house seats are rare and (also historically) Newton tends to move on after decisive political campaigns. It happened after Newton North, it happened after each override vote, it happened after Setti Warren defeated two sitting alderman and a state rep (and Hess-Mahan four years later) and it will happen no matter what the charter vote is on Nov. 7 or who is elected mayor.
In each of those past times, it got nasty, folks pointed fingers, harsh words were exchanged then — voila — before long folks who disagreed on any of those issues found themselves allies on the next campaign.
So yes, I beleive it is doubtful that Rep. Khan finds herself facing a significant challenge next year due to her stand on this one issue.
@Greg re moving on after the Charter vote, if Yes wins, I think this time it will be different. The CC explained their proposal as mere downsizing for so many months, and it turns out to be a massive change, a massive disenfranchisement, and for many a breach of trust in the Review Committee. When voter’s rights are dismissed, taken away, people don’t just move on, they take action…….
Uh, but Jon, if the charter passes it’s because voters exercised their rights to vote yes.
Look, I understand the argument against taking away locally elected councilors. But I happen to be more persuaded by the argument that all voters should be able to elect all our councilors.
I don’t believe either side owns the moral high ground here. It’s just two different ways of organizing our legislative branch.
One more thing. I realize that I’m sounding like an old foggy here. But this neighbor vs. neighbor thing really does pass. This debate is nothing like the one over Newton North and lots of us on opposite sides have stood shoulder to shoulder together many times since then.
So when this is all over my love for you will be restored and I’ll stop wondering why you’re being such a dumbass? Phew. 🙂
@Greg I’m not talking animosity neighbor v. neighbor, I’ve only experienced civil discourse in my circles. Newton North probably raised more fury between people, but the proposed charter change is more of a game changer, more impactful re who will run the city. I do believe that the No voters have the intellectual high ground here, and fully understand how high the stakes are if the proposal passes.
Ah Jon. I was thinking of the larger, more general application of “neighbors” as in we are all Newton neighbors.
Also, I disagree. No one side owns moral or intellectual grounds here. It’s a proposed charter. Some folks like it. Some don’t.
Just in case there is any question, I was being entirely playful in my previous remark. I have nothing but respect for Greg – Who I consider a friend. Maybe this post wasn’t necessary, but y’all don’t know my personality and I got scared.
Mike
I ran for Charter Commission because I was in awe of participating in one of the few and far between opportunities to determine how we govern ourselves. It’s an awesome responsibility, an amazing right, that a lot of people fought for and paid for with their lives.
The whole point of Democracy is that we get to choose. As long as we do our best to get the word out and the people of Newton have the ultimate say, I’ll be satisfied, win or lose.
There’s no right or wrong way to govern ourselves, as long as we as a populace are making the choice.
“Giving all voters the right to vote for all of the city councilors who will be influencing city policy is more democratic,“ said Khan.
“Giving all Massachusetts voters the right to vote for all of the State Representatives who will be influencing state policy is more democratic,” said nobody ever.
@Councilor Norton:
Massachusetts is 10,565 square miles.
Newton is 18 square miles.
That’s not even apples and oranges. It’s watermelons and blueberries.
@Bryan until a week and a half ago, all publicity for YES was on the lawn signs. Downsize. On receipt of the commissions charter pamphlet, finally, it became very clear that the issues run varied and deep. Anyone who made their decision prior to receiving the document, made their decision in bad faith. I consider it the responsibility of those of us who understand some (unintended) consequences of this charter change, to keep speaking out against it. So no need to take offense, as you have the same responsibility, and wider platform, to sell the yes vote. I honestly have heard and reasoned more impactful reasons for a no vote, and not much of substance from the yes vote; no offense meant to her, but the above Kaye K. fluff piece is an example. We are all doing what we think is right. I’m wondering, have you heard any suggestions that make you think twice about the all at large format?
@Jon: From your lips to God’s ears. Canvassing today, I was struck by the fact that a number of people had the report and had started reading it. Many of us have been trying to include some of the broader points in the changes in our conversations,but people only seem to want to talk about the city council size and structure.
My personal project as part of the charter was a new requirement that public bodies hold public comment periods and have a public comment policy that is clearly posted so residents know when/how they can interact with the government.
In response to your question about the all at large format, I haven’t really had any qualms about it. I know others disagree, but I am very comfortable with the balance ward-at-large strikes between local representation and citywide representation. We elect 2/3 of our city council and our school committee this way, and we still will if the charter passes.
I think it’s fine if we disagree because we’ve all got our own informed opinions, and we focus on the issues. We move on after the election.
But I admit to having an issue when someone gets personal or tells a lie about the other side–we’ve had two reports (weeks and neighborhoods apart) that someone is out canvassing for the ‘No’ side, telling voters that the League supports the ‘yes’ vote because we are all married to developers. Sexism aside, this is very untrue and really takes away from all the research and discussion we’ve had over many years.
“we’ve had two reports (weeks and neighborhoods apart) that someone is out canvassing for the ‘No’ side, telling voters that the League supports the ‘yes’ vote because we are all married to developers. ”
Who is the “we” in “we are all married to developers”??
Developers are scoring big in Newton these days. I’ve never seen so much new development since moving here, and for the most part I’m happy about it. Why do people automatically associate the charter change with some big “giveaway” to developers? They’re doing pretty darn well with the current city council.
@Bryan thank you for your very thoughtful responsereally!
@Greg re your response to Emily, it’s the same thing, as she stated. You can’t just announce that it’s not and have your words be true.
Note to self: time to watch the World Series. Go Dodgers!
@Claire–sorry, didn’t mean to be vague. I meant people on the League Board.
This stuff happens when you have a lot of volunteers–everyone has their own reasons and their own ideas to talk about with others. But if you hear someone saying this, please correct them. League members spent a great deal of time, effort and thought over the years on this issue, and I hate to hear that so diminished.
@Newtoner–I’m a bit confused by this as well. I think there is some concern that voters more friendly to developers will be able to vote in certain candidates–maybe a slate? But I’m not clear why that couldn’t work the other way as well, with a slate of anti-development candidates.
@Sue: Because running citywide costs a lot more money, so there is a concern that those with a lot more money, and a vested financial interest in the outcome – ie the developer community – will support slates that favor their point of view.
And then when the new all at-large Council votes to remove special permit granting authority away from itself and give it to an all appointed Planning Board, then the focus will be on ensuring the Mayor appoints all pro-development interests to that Board.
We’ll be just like Boston, where elected officials have no say in development, which is probably why the Seaport looks like a concrete jungle with nary a blade of grass in sight.
Kay – thanks for adding your voice to this discussion. Glad you are supporting “yes”.
@Greg so Newton is too small for the type of representative democracy that we have on the state and national level. Is that based on area or population? Is there some metric we can look to that let’s us know when a group is large enough (or spread out enough) to elect someone on their own?
I think maybe you should go to a school committee meeting once this election is over. Do you realize the elementary schools in Newton have student council positions voted on by individual classes!?
@Tim: The point is a city councilor can drive across the city in a matter of minutes and really ought to be able to represent, visit and understand the needs and concerns of the entire city. Not so, statewide.
My number one concern with the ward system is that ward councilors are not accountable to voters city wide and yet they vote on city-wide and outside their ward issues all the time.
Yes I understand why residents in, say, Ward 7 want Lisle Baker representing them and voting on matters critical to Ward 7 (Chestnut Hill).
But why should Councilor Baker also be able to vote on issues critical to, say, Ward 4 (Auburndale) without allowing Ward 4 voters have any say in his election?
This is not a rhetorical question, If someone can convince me why its OK for Ward Councilors to be able to vote on ward specific matter outside their own ward, I’ll enthusiastically vote no on Nov. 7.
I don’t even know what a “ward-specific matter” means. My kids go to schools in other wards. I drive to work though other wards. I shop and dine in other wards. I live my life in all wards. I just cannot comprehend why people get so hung up about “local representation”. At-large councilors are still very local representatives. Unless you believe there is some secret society in ward 7 planning to take over the city, I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to rely on at-large councilors for any issue.
@Greg so a counselor could drive across the city, but do they? The mayoral candidates are not even well versed on all issue in my ward.
I think it is a about balancing the needs of the whole city and individual neighborhoods. I’m not against reducing the number of city councilors nor am I 100% for ward councilors, but I do feel like the idea that this proposal is about protecting a ward from the whims of a ward councilor from across town is a distraction.
This is about ward councilors who aren’t willing to go along with the majority when is has to do with their wards.
Honestly, if this is about all residents having a say, why is there no provision for non citizen residents to vote in municipal elections?
I’m out a lot — and the chamber does a lot of events — and there are a number of councilors I see all the time (Ward 2 Councilor Jake Auchincloss has held office hours in Ward 5) and some that I never see. Some are at-large, some are wards. Really it comes down to the individuals.
And Newtoner is right, virtually every decision impacts the entire city. So why shouldn’t every voter have input?
I don’t see how a super majority of counselors being elected at large isn’t every voter having input.
@ Tim, there are quite a few STRONG special interest groups across the city. Many of them are centered on an idealogical agenda, some on the more specific issues of the city. So, just as we have a SLATE of candidates this voting cycle, who are all pro Charter Reform [all Progressive Newton, the strongest of the special interest groups], we will easily have a similar situation next go round. The organization, any one of them, chooses a slate[n], one from each ward and the that slate[n] is in, in every ward, and possibly 5 in a single ward. To understand this impact, imagine we aren’t talking about Progressives, but rather about Conservatives, or God forbid “Republicans”. I think you might get scared and wish for Ward representation. There is no doubt that different ideologies live in different villages, in differing proportions. The Charter Commission members represented ONLY Newtonville, Waban, Newton Corner and Newton Centre and 1 from West Newton. All but one live north of the turnpike ; Do you see how the hinterlands were negated? They will say no, the villages overlap wards, but this is a disingenuous response.
You may want to hand your vote re your village over to the whole city. You are one trusting soul. I’ve lived here long enough to have less faith; just consider that the YES voters are still calling this representative government, when it clearly isn’t.
Speaking of which, how long has it been since the Newton Public Schools taught Civics, in any serious way?
@Jon maybe I didn’t make my point clearly. I was pointing out that @greg’s claim that every voter (not every resident) needs to vote on every candidate otherwise they aren’t represented is ridiculous. Currently, the majority is protected, but like with any effective gerrymandering these advantages need to be advanced.
I find the idea that a slim majority could control the entire local government to be a bad design.
@Tim I’m so sorry Tim. I understood you but used the wrong name ! We agree I believe.
I think folks are getting caught up in the semantics/definition of ‘Ward Councilor’ vs. ‘At-Large Councilor.’ The way I see it is that all Councilors should essentially be At-Large Councilors – Accountable to the entire city, with the Ward Councilors having an additional ‘burden’ or ‘responsibility’ of advocating for and providing service to the residents of their ward.
It should be up to the Ward Councilor to make the decision that the need/want of the city as a whole outweighs the need/want of his/her Ward constituents.
The fatal flaw in the CC proposal is purely technical – It allows the city as a whole to override a ward’s choice for who they want to represent their Ward. I think it’s important for residents to feel that they have a voice – A degree of power and control over their destiny.
If Newton was more homogenous, then it might not matter so much, but we truly are a city of distinct villages – Each with its own personality and identity. I am proud to live in West Newton. When asked, I tell people I’m from West Newton – Never do I just say, Newton. I think that these Villages that we are so proud of, and that serve us well in many respects is also the catalyst for the NO vote. The identity of each Village individually is too strong and proud to not have a controlling stake in our future.
@Mike Ciolino: wards do not correspond to villages, or to schools, or to any meaningful geographical division or socio-economic groups. There is no such thing as a “ward identity” or “ward interests”.
Does anyone have a map that they could share that overlays wards and villages?
There are no set boundaries of villages–unless you go by area council boundaries, but they don’t cover the whole city.
Mike, I respect that you feel like West Newton has its own distinct identity. I’m wondering, though: do you see West Newton as being right around the Square, on the Waltham line, on West Newton Hill, or on the carriage lane of Commonwealth Ave.?
@nativenewtonian
Your question had me think, so I’ll share my thoughts.
When I say West Newton, I think of all areas that you list. I typically live my life north of the pike and I’m definitely aware if I’m in Newtonville vs Newton Corner vs Auburndale vs Nonantum.
I’ve lived in West Newton for 17 years and own a business also in West Newton.
If im honest, I think I began telling people I was from West Newton vs Newton because of the ‘eye roll’ that you get when you say your from Newton.
People often assume that you are wealthy/ privileged and/ or liberal progressive. Newton has a reputation that I was uncomfortable with and didn’t identify with.
And how this relates to this discussion? I believe that the villages should have the controlling vote in their destiny. I realize that the wards don’t directly map to the Villages, but it’s the best we’ve got.
Mike: if you want your village to have control of its own destiny why do you want seven city councilors making decisions for your village that you can’t elect?
It’s more that I don’t want a village or ward to NOT be gauranteed representation of their choosing .
I have said repeatedly, my objection to the CC proposal is that it provides the possibility for a ward to choose a candidate and have that choice over ruled by the aggrigate vote of the city. I think that’s an unhealthy dynamic and structural flaw.
If we are a city of villages, I think that ought be somehow be reflected in the city’s governing structure.
But nothing that I think or want overshadows my primary objection above.
I believe that our system needs to be engineered from the bottom up. What is fair and best for the individual resident and not what is best for politicians and activists.
Tinkering with our system for efficiency or to increase participation can’t come ahead of a system that empowers residents with a guarantee that their voice matters.
@Mike: If you see that as a structural flaw, how do you feel about the current system? We elect 2/3 of our council and all of our school committee this way. We still will if the Charter passes. The % of seats elected this way stays exactly the same.
But the % of seats elected by ward goes away completely. If the mandate from the people based on previous referendums was to downsize the board, why not do that with 8 from the ward elected at large, and 4 from a district elected by the district (combine wards 1-2, 3-4, etc.)? Yes, ward representation is somewhat diluted, but it keeps the same proportion.
It’s not about % of seats elected. It’s about knowing that as a resident, I’m guaranteed that my Ward can send a representative of OUR choosing to represent us. Otherwise, why have Wards at all?
I would actually more aligned if the CC had proposed totally doing away with ward reps and going 100% At-Large. At least the structure would have integrity.
I think maybe the CC can’t comprehend that there are people in the “majority” who believe that a health democracy benefits from dissenting opinions.
The purposed charter, whether it was created with the idea that it reduce diversity within the city council or not, certainly creates the conditions where minority votes are wasted votes. Additionally, by reducing the council (in this way) creates the conditions where a well funded/well organized group can “take over”. If you think I’m being alarmist, just look at the charter.
One blogger asserted incorrectly that there are no fixed boundaries for villages. In fact, the U.S. Postal Service does have fixed boundaries for each Zip Code which generally coincide with villages. Wards correspond in most cases with villages although the differing sizes of villages do make the correspondence imprecise.
Brian Yates
City Councilor at Large
(Ward 5-Waban, Upper Falls, part of Newton Highlands)
@Brain Yates – yes, the US Postal Service does have zip code boundaries and they sort of, more or less, in most cases, roughly coincide with the public’s general idea of villages. They definitely aren’t the city’s definition of village boundaries since the City doesn’t have any legal definitions.
About the only place in City government that I can see a vague sense of defining a few of those boundaries is the Area Council service area maps where the Waban, Upper Falls and Newton Highland council’s areas bump into each other. As I remember, even defining where those three village dividing lines were going to be was not a clear unambiguous process … and I believe the lines that they ended up with are different then zip code boundaries.
Then there are ward boundaries. They also, also sort of, kind of vaguely align with village borders but don’t necessarily align with zip code borders, or Area Council borders.
Most everyone knows where each village center is but out there on those village frontiers the maps do get a bit blurry and hazy.
@Councilor Yates. Not sure about your assertion regarding zip codes being an effective proxy for village bounds. Please see: http://www.zipmap.net/Massachusetts/Middlesex_County/Newton.htm
@Jerry @Brian Even if the maps, zip code boundaries get blurry, it really doesn’t matter. Most everyone identifies with a village and the ward, zip etc is close enough to match their identities. Really, who in their right mind subverts their own civic voice in order to make life easier for officials. I know you can think of types of governments where this is the first step to elite rule over the people (I said that as nicely as I could.) Democratic Republics are supposed to involve hard work in coming to grips with diverse views. Democracy works slowly by design. Maybe instead of changing the charter, we should ask all councilors to attend classes on debate and compromise.