I know, I know. The body’s still warm. But, the No victory was a Charter Commission own goal. (Mixed metaphor violation noted.)
The commission ignored the widely predicted political consequence of choosing city-wide voting for ward-tethered councilor candidates, jeopardizing the other important features of the proposed charter: most notably the smaller council. Much better sacrificed on the altar of perceived perfection.
But, yesterday’s results give some indication that the difference between much better and perfect was overblown. Yesterday’s results provided some solid evidence that the commission’s insistence on city-wide voting for ward-tethered councilors was unnecessary. The commission’s concern was that a ward would be able to foist on the city a councilor that would not win city-wide. On the flip side, the No folks were worried that the city would force on the ward a candidate who would not be the choice of ward voters.
Let’s look at Ward 5. In the at-large race, we had Brian Yates, who by reputation provides very effective constituent service and is highly tuned to the needs of the ward. On the other hand, we had Andreae Downs, the prototypical city-wide candidate. She’s a long-time member of the League of Women Voters (LWV). She’s very active in city affairs, most notably as the chair of the mayor’s Transportation Advisory Group (TAG). (Disclosure, I’m also on TAG.) And, she gathered endorsements from folks all over the city. (She has also been active with the Highlands Area Council, but is not a member.) If ever there were a race that would provide the long-threatened but rarely (never?) occurring instance where the ward preference was different than the city preference, this would be it. Right?
So, who won Ward 5? Brian or Andrea? Actually, neither. Deb Crossley won the ward, with 1732 votes. But, Andrea was the ward’s clear preference over Brian: 1521 to 1303. Andrea beat Brian in 3 out of 4 precincts. Brian beat both Deb and Andrea in 5-1.
The commission chose at-large voting for ward-tethered councilor candidates out of concern that the city preference would differ from the ward preference. To be fair, the No voters were animated by the same concern, just looking at in through a different lens. While a single race isn’t dispositive, the Ward 5 at-large race does suggest that the concern on both sides was overblown.
Yes, it’s more complicated than a single election. The commission was also concerned about ward voters’ response to actions that a sitting councilor would take, which the Ward 5 at-large race doesn’t shed much light on. But, there’s another race that suggests things wouldn’t be as dire as the commission worried: the Ward 4 ward race.
An error the commission made was to focus on past results and past behaviors to drive their decision about who should vote for ward-tethered councilors. What they appeared to ignore was the fact that new rules would result in new behaviors. As the Ward 4 race showed, the legitimate interest in and support for a ward candidate from folks outside the ward is not insignificant. Without taking anything away from the heroic effort Allison made to nearly snatch a difficult victory, she clearly attracted interest to the race from outside of the ward. That interest and energy surely contributed to her close second.
With only 13 races to attend to, residents would be able to afford to spend time, money, and energy on races outside their ward, even if they wouldn’t be able to actually vote in them. The threat of ward capture seems remote, at best.
If the commission had paid more attention to the politics of removing ward councilors, looked harder at the record in city-wide races, and thought harder about the political dynamics of new rules, they might have come to a different decision about ward representation. And, today, we might be celebrating the overwhelming victory of a new charter with a smaller council.
Good news, it’s not too late. And, I don’t mean 8/8.
Thanks for the insightful article, Sean!
Will the charter reform movement proceed? Will they be wise enough to remove the single hot button issue from it? Or are we settling for status quo?
No, Mr Roche you are mistaken. The CC did the right thing. They put forth a proposal representing best practices and solid research. Implemented, it would objectively have provided benefit to our city. That is was rejected by Newtonians is a reflection of the village-centered myopia of the people who live here. Fear and ignorance among the populace should not be confused with the CC having failed in any sense of the word.
The strange thing is that people voted for candidates who supported a “yes” vote and who were associated with the pro-development camp. Candidates Elmo describes as suffering from “village-centered myopia” were soundly defeated. It’s as if two different populations voted on the candidates and on the charter.
Again, agree with Sean.
The Charter Commission blew it in other ways too. Among them are the first straw vote for the composition of the council that unanimously eliminated ward-elected councilors. The council ignored the immediate backlash from residents and stubbornly stuck with their decision until the end. In addition, they never owned the decision with a clear explanation of why and how the decision was made but instead attempted to convince voters in person and in ads that ward representation was retained.
Throw in their acceptance of a $10,000 donation from an owner of a private equity firm and their hard work was doomed.
If this ever happens again, concentrating on the city of Newton itself and the future rather than the past might improve the outcome.
I don’t know… I think it’s easier to vote for an individual candidate who might be more “pro” or “anti” a particular issue than you yourself are, because you may have knowledge of, or feel a level of trust for, that individual, especially in these local races. Whereas voting for a concept, like the charter, that you perceive as more “pro” or “anti” an issue than you are comfortable with is much harder.
@Marti Bowen
Interesting you should mention that straw vote – That was the day I woke up and took note of what was going on.
Before then, I didn’t know what a Charter Commission or that we had elected one, or even that we had these people in our city who called themselves Progressives.
Mike:
Major change is always hard. And this was major change.
I would still prefer a more streamlined and logical city government. But I respect the process to amend the charter, which means I respect the result.
I’m focused on electing candidates who share my views of effective government. At this point, the 8/8 proposal to me is a waste of time, and I think it won’t make Newton government more effective. Perhaps I can be convinced otherwise.
Hope you keep posting here Mike. Good to have different perspectives.
@Newtoner – It doesn’t seem nearly that surprising to me. I was surprised to the degree to which most of the charter discussion was almost entirely through the development/anti-development lens.
There are plenty of other reasons to have voted either for or against the charter other than where you stand on new development. Likewise, there are plenty of reasons other than “development” for voting for/against specific candidates in all these races.
Yes, new development in the City is a big issue but it’s not the only thing voters take into account. I think that both the pro/anti development activists can sometimes get a bit myopic.
I have a totally different lens that I view everything through so the election didn’t surprise me at all.
Braden Houston, Julia Malakie, Cyrus Vaghar, Gail Spector, Dick Blazar – what do they all have in common? A particular view on development issues? No.
None of them came and told a story last Friday night and their opponents did – coincidence? I don’t think so ;-)
When voting for candidates, I focused on issues other than the charter because their views on it wouldn’t affect anything. By the time they take office, the vote will be long past.
I was not going to blindly “trust the process” – I’ve seen plenty of reasonable-seeming processes produce bad results. And I especially can’t trust a process for deciding something as important as representation that starts with a unanimous straw vote, has virtually no open discussion, and ignores the immediate negative feedback.
I agree with Sean – “own goal” indeed.
Jerry, not every Newton politician follows your crowd of people. The yes vote failed because no common ground could be negotiated regarding solid and equal Ward/village representation. Setti Warren started the ball rolling toward uncontrolled housing growth along Washington St. Many people in Newtonville are most concerned with loss of fair representation. The NO vote symbolizes the attempt to rein in out of control housing development issues.
@Sean, one small correction on Andreae’s background. She has been a member of the Waban Area Council. She has shown up in the Highlands for Highlands Area Council events but not involved in the Council itself. Don’t want her to loss credit for her actual area council contributions.
@Colleen Minaker – Yes I know. It was a joke.
My point was that the vote, both Yes/No, on the charter is not just about development issues. For the record, I don’t believe who got elected last night was about telling stories last Friday.
… except maybe Braden Houston, his opponents really did tell some good stories ;-)
Colleen:
If folks were so concerned in Newtonville as you say, wouldn’t they have voted for Braden, the candidate who was campaigning on your issues? Braden didn’t even win the Ward. Which to me means that while NVA and some folks in Newtonville are very worried about Washington Street and very loud in their objections, the majority of Newtonville and the majority of the city does not agree with you.
Did ANY candidate that campaigned on an NVA style platform win? Poor Brian Yates in my view got hurt by his association with similar positions…
Also, Jerry was clearly joking. He even did the smiley face thing to signal he was joking.
Colleen, I thought people would vote the way you describe. But in my ward (6), for example, people voted NO but voted for the more pro-development councilor (Noel). My impression is that they were well informed and knew what they were doing. They appear to want more development AND traditional ward representation. I can imagine the situation is different in Newtonville, though.
John White:
Nope, not different in Newtonville. Braden Huston (a nice guy by all accounts) got shellacked.
I think a lot of folks vote on so many issues that this blog doesn’t focus on. I liked Jake’s availability. One of my neighbors liked that he was young and willing to listen to other viewpoints. Some of my neighbors are mad at Susan for various things, and STILL voted for her, because they like her and no one’s perfect.
Hard to be a challenger to be sure.
I don’t view the rejection of the charter as anything except that folks like the status quo to some extent, and they like local representation. So be it. The current city councel is going to be more liberal than the last on most issues I think…
@Fig
You’re reading more into Houston’s loss than the data allows.
Please stop speaking for Newtonville. You’re making stuff up.
@Paul: Ward 2 also rejected Julia Malakie and Brian Yates, so fignewtonville has a good point.
I agree, 8/8 is not an ideal setup. Much has been made of 8-4, which was discussed for a time by the CC. Why not go with 10-6? (6 ward or district elected), 6 elected from the wards at-large, and 4 truly at-large. Perhaps that would be a compromise that could gain a consensus?
Honestly I would have liked a district or combined ward rep in addition to fully at large and ward based at large (though that is not a big deal for me). Most places have a combo of ward rep and at-large and it seems to work well. I like the 10-6 option at first glance with the breakdown Andy notes above… I voted Yes but it was not just for the council size, I was 50/50 on the council makeup question but strongly in favor of the other elements which drove my vote.
Paul:
I respectfully disagree with you. Newtonville has had multiple opportunites to elect anti-development folks. I don’t believe Lynne or Braden won the Ward. Emily hasn’t been challenged since her initial election, which she won in a close vote.
And Newtonville didn’t supporter Brian or Julie. Both are long standing, terrific candidates, one was a incumbent.
So at best Newtonville is a split village on issues like this.
And I don’t claim to speak for Newtonville. I fully acknowledge there is a very large percentage of folks in Newtonville who don’t agree with my viewpoints. Braden and Lynne did get a lot of votes after all… But I can certainly give my opinion, and point out data correlations. That’s what I do. And I think based on the NAC and the at-large candidates, as well as multiple elections, I’m on solid ground.
You can certainly respond with a counterargument. I’d welcome that.
–Fig
@Meredith Please enlighten us to the “straw vote” you are referencing. If you are referring to the vote taken on 4/13/16 this was taken after a 2 hour discussion, a reading of the model city charter, 3 public hearings, panel discussions with city councilors from Newton and other cities and exhaustive research compiled by Howard Haywood and Rhanna Kidwell. It was the willingness of the NO side to continue pounding with “alternative facts” over and over long after they had been presented with data that shows these alternative facts as the lies they are that lost this election.
Fignewtonville is absolutely right. Newtonville sent a clear message that it is incorrectly protrayed as anti-development by its ward councilor and the NAC. Braden, Julia, Lynne and Brian all lost here. I’ve been saying these loud voices overshadow the less noisy and sometimes silent majority. It’s good to see it shown in concrete terms – votes.
Voting no on the charter wasn’t just associated with the status quo crowd but with those who wanted to retain ward-elected representation and with other concerns.
As for the composition of the city council, I’ve been thinking that a 4 district*-elected + 8 ward at-large model might work well.
*district=2 wards
“The commission ignored the widely predicted political consequence of choosing city-wide voting for ward-tethered councilor candidates, jeopardizing the other important features of the proposed charter: most notably the smaller council. Much better sacrificed on the altar of perceived perfection.”
So how could the council have been made smaller without loosing ward presentation?
With the 8-8 model that increases ward representation? 12 council members, 8 voted for at large and 4 elected by 2 wards together?
I’d like to hear from voters who voted to make the council smaller but who voted against the Charter proposal, and hear their alternative council makeup.
I think Newtonville is split. There is definitely strong views in the village on development.
Some of us happen to think that the good outweighs the bad. But for the record, I’m also not totally sold on all development. I hate the Court Street project behind Cabot’s Ice Cream for instance. That was a project that I think was too big for the neighborhood.
But larger projects on Washington Street? Potentially, yes.
I think the future of Newtonville is bright. Austin Street, the Walnut redo, Orr Block will make for a difficult few years with the construction, but once completed there will be more retail, a more walkable village, and overall a new infusion of life to the village. And maybe once that is completed folks will appreciate some of the good that came about.
@Alicia Bowman
I think the explanation for the results are way simpler and much more benign. The majority of voters believed that retaining local ward-elected councilors was something they didn’t want to give up.
@Fig
LeBlanc beat one incumbent, and lost to the other by 6 votes within Ward 2. There was a 20% difference between how Ward 2 voted for LeBlanc-Albright and the rest of the city. Houston was a weaker candidate in Ward 2 and the City, suggesting it may be more about him as a candidate than a shift towards a more pro-development stance in the past 2 years.
The precincts in Ward 2 closest to Austin St/ overwhelmingly were NO votes on the charter. There a number of reasons to want local representation, but its worth asking why those closest to Austin St voted so much differently than others in the city. I think its fairly clear.
Obviously Newtonville is not monolithic, and many support adding density to their part of the city, like yourself. But to suggest that there isn’t data suggesting Newtonville is more concerned about development than other parts of the city is off IMO.
I’m confused about the references to people who voted to reduce the size of the City Council but voted against the proposed charter. Setting aside the many years that have passed since a non-binding question about the size of the council was on the ballot, it’s one thing to cast a vote that is only intended to take voters’ temperatures; it’s quite another to cast a vote that causes something to change. People may have voted yes for an idea, but no because they don’t like the practical application of the idea.
@Elmo: Saying that people voted NO because of “village-centered myopia” and that they voted out of “fear and ignorance” is actually one factor in why some citizens voted NO. On several occasions I encountered this kind of condescension and arrogance from YES supporters, as did others I talked to about the issue.
As other comments have stated, there were many complicated reasons for why people voted NO or YES, including the pros and cons of term limits, which were not often discussed. But calling people ignorant and narrow-minded did not help the YES campaign.
Jan,
Elmo was a No double-agent!
I didn’t like the electoral composition of the council (same number of races on the ballot, same confusion on the ballot), or retaining the electoral composition of the school committee (see above; residency-restricted elected at-large doesn’t make sense to me), and I’m wishy-washy on term limits … but I voted yes, because I liked the other things the charter commission proposed, and I figured that it made election things no worse.
I’m hoping that all of the well though out changes to enumerating the mayor’s, council’s, and school committee’s roles in compliance with state law, as well as the language simplification will be picked up by the council through home rule.
I’m sorry that the Charter proposal lost, but the people have spoken (and spoken rather loudly on this issue). I would support 8 ward-resident councilors elected at large and four district resident and district-elected councilors; District 1 = ward 1 & 2, District 2 = ward 2 &3, etc.
My prediction is, however, that nothing will change. The mere fact that we’ve got at least three new council ideas on this thread alone shows how difficult it will be to get 13 of the 24 very self-interested councilors to support any single new plan.
@Sean: ??
Thank you, Jerry! It’s challenging to have a healthy public dialog when we see the opposition as stupid (believing ‘alternative facts’) or as professor Alan Jacobs calls it the “repugnant cultural other”:
“These days, as Jacobs writes, people are known and accepted in large part for who they hate—the “culturally repugnant other.” But civil folks do exist. It’s possible for each side to get to know each other and to discuss differences civilly. But it takes effort.” http://www.breakpoint.org/2017/11/point-give-five/
NYT on RCO:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/opinion/the-art-of-thinking-well.html
IMHO – The Charter Commissioner did not display integrity in using data. Benchmarking our city to Everett, just did not sound credible. Further, they selectively used the Model Charter.
It was discussed multiple times, but it felt like there was bias towards a certain outcome and only convinient data was chosen.
I also believe the choice of accepting $$$ and more importantly spending $$$ on consultants was out of character for the city. But the fatal flaw was approaching the problem w a bias.
First, I hope we do not have any Councilors elected at-large by Ward. The school committee elections have been thin and I think the ward restriction hurts. When we have at-large councilor elections, let’s let them live anywhere in Newton. Second, I really hate the idea of Councilors getting elected in a pool. If we have 8 (or 6 or 4 or whatever) at-large councilors, let’s have 8 (or 6 or …) positions. This enables challengers to challenge specific incumbents. Our elections will become more oriented towards issues, goals, and accomplishments, and less oriented towards endorsements.