When discussing and deciding whether and how to reduce the size of the City Council, I hope councilors will consider the following:
1. We just went through a bruising campaign. Discourse in our city during this election was hostile and ugly. Just as has happened in every ballot question election I’ve seen in this city, neither side appeared to remember that the other side loves Newton just as much as they do. We need to heal. Doing so will take time.
2. Changing the make-up of the council to 8 and 8 may very well cause as much dissonance as did the recommendation that failed. Nearly 11,000 people voted to strip the council of ward-only representation (I am taking the liberty of assuming that reducing the size of the council is why most voted yes). While some residents might approve any kind of reduction to the board’s size, there is a strong contingent that would not support strengthening the weight of a vote from a councilor accountable to just 1,000 people (give or take).
3. Maintaining the same balance of power with a smaller council is possible.
4. Many people in the city (including people who sat on the Charter Commission) believe that the plan for 8 at-large councilors and 4 district councilors would have passed without creating so much friction in the city.
5. A reason the Charter Commission said it didn’t go with the 8 at-large, 4 district seats was because there wasn’t enough time to figure out how to make it work. The City Council is not bound by the same deadlines imposed by the state for Charter Commissions. There is plenty of time to figure out how to create districts.
6. City councilors should not focus solely on how to reduce the size of the council. They should create a model that will make consensus an achievable goal.
Please do not put the city through another divisive battle, especially when we might be looking at another override vote in the next few years. Be leaders and work together to devise a model that will win by a decisive majority. Use the Charter Commission’s research but come to your own conclusions. If you learn from the commission’s mistakes, their hard work won’t be for naught.
Gail- Did you have the same request of the Charter Commission?
It’s funny how many of the YES people want a compromise now. Where were you guys to help prevent the bruising campaign?
Gail – your math is very faulty. Last I checked (quite a few years ago), Newton’s population was 85,000. If you divide that by 8, the ward councilors are each responsible to over 10,000 people – 10x more than the 1000 you claim. That’s not an insubstantial number.
I highly recommend that people take a look at the documents Amy linked to in the 8/8 thread.
I need to quote Janice Caillet at this point: “You need to meet people where they are, not where you think they should be”
So twice newton has voted to decrease the size of the Council.
So it is now up to the Council to figure out that compromise, and not wait til the last minute. The clock starts now.
It’s great to have Gail Spector back as a Village 14 blogger!
Thanks Greg. I’ve missed this place.
If it ain’t broke, why fix it.
24 Is More!
@Gail – since you used to be a journalist, I assume you care about having your facts straight and making corrections. Please fix the wrong number in your post – when you’re off by a factor of 10, that’s a large error.
Although we have on average 12,000 people in a ward, many of them are minors, and many don’t vote. The results:
http://apps.newtonma.gov/apps/elections/11072017-unofficial-results.htm
show that only 2-3,000 people voted in the two contested ward contests, even in an election that drew great notice. I’d prefer to re-draw the ward lines to create half as many wards, with each of our distinct neighborhoods restricted to one of these larger wards if possible. This would require each ward councilor to answer to a more reasonable number of voters.
Please Ms. Spector, this ship has sailed. Do you really think that the City Council has the combined intellectual capacity or political will for change that will result in anything better than what we have now? If the charter debate proved anything it is that by and large, the citizens of Newton prefer a painfully balkanized approach to city governance with each little village protecting its narrow (and narrow minded) interests. Let’s move on. I am sure there is something out that in need of banning or some new form of control the city can exercise over how homeowners manage their property. #ProgressiveInNameOnly, #WeKnowBetterThanYou
Question – So much emphasis is being placed on a smaller council. However, I can’t say that I know enough to speak on wh/how that would make a difference, or what number would be best.
But it seems that we may be putting the cart before the horse. What exactly are we trying to achieve here – Shorter meetings? A faster approval process for development projects? Do neighborhoods have too much power/opportunity to derail the process?
I may be the only here in the dark – But maybe I’m not. Could someone fill me in and identify the problem(s) we need to solve by reducing the size of the council?
To me, it seems that the number of councilors is really irrelevant – And what *would* make a difference is a council who is committed and focused on building efficiency and fairness into the system.
Maybe move all development decisions to a Development Committee, Maybe impose limits on who can speak/ and for how long in meetings.
If the business of changing the council’s configuration is *really* about power and the ability to push a legislative agenda, it would be useful for me to know that now.
@Mike Ciolino – I’ll take a crack at that. I’m sure that plenty of others will add their two cents.
We have the biggest (by far) council in the state – 24 is off the charts. Many people believe that the council often times gets bogged down in endless discussion, gets sidetracked on issues outside their purview, and often gums up the work of government unnecessarily. The electorate at large (from previous votes) appears to agree that there may be a connection between the unwieldy size of the council and its perceived lack of effectiveness. Perhaps a minor consideration is the modest additional costs involved in having a very large council.
When asked, the electorate seems to think it’s too large. That’s the easy part.
Now once you get into the detailed discussion of how exactly to shrink the council, that’s when it all gets more interesting, complicated and confusing. At that point all sorts of other interests come into play. Each different alternative configuration you can come up with has different trade-offs, different vested interests, different winners and losers. Will the new configuration make it easier or harder to build development projects in Newton? Which councilors will likely lose their seats? Will different groups, neighborhoods, and individuals likely have a stronger or weaker voice? While there may be a broad agreement that we’d like to see a smaller council. There is far more fractured opinions on each of these details/trade-offs.
So to your question “what exactly are we trying to achieve here?” the answer will come down to who you ask.
It’s very akin to how I expect tax reform in Washington to play out. “Who here wants to simplify and lower taxes?” and everyone cheers. Sometime later an actual detailed plan emerges and all of the sudden there’s a big wave of “wait a minute, not like this”
Maybe to help Mike understand why a smaller city council could benefit Newton we start a thread with the most ridiculous City Council meetings/discussions ever.
I have several stories I could share but my favorite is 20 years back. With a room full of people waiting to be heard on many items before one of the committees, there was a long and heated discussion about a fortune teller on Route 9 and how this business was bad for the image of Newton. This was after the legal department told the aldermen the business had a legal right to operate and they had no right to try to stop it. I remember this well as I was waiting for a hearing on a special permit on the tennis club I live next door to, it had been a long day at work, I was 8 months pregnant and sitting on a hard bench and the bathroom was a long way off. They didn’t get to my issue until almost 11. This was my one and only chance to give my input on the project before the BOA and they were wasting our time. I knew then that the ways of the BOA needed to be fixed.
Jerry Reilly – Thanks so much. That was very useful.
I truly don’t have an opinion yet as to the size of the council and I’m very concerned already. There seems to be a big rush to get this done immediately.
Fair warning, however, I don’t care that we have “the biggest (by far) council in the state” or what any other city is doing. I don’t care that the general consensus is that the council needs to be smaller, or that the electorate seems to think it’s too large based on past votes.
What I DO care about is what exactly do we expect from our council, and what structural changes may facilitate a more efficient delivery of these expectations.
If the consensus is that we need to improve efficiency, I want to see a slate of ideas that address specific problems – Ideas that may, or may not include a smaller council.
The CC did what was expected of them, and we should appreciate their effort. One ‘criticism’ – Which I think is useful to mention now is that I my opinion, they relied too much on what other cities were doing, and various studies.
Although that sort of research can be useful, it can often cloud the waters and get in the way of looking at the specific problem in front of you. Often the most successful solutions come when you purposely do NOT look at what others are doing.
I think Newton’s situation is unique enough to benefit from some creative problem solving.
Last night at city hall the YES people were out in big numbers to stop the 8/8 petition. Why, because if it passes 8 at large councilors will lose their seats. This weakens their power grab which is now close to 90 per cent of the new council. Why the power thrust? Most of the yes vote are people who believe in new development and new revenues to shoulder the heavy debt created by the past 20 years of out of control school spending.
Developers are purchasing land along the Washington St. corridor. Several big sites in West Newton Square were recently negotiated, the bank and theater. All the new development will be mostly housing and the city council will approve all of it very quickly. The Washington corridor as we know it will be gone forever. Yes, we need balance on the council. We also need a mayor who will serve all of Newton and not just those who favor big school spending, more overrides and out of control village destruction.
Paul, many yes voters preferred the 8 at-large with ward residency + 4 district councilors council composition instead of the one the CC went with but preferred downsizing the council plus all of the other charter changes to keeping the current 24.
Colleen, are you a mind reader? Is that how you have determined exactly why the yes voters are against the 8 + 8 Council makeup? It was obvious from the election that there are a large number of no voters, including in ward 2, your ward and mine, who don’t agree with you.
@Alicia Bowman. You are going back 20 years to find an incident related to
a seemingly out of control committee meeting. I don’t think that’s entirely fair. I think the kind of incident you described is the exception rather than the rule when it comes to our present City Council. I was also participating in some of these seemingly interminable committee meetings about the time of the incident you describe when I was on the Mayor’s Compost Committee. My experience in recent years has been different.
Over the past two years, I’ve attended several ZAP committee meetings and hearings as well as regular meetings of the entire City Council as a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council, and as co-chair of the proposed Newton Highlands Local Historic District. Most of these meetings started right on time and concluded at a reasonable hour. The two exceptions were public hearings on the proposed Historic District that went on past 11 PM because so many homeowners on both sides of the issue wanted to testify. Scott Lennon and Ted Hess Mahan ran tight and smooth operations at every meeting I attended, but everyone got a chance to speak.
I believe the present 24 arrangement works better than critics give it credit for, but I’ll take 8 and 8 over any of the suggestions I’ve seen put forward on this post. I can only speak from my own experience canvassing more than 100 homes within my ward. Getting on the fence voters to come to the NO side was like picking low hanging fruit when I pointed out that the Charter Commission would eliminate the eight members of the City /Council elected only by voters within the respective 8 wards. I canvassed entirely in Ward 5, so what really clinched the deal was when I told voters that we would likely lose John Rice. “Why would they do something like that” was the common reply. That was the ultimate deal breaker for a YES vote, at least in Ward 5.
@Mike Ciolino – Brian Yates has been asking a similar question for the two years the charter commission has been deliberating. When I and the other 21 individuals ran for charter commission two years ago we all answered similarly to the question “How large should the city council be?” with “I have an open mind and I can’t say until we understand what the city council’s role should be”. The charter commission did a lot of of good work but I think missed the opportunity to address the underlying question of what role should the city council take and then decide on the size. My understanding is they decided on the number and planned to leave it to the new council members to decide how the smaller body would undertake their current and future responsibilities.
One way to reduce the council meetings would be to limit the subjects allowed to be taken up by our representatives. No federal issues (i.e. immigration) and no state government issues (i.e. allowing non-citizens with SSN cards and driver’s licenses to vote in local elections, statewide carbon tax and millionaire’s tax ) to be on the docket. If citizens feel strongly on these issues, they need to be made aware that we have 3 state representatives and one senator representing us on Bacon Hill; and a congressman and two Senators to the US Congress.
We must restrict the Council subject matter and discussions to the operation of City of Newton . Come voice your thoughts on this at Newton City hall on December 6.
Cut it in half. 12 total: 8 at large. 4 Ward reps by combining two Wards. 16 year Term Limits.
Alternatively go 8v8. But make the term limits different. 16 year term limits for At-Large and the Ward have 8 year terms.
Time marches on and I for one would love to see continued new blood pumped into the city council.
I don’t love the 8 x 8, but having overlapping 4-year terms for at-large councilors might make it more palatable.
One of the things I look for in a School Committee member, or any other elected official, is a willingness to admit when they are wrong and an interest in getting facts straight. You can argue whether we should consider our local officials as representing all the people in their wards or all the registered voters in their wards, but I am certain that Newton does not have only 8000 residents nor 8000 registered voters.
According to the Newton city website, we have 87K residents of whom about 1/4 are under voting age. Even if we assume that another 5% are not citizens and unable to vote, that leave over 60,000 voters, which means about 8500 voters per ward. There’s a big difference between that and 1000.
If I saw that the Tab, Globe, or NYT made an error of this magnitude I would call it out and expect them to issue a correction. Same for a School Committee member or City Councilor. I find it disappointing that someone who ran for School Committee won’t admit to and correct and error.
@Meredith: No error. I wasn’t referring to ward population, I was talking about the actual number of votes that have elected ward councilors. In a year when there is not a seriously contested mayoral race, ward councilors are elected with several hundred, not thousand, votes. In Ward 1 in 2015, for example, Alison Leary beat Allan Ciccone Sr. in an election where only 994 people voted. Emily Norton received the most votes of any unchallenged ward councilor, with 937. In 2013, when Ted Hess-Mahan challenged Mayor Setti Warren, only 1,200 people voted in a contested Ward 1 race where there was no incumbent.
I don’t dispute that ward councilors represent everyone who lives in their ward. But they’re only accountable to those who are motivated enough to vote them in or out of office.
If you want to see the number of registered voters by ward and the turnout since 2001 go to the City’s Election Turnout compilation.
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/84814
I want to stress a point that I was trying to make in this post: While many people think 24 councilors is too large a body (and I’m inclined to agree), I’d rather retain the current model than put the city through another divisive ballot question campaign. I think 8:8 would be just as divisive as the Charter Commission’s proposal — the “no” side would become the “yes” side, and vice versa.
I don’t think that 8 at-large/4 district would be anywhere near as divisive, but I only have anecdotal evidence, not hard data, to back up my argument.
If people are dissatisfied enough with their ward councilor, they will show up to vote them out of office. All elected officials are accountable to all the voters. People have a variety of reasons for choosing not to vote, including so many names on the ballot that they are overwhelmed and feel like they can’t learn enough about all of them to vote intelligently.
@Meredith: In theory, I agree. In practical application, I look at races like the Ward 5 councilor (then alderman) race in which Bill Brandel beat incumbent Christine Samuelson. Ward 5 residents were really angry with Samuelson and they rallied behind Brandel (I recall a wonderful Mark Marderosian cartoon…). Still, only 1,600 voters cast ballots in that race.
BTW, looking at the unofficial results page, I see 2000-3000 votes for the contested ward councilor races. The vote totals for uncontested races are meaningless, since many of us won’t vote for someone who is unopposed.
I hope you aren’t trying to say that the ward councilors only represent those who voted for them and not their opponents. Most of us expect our elected officials to represent all of us, whether we voted for them or their opponents (especially in non-partisan municipal races, where they can’t make assumptions based on party affiliation).
As I said, I don’t dispute that ward councilors represent everyone who lives in their ward. But they’re only accountable to those who are motivated enough to vote them in or out of office. I wish that weren’t so, but that’s politics.
The numbers in this year’s election are higher, yes. But we don’t often have years where there are highly contested mayor’s races and ballot questions. Seldom do more than 40% of registered voters show up for regular municipal elections.
It is clear that only a minority of voters – 47% — supported the councilor at-large model. Equally clear, the NO campaign, which had the campaign slogan of “Save Local Representation,” prevailed. Further, this vote occurred in the knowledge that 14 councilors supported the 8 + 8 item, which would be taken up subsequent to the election. So a practical inference of these results is that the majority rejected the at-large model, and did so aware that the 8 + 8 would be acted on in its stead.
Ergo, the 8 + 8 model deserves a vote.
You make a valid point, Bill, but I would argue that we have no way of knowing how many voters knew and understood that 8 and 8 might be option. The only thing we really know is that the majority of voters didn’t want to lose local representation.
Gail: Glad to see your fact-based voice of reason once again graces V14!
I agree that we don’t know. But I do think that voters did know this was the next act if YES went down and they voted that way, anyway. Further, if this doesn’t go through, it is highly likely that this round of charter reform will fail. So folks, you want a smaller council or not?
@Bill Brandel – It sounds like you might be jumping the gun a bit.
I wasn’t at last night’s Council meeting that took this up. The second hand report I heard was that there were number of different proposal being kicked around 8-8, 8-4, 16-8 and that there will be another meeting of the full board next week.
Were any V14 readers there last night? Anybody have a first hand report?
@Bill Honestly, I think 8 + 8 was a blip and I bet most voters don’t even know about it. I’ve been steeped in this conversation for months and I don’t remember the exact outcome – I remember that there was an outcry of opposition saying that it was a ruse to confuse voters and cloud the issue. And then it went away. People had a hard enough time focusing on the issue in front of them, Yes vs No. I think Yes vs No, If No then X was just too amorphous.
@Jerry – I was at the meeting last night. In no particular order of events, 25 – 30 people spoke with the majority coming from the charter commission / yes side asking that the city council takes the idea slowly and not rush to a 8 + 8 conclusion. There were folks from the no side supporting the idea which was in keeping with their local accountability mantra. A few asked why change at all, not knowing what problem a smaller council would fix.
Lisle Baker outlined the process, which was to move the discussion out of programs and services to the committee as a whole to have the full council weigh in on the topic and to have this before the end of the term. He reminded all that we was against any change in the size, “24 has worked well for Newton”, but moved the question.
Amy Sangiolo stated that now is a good time to take an action since there is already high turn over in the council membership, reducing future feelings of voting against councilors jobs.
Alison Leary wanted another committee meeting to review charter commission deliberations and past proposals.
Some folks did ask that other configurations be considered and one option would be to take the question to the voters, “Do you want 24 + 8, 8 + 8, 8 + 4?”. All with some ward component. One suggestion was 16, All Ward.
Some folks complained about the process, “why was the public hearing held before the docket item?”. Ken Parker provided the process and it was clear (at least to me) that this was not decided in the proverbial smoking room.
There will be another meeting of programs and services next week with a goal of having the full council discuss the option(s) at the Dec 4th(? maybe 11th) meeting.
Jerry: The 8 + 8 concept was out there, and if you recall it received strong condemnation from the Charter Commissioners and their supporters. Candidates took a position. Voters knew of its existence prior to voting. It was co-sponsored by 14 councilors. So no, I don’t think this is jumping the gun. I think it is taking the next logical step.
Further, the more features they add to this item, the more likely it will gain opposition and fail.
Prediction: If 8 + 8 does not go forward, council reform is dead.
I never considered 16 all Ward. Like it a lot though. Does an At Large councilor have value that I’m not concidering?
Mike:
Having no at large councilors means that:
1. No councilor has to consider the consequence of his/her votes on anything outside the ward. You get 16 parochial councilors who don’t have to think broadly about the city.
2. Every voter can only express an opinion on 1/8 of the city council. Let’s imagine a scenario in which an issue important to me, but outside my ward line, is decided by the city council (a parking issue, a development in the village where I shop/live, but outside my ward line). I have zero influence over the 7/8 of the people who will vote on it.
16 All Ward would be a terrible idea.
I have heard a lot of messaging on the YES campaign (repeated again last night at the public hearing) that referred to either the ignorance or non-participation of Newton voters as a reason for the switch to an all at-large elected City Council . To me, this thinking is both outrageous and dangerous to democracy. The Charter is like Newton’s constitution. We don’t rewrite the U.S. Constitution or change government because the voters aren’t measuring up and participating as we’d like. We can’t create a system that favors citywide political elites and their networks to fill a perceived vacuum. That’s not government or community looking out for democracy’s good. It’s oligarchy. It’s monumentally unwise to permanently lower the ceiling because most citizens are crawling. Instead, we must do everything we can to inspire them to stand up and reach. We want a system that encourages participation and independent voices and makes it accessible for “the little guy” to run for office. It doesn’t matter how many people show up to vote. We don’t invalidate election results because of low voter turnout. Nor do we change our system of government and go with “Senate only” because the majority of Americans can’t name their U.S. Representative. Furthermore, we have a principle in this country that the purest form of democracy is direct vote. At last night’s meeting, Jake Auchincloss referred to the NO victory as “the October surprise.” What was the surprise? Democracy in action? Mark Laredo made yet another eloquent argument — this time that the programs & services committee has an obligation to bring the 8-8 petition to the full body and have the entire CC go on the record. I whole-heartedly agree. THIS City Council, not the new one, has a duty to go on the record so that voters can remember their stance when they are up for re-election. What is outrageous to me, according to two city government-familiar attorneys that I asked at last night’s hearing, is that even though Newton voters soundly rejected the specific Charter proposed by the Commission, the CC could still, in theory, create a new home rule petition for the YES recommendation (that the voters already voted down ), basically attempting an end-around the the will of the people. I have no doubt that the intent by the influential YES advocates is to stall the 8-8 petition until the new CC, with more YES votes, is in place in January. I don’t think that we should avoid elections because they are divisive. Democracy is messy and healthy. P.S.: I really don’t care about how hard the Charter Commission worked over the past 2 years. I’m not going to eat tainted food as to not offend the chefs. The vote of the people is all that matters.
Those claiming 8/8 is divisive are doing so with ZERO data.
It is a plain guess with little value in this discourse.
There is no way to know whether its merely a vocal minority opposed to 8/8 or something more. As Bill said, this proposal was fully transparent to the public BEFORE the voted.
Elections have consequences.
Time for 8+8 to be considered.
Gayle makes some great points, with respect to “healing” and “city-wide consensus.” Those are high goals and every bit worth pursuing. Based on things I have seen and heard, I would like to respectfully add three points:
1. Newton should be proud that the effort has advanced so far. All who have worked to bring democracy this far need be commended. I was a City Councilor in Cambridge, from 1990-1995, and the thought of Charter reform, even during contentious rent control, would have been far-fetched. Democracy is alive and well here, and that need be embraced, and even celebrated
2. Mike Ciolino raises some important questions, as to pointing to what is the end goal anyway? By stepping back a tad and considering, and then defining the purpose, there may be more agreement than people possibly realize. While twenty-four seems unwieldy; there is a level of accessibility that could be lost. Just a thought too; an odd number might make for decisive votes, as some cities do have. Like anything else, there are pros and cons on that one.
3. I admired the part of the statement of Lisle Baker that I saw. Councilor Baker did not agree with the reduction per se; and yet was willing to move the process forward. I believe the process could be key; and the combination of Council meetings and even a community forum or two, could be valuable, in building greater “consensus!”
Oops, I misspelled Gail, pardon me. BTW, how do I get a picture on here? Thanks.
KarenN said “according to two city government-familiar attorneys that I asked at last night’s hearing, is that even though Newton voters soundly rejected the specific Charter proposed by the Commission, the CC could still, in theory, create a new home rule petition for the YES recommendation (that the voters already voted down ), basically attempting an end-around the the will of the people. ”
Can Bryan/Rhanna/ Jane go on the record and say that they will NOT support such a run around?
Neil, you are right to be concerned. As long as you and others keep the focus on positive change; it will come about. Have a great morning, everyone!
@Jon Basssett
I hear what you are saying, but are you taking a pessimistic, divisive, or 100% analytical view of how people would behave? Hear me out –
It seems to me that in a 16-All-Ward scenario, counselors would need to work together to a much greater degree in order to survive – And in a sense, wouldn’t it actually level the playing field?
Giving all counselors an equal status would force them to balance the needs of the city as a whole vs the wants of their Ward with every vote. They would need to lobby, negotiate and compromise in order to gain the support (votes) of their colleagues on issues important to their ward.
In order to succeed, wouldn’t a 16-All-Ward system would require counselors to operate and balance BOTH citywide and “parochial” perspectives – Very similar to our current at-large councilor?
As a resident, you absolutely would have access to influence all 16 Councilors because it is in their best interest. It seems to me that the dynamics of 16-All-Ward provides BOTH undeniable Ward representation AND forces residents to think of Newton as a more cohesive city. (i.e. to get what they want, they’ll need to cooperate and compromise with other wards)
Would be good to hear some thoughts about this from those who have held office. How would 16-All-Ward change the job of being a Councilor in Newton?
I would love to see a roundtable discussion with former Newton Aldermen, Mayors + Josh Krintzman + Emily or Jack on this issue.
I had a nice conversation with a long time North side resident handing out NO fliers last Sunday in my neighborhood. We agreed that both sides made compelling arguments. It was nice to speak to someone whose eyes go didnt go blank and posture shift when they disagree with you.
Here’s the deal folks:
If you want someone to care about developments, school infrastructure,
Villages, or anything else that has to do with your part of Newton, you sure as hell better care about what is going on in their neck of the woods when things are going south especially when the storm is headed in YOUR direction.
I have been cautioning for years that overpopulated/infrastructure poor schools(Countryside), giant developments -(Avalon Bay,)McMansions in your backyard(Dedham St), etc would soon
be coming to a neighborhood near you.
I find it quite rich that activists, local area councils and even neighbors seeking my help, advocacy, time, vote and lawn space were nowhere to be found when our neighborhood needed the help, especially Ward specific aldermen/ councilors and school committee members.
A side note to Gail Spector here:
Thanks for running.
I was respectful and kept my mouth shut during your campaign, but as a
former Countryside parent who had kids in that school when you did,
I honestly cant remember you using your journalism platform outside of the school to highlight the conditions/overcrowding etc at your own child’s school. Dori Zaleznik had the same problem. I’m happy to be corrected or have my memory jostled,
so have at it. Unfortunately, good journalism sometimes means membership in the
popular/well liked kids club gets kicked to the curb.
@Paul Green:
PUBLIC FACE, PRIVATE REALITY
Boston Globe – Boston, Mass.
Author: Spector, Gail
Date: Jan 30, 2000
Start Page: 2
Section: West Weekly
Document Text
WEST WEEKLY / GAIL SPECTOR Gail Spector is a writer who lives in Newton. She can be reached at [email protected].
When I visited Newton South High School recently, I didn’t know what to expect. There have been many School Committee discussions about poor conditions at Newton’s smaller high school, but I’d also heard about high SAT scores and high percentages of college-bound kids. How bad could conditions be?
Parts of the school are in great shape. Looking at the auditorium, music labs and brand new science department, I saw state-of-the-art facilities. Students and teachers using these rooms, I imagined, would know that Newton cares about how days are spent there.
Other sections made me wonder: How could this be a school in Newton? Part of the physical education department exists in a basement. Large insulated pipes hang from the ceiling, practically inviting tall students to bang their heads. The rooms fill with smells of sweat, exaggerated because of no ventilation and overheating.
Gym lockers are too few and too small to accommodate backpacks. Obtaining access to closets can require walking through locker rooms of the opposite sex. The girls’ shower room was deserted and dry. Girls never shower there. It is too claustrophobic and secluded.
The school’s 1,275 students fill the classrooms at all times, leaving teachers no time for classroom preparation. More than 60 teachers share a single telephone. Student-teacher conversations that ought to be private take place on the floor in crowded hallways because suitable space is not available. Meanwhile, enrollment is projected to increase for the next five years.
Over at Newton North High School, facilities are better but supplies and administrative support are inadequate for 2,100 kids. Math teacher JoEllen Hillyer held a lottery at the beginning of the school year because she didn’t have enough math books for her students. Science department head Tom Gwin hasn’t bought any new microscopes since 1989.
“Our science department budget is $19,500 for 2,100 kids, compared to $60,000 for 1,600 kids at Brookline High,” Gwin said. Like their colleagues at Newton South, teachers lack computers, Internet access and phones.
In 1993, the school consisted of four houses of about 430 students. Now, some houses hold about 575 students. No support staff members, such as psychologists, librarians or housemasters, have been added.
Elsewhere in Newton, elementary schools also are struggling with inadequate facilities.
The Countryside School was bursting at the seams with 500 children in 1992 when sixth grade was shifted to a middle school. The school again houses 500 children, and it has no sixth grade. Many classes hold 25 children. Over the years, classrooms have been added to the school, most recently through the patched-on installation of modular units. But year after year, more children enter than graduate and the space is maxed out. The core facility has not changed since 1953.
School Committee member Susan Heyman describes Newton’s problem as three-fold:
“We are dealing with increased enrollment, buildings that haven’t been maintained, and changing programmatic needs. When our schools were built, nobody thought about integration of special-education students, technological needs of schools, or bilingual programs. All of these programs require space.”
Like many communities, Newton mistakenly believed that declining enrollment figures in the 1980s were permanent and the city sold off school buildings. Unlike the conditions in many other communities, however, the remaining open space in Newton is limited to parks and golf courses. The city doesn’t have the luxury of building new schools; it must make do with current sites.
Superintendent of Schools Jeffrey Young summarized the situation: “There are tremendous capital needs in school buildings here, and we are trying to address them in a timely way, while dealing with fiscal constraints.”
The School Committee recently approved the concept of expanding Newton South and redistricting to equalize enrollment between the two high schools. Early project estimates exceed $80 million, 60 percent of which may be eligible for funding through the state’s School Building Assistance Act.
Matthew King, Wellesley’s superintendent of schools and the parent of a Newton North freshman, explained that every community has an outside image and an internal identity.
“Newton has always identified with its strong schools,” King said. “It risks losing that identity if it doesn’t adequately address the overcrowding in its schools.”
Fixing the schools will be a communitywide commitment. If Superintendent Young truly comprehends the severity of the problem – and I believe he does – he will present a comprehensive districtwide plan that requires a huge financial responsibility. If Mayor David Cohen intends to follow through on his campaign theme – that our schools are our greatest resource – he will find the funds, even if he has to propose raising property taxes. If Newton residents want to preserve the quality of education that has made them proud, they will support these decisions.
Otherwise, they can say goodbye to Newton’s great schools.
If what KarenN said above is true, “I have heard a lot of messaging on the YES campaign (repeated again last night at the public hearing) that referred to either the ignorance or non-participation of Newton voters as a reason for the switch to an all at-large elected City Council.” I too am outraged.
The charter commission did its job and presented Newton voters with a new charter to vote on, in an up and down vote. I voted Yes but the No votes won. That’s the end of it. The voters in Newton have spoken. To go through the home rule petition process with the same proposal would be a slap in the face to Newton voters, create even more divisiveness as well as an affront to democracy.
As for the 8 + 8 scenario docketed by 14 current councilors before the charter vote, that was the October surprise. There’s no way to conclude that No voters did so because they were persuaded that a No vote would lead to that scenario. It’s a docketed item, not a mandate.
The council should consider several options put before it, not just the docketed item. The most consensus seems to be around the 4 double ward-elected and 8 at-large with ward residency. To make it an odd number 1 councilor could be elected at-large with no residency requirement. Keeping ward representation, just increasing their constituency.
Mike, personally I think we need to look toward the future. The charter commission had a forum with past councilors. I think listening and looking to the past is a big reason the new charter didn’t pass. I’m not interested in what past councilors, mayors, charter commissioners or even current (not re-elected) councilors have to say on this subject. We’ve been hearing from them for two years. All that looking back did was create more division in Newton.
Newton is inevitably changing, as all things do, and it’s constitution needs to reflect that. The all at-large council scenario was voted down by the electorate – so be it. It’s over. The voters want locally-elected representation. There are several ways to accomplish that – status quo, or other ward + at-large councilor compositions.
The charter commission is technically done, just a few more days to wrap things up. Keeping the other changes to the charter would be great but that’s not a mandate either.
I’m interested in what the just elected or re-elected 2018 mayor and councilors have to say. They are a reflection of the voters who elected them and the future of Newton. No more looking backward.
Honestly, I don’t think this current council should vote on anything. Even if it was my preferred 4 ward plus 8 at large. Lame ducks shouldn’t make major policy. Let the new council vote on it. This isn’t a zoning issue or Austin Street, which was discussed many times and had public hearings many times before the lame duck period.
Start fresh. If the 8 plus 8 moves forward, so be it.
@Gail-
I stand corrected. My apologies. Thank you.
I wish more people had done the same.
To Neil’s question: I am completely opposed to anything resembling an “end-around” plan. I spoke at the hearing and advocated for the following composition: a 12 member council, 8 councilors elected at-large as they are now, and 4 councilors elected by districts comprised of two contiguous wards. It was what I advocated for during charter commission deliberations and what I believe is best for the city.
What is the worst case scenario for the city: rushing this docketed item through the council in 5-weeks time. The no vote won, but we have absolutely no data as to why people voted as they did. Maybe an individual wanted to retain 24 councilors; maybe others thought a district model would have been fine for the extra 4 seats; maybe it was another item in the proposal that led to a no vote.
To be very clear- the voters have NOT spoken on the 8/8 model in any way, shape or form. It was an up or down vote on the total proposal and that was all that the vote related to.
And now a lame duck city council wants to vote on the composition of the city council that it’s been unable to change in 20 years in 5 weeks time? With one hearing (cut short) before one committee? Then after one more committee meeting with no public comment, have it sent to the committee of the whole? And we’re supposed to believe that this is a transparent and open process? Is this how our city council functions? If this happens, the credibility and reputation of the city council will be damaged for decades to come. I have to think that most councilors realize that this is a poorly conceived action being undertaken without thorough vetting.
Let’s be clear: the “end-around” isn’t the members of the charter commission – it’s certain members of the city council.
And just a reminder, this is how long the city council deliberated on recent items:
Leaf blower ordinance: 2 and 1/2 years
Dog parks: 5 years
Accessory apartments: 14 years.
Austin St. project: 5 years
Washington Place: 2 years with 7 public hearings
8+4 was a compromise.
YES wasn’t interested.
It’s time for 8+8. Its already won multiple non-binding referendums, its deserves to be considered, and the City Council is rightfully doing so.
The charter has been deliberated for 2 years. Lets pass 8+8 and move on to other issues. Enough time has been spent on this one.
@Jane
You are absolutely % correct.
Reminds me of GOP rush for tax reform by years end.
@Jane – Thank you for answering my question in uncertain terms. #Respect
@Jane – “this is how long the city council deliberated on recent items”
Here is another entry for your deliberation table:
Charter Commission – council composition: 2 weeks (3/30/16 1st hearing, 4/13/16 final proposal approved 9-0).
@MartiB
I didn’t know CC did had a forum with elected officials
Returning to my initial comment on this thread, what are the exact problem(s) we need to fix?
M Shorter meetings? Is that it?
I think tinkering with the balance of power by shifting influence away from the wards was a goal for some … I think this argument was veiled as providing greater efficiency.
Is balance of power a problem needed to be examined/ fixed?
Any other specific problems caused by our current system we are fixing here?
What Jack said.
Jane complaining about the process not being legitimate? What a joke.
The Commission chose an outlier structure not supported by external benchmarks and did so very quickly. They presented the appearance of deliberation, but nothing ever changed from that initial vote.
Pot? Kettle?
KISS, baby steps, – nothing speaks louder than results – results speak louder than words. 8/8 so simple yet in Newton the obvious becomes complicated. Those without common sense morph into over selling their beliefs and disguise truth from perfection..
PS The community what 53-47 against the Charter.
The chance of the 9 Commission members all happening to choose no ward representation at the initial vote (before any deliberation) was 0.2%.
The Commission didn’t represent the views of the general electorate– something funny happened. Its not like we had 50% of the Commission feeling one way, 50% the other and after a lot of debate they chose one structure. There was complete agreement from Day One. Its very strange, and frankly something that merits being explored. Because something illegitimate very likely happened and we don’t know what it is right now.
0.2% chance that they’d vote that way right off the bat. Something else was going on.
What happened, we cannot reference here, as it will be pulled.
@Colonel S – That just makes me want to know more
A fascinating thing – There is no longer a YES campaign … or a NO campaign.
There is just a bunch of people that want something to happen and a bunch of city councilors who promised that something would happen. And a gen-pop who decided nothing would happen.
If we wanted to do this correctly, we would step away from the past. Step away from all the work and effort that has been done and do whatever it takes to engage the Gen Pop to find out what it is they want.
I’d wager they would say: “It ain’t broke, so leave it alone and get back to work’
@ Jack Prior,
You are friendly with most of the charter commissioners. Just a suggestion…maybe you could give one of us a call to clarify, or visit our page on the city website, before you post about our process. Once you’ve widely disseminated misinformation, it can be tough to correct the record, and I’m sure that’s not what you want.
Sounds like you are trying to use the charter commission’s process to justify the city council voting on a proposal that has not been through a thoughtful process.
The charter commission deliberated the composition of the city council on the following dates:
4/13/16
4/27
8/24
11/16
3/29/17
4/12
Minutes and audio are still up on the city website.
The first discussion was preceded by a review of the 4 models detailed in the Model City Charter, 2 public hearings, and 2 panel discussions in which we interviewed city councilors from Newton and other cities to understand how the models work in reality. The discussion was also informed by a research packet that detailed the implications of various models. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/74391
Anyway, that effort is done and as Mike said, time to look forward. I am excited about the prospect of the city council taking up charter reform. I have faith that our elected leaders will be thorough in their approach to this.
@Rhanna
Let’s not conflate time elapsed with being thoughtful. All of your meetings were open to the public, and so all of that deliberation was/is available to the City Council. There is no reason to start back at square 1.
The link that you sent is actually interesting to re-read. Its amazing how the Commission ended up with an even-numbered size even though ZERO benchmarks did so with consequences (risk of being in a tie) being so obvious, and the predominance of local representation without justification for Newton being an outlier. The research also sorely lacked information on national research city governance structures.
Not looking to re-litigate your mistakes, but to point our that you and others on the Commission are in no position to be critiquing the current process. If you had done you job better, been more humble and open to compromise, we wouldn’t be in this position. You’ve had ample opportunity to weigh in on this topic, time for the rest of us to fix the mess you’ve left.
@Paul: Rhanna and the other Charter Commissions are residents and voters in this city, regardless of how the charter vote turned out. Their comments are just as valid as yours or mine or anyone who disagrees with them.
*I mixed up 8+4 and the Commission proposal for a moment, my mistake. The rest stays. Let the rest of us deal with mess now.
we’ll give it a try – Setti city syndrome. what is it? Can we even say that? try saying that 3 times fast.
Jack – That’s not accurate information.
The charter commission deliberated on the composition of the council at either 4 or 5 lengthy meetings over a period of 13 months. The final two votes were 5/4 in favor of the district model and the last vote was 4/5 to return to the 8/4 at-large model. This does not include the time spent outside of the meetings, either researching or reviewing data.
As has been stated a number of times before, all initial votes were straw votes meant to determine where consensus existed and/or provide direction for future deliberations. Likewise, we deliberated on term limits more times than I can remember.
The city council should do a thorough review of the possible configurations and have the number of public hearings that do this issue justice. If I may quote Lennie Gentile, the city council must do its due diligence before taking action.
Gail, while I agree that charter commissioners are citizens who can certainly voice their opinions, I think the time of its members defending the commission’s charter work needs to reach its conclusion. The final phase of the commission’s work was for the residents to vote – they did and the charter proposal was rejected. So be it. It really doesn’t make any sense for them to continue to defend either their process or it’s conclusion.
@Marti, I agree. But we also shouldn’t reject their opinions because their effort failed.
Marti – I have no interest whatsoever in reviewing the past. I’m the first to say, let’s move on and stated that at the public hearing on Wednesday evening. However, several posters included inaccurate information about the process to make their case. We may disagree on this, but V14 is more credible when it provides accurate information.
Ditto what Jane said. Jack commented that the charter commission only spent two meetings discussing the city Council composition, so why should we ask more from the council itself?
I am not interested in discussing the past, but very interested in the process we embrace moving forward. So I would like any conversation about that to be informed by truth.
@Rhanna & @Jane — as you know I’m relatively well versed in how the process proceeded. Yes there were meetings subsequent to 4/13, and some variations considered, but the final proposal and the 100% agreement on 100% at-large council was established on 4/13, after 2 weeks of deliberation. 8-8 has been discussed for 20 years and is fully ready for a vote of the council. You repeated accused the 14 councilors docketing this item of lack of integrity to follow through, and now you are blocking that follow through.
With regard to the packet, were does it include this bit of research, cited in 2012 here on V14: The average city council in Massachusetts has 7 ward-elected representatives and 4 at-large representatives https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BysZP1gxJGFmaVJYRDM4Yk1Ea0U/view?usp=sharing
It is very relevant to the discussion at hand on the HR petition. I don’t see why it was left out of the research packet.
The packet states no other city council has 2 representatives per ward, which is inaccurate, as Methuen has two reps per ward.
http://www.cityofmethuen.net/city-council
Gail, I agreed that commissioners should continue expressing their opinions as citizens. I’m not sure why you brought that up again.
This continued rehashing isn’t as citizens disagreeing with other positions held by other citizens. Jack, among others, and the commissioners have discussed this point to death. It is a fact that the final council composition was the same as the first straw vote. As it is that the commissioners and the yes voters, me included, said that the 8 + 8 ploy was misdirection and would not come to fruition.
I disagree with Jack’s and others statements that the council must now proceed with the 8 + 8 composition. The no vote was not a mandate to rush this legislation through. There has been no consensus. The city council needs to take the time necessary to come up with the best possible makeup for the city including more public hearings and more deliberations. Rushing it through will only increase divisiveness and Newton will once again have a yes and no fight on its hands. This time it will be the city council who is accused not listening to the public.
The council needs to consider different makeups before coming to a hasty conclusion and yes, building consensus is the best way.
I am glad the Yes question failed but I am trying to educate myself on the various other options starting with 8 & 8. On the surface that seems reasonable but I really don’t understand the potential downside. I am especially interested in hearing from folks who were NO on the charter but oppose 8&8. Thanks!!
14 City Councilors docketed the 8 + 8 item as a fallback position should the Charter proposal fail. It did fail. This referendum was voted on in the knowledge (it was a front page story in the TAB) that a rejection of YES would not result in a stop of the council reform effort, but would instead move the effort toward the 8 + 8 model. This is why the item was docketed to be taken up immediately after the election was concluded.
Elections have consequences. So, to remain credible the City Council must follow through on the 8 + 8 vote, immediately. Not doing so would be reneging on what was promised to voters.
@Bill B, that is partially why I am confused. Pro-Yes was insistent that 8&8 was a stunt and that if YES failed 8&8 would die on the vine. But now it is being pursued. Seems like a case “damned if the do, damned if they don’t”. I don’t know where I stand but it certainly seems to be a lightning rod
Claire: Critics gonna criticize. 8 + 8 was docketed as an item to be acted on subsequent to the failure of the YES vote. If the Council votes on 8 + 8 and it does not pass, then so be it. There you go. But to not vote on it would essentially mean that the item was a bait and switch to voters. And that would not be okay. So, let’s continue to put faith in our local democracy and let the Council do its job.
It is great how people are working on it. I do respectfully encourage folks to keep a few things in mind:
1. There was incredible effort to do a charter reform and get to forty-seven or so percent; those folks generally should be commended;
2. The Council is being courageous for taking up a measure, with prodding perhaps, still that would reduce their own membership;
3. The key for the “consensus” that Gail references, would seem to be to somehow combine the energy of both the community process and the Council, not one or the other, but both!
How do I do the @ sign for peoples’ names? Thanks.
@Gail
You wrote yourself that the Commission offered a proposal that was divisive. There was ample opportunity to find a middle road and they neglected to do so. I for one don’t want to hear from them now. They’ve had an outsized voice in this process, as they were elected to do. They failed, primarily by their arrogance, and should let the rest of us figure it out now. I’m entitled my opinion too. And there are many who agree with me.
I continue to be amazed that when a group or a candidate fails to win, that we suddenly have to question the voters intent. The voters have spoken. More people were against the proposed Charter than were for it. End of story. Why is it so difficult to accept that the voters want to KEEP their Ward only elected Councilors?
I think the problem the YES campaign had with the Home Rule petition was that it was presented as a certainty when it actually requires multiple approvals (Council, Mayor, State etc) none of which were guaranteed. I think as we move forward no conclusions can be reached on what the intent of the NO voters was. You can not assume that they or any other member of the general population support the 8X8 configuration. Kudos for the City Council for following through on their pledge to visit this issue but there should be no rush to push this process through without getting input on various potential configurations for the CC.
@amysangiolo
That’s a great point too; perhaps the NO is a definitive vote. Although fourteen Councilors, as I understand it, did support another measure. We shall see, I suppose. 🙂
I agree with @NewtonHighlandsMom. Enjoy the day everyone.
Let’s look at this a bit objectively based on the results from Tuesday’s voting.
The YES side had the unwavering support of the League of Women Voters, the Newton/Needham Chamber of Commerce, the Mayor and other popular and highly respected local and state political figures, and a range of economic, business, real estate and development interests along with several prominent donors, some from outside Newton.
The NO side started as a raggle taggle collection of several City Councilors, grass roots village and neighborhood activists including a surprisingly large number of Newton residents who had never been involved in political campaigning before . It was always heavily outspent and it only slowly built combustion throughout the City.
My takeaway as a grass roots canvasser was that my ability to explain the benefits of preserving the 8 ward councilors elected solely within each ward was what ultimately drove almost all of the NO vote I garnered. Most of the people I canvassed may have wanted to generically reduce the size of the Council and institute term limits, but not at the expense of losing these ward specific councilors. And it’s somewhat condescending to suggest that voters weren’t able to grasp all this with a short presentation by me and other NO advocates at their front door. I’m almost certain the NO side would have had even more support if the Mayor, Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters hadn’t been on the other side.
So, it seems to me that any change to what we have now should respect the fact that the majority of Newton voters seem to want to elect the 8 ward councilors the way they are selected now. Preserving local representation and honoring the wish of the voters should be the firm and irrevocable base upon which any change is debated about the rest of the City Council.
Exactly what Bob Burke said…
What Bob Burke said.
Along with the fact that 8+8 has passed two non-binding referendums. That’s 3 elections all pointing to the same structure.
8+8 has been discussed for years. It’s time.
Bob nailed it. As an academic matter, 8-4 is a good compromise and probably would’ve narrowly passed if it had been presented along with all of the other changes the charter commission proposed.
But we can’t ignore what just happened. After a bruising contest focused on the elimination of ward councilors and the meaning of “ward representation,” the same voters who two years ago voted 79% in favor of establishing a charter commission have now rejected the resulting proposal 53%-47%. That’s a very loud NO.
If 8-4 makes it’s way through you’d be going back to voters in two years and saying “ok we heard you, we are still eliminating ward councilors but this time we will replace them with district councilors, which are the same except there will only be four of them and they will cover twice as much territory and be accountable to twice as many voters.” The same arguments will be rehashed (“save our ward councilors!”) and fatigued voters will be rightly annoyed. At least we will save some trees and the new NO side will be able to repurpose the old NO side’s lawn signs.
Bill and Amy are right. Elections have consequences. At this point, 8-4 is folly.
Just wondering, not proposing: Who says Newton has to have eight wards? Can’t that number change with a home rule petition also?
@Gail, It is a fair question, but why does it need to change? Does it need more or less and why?
I have a proposal, based on what I have heard, as well as Mayor-elect Fuller’s wonderful word: “listening.” I am calling this 8 and 8 plus 1. Hmmm, let me do the math, that is 8 + 8 =16, plus one more = ahhh, 17. Lol, we have to have some fun, right, humor even, as Sallee said. Sincerely though 8 and 8 plus one for 17. The reasons I do not know everything, but know it is worthy of your consideration are:
1. An odd number is more action-oriented. I can see where an even number, especially a large one, could with no disrespect to any of the Councilors induce long deliberations and mulling things over. While it would be better to have greater coalitions than 9; the possibility of a 9-8 vote could cause quicker and even better decisions.
2. Twenty-four is a large number to get things done, especially again in a vibrant city and community like Newton. Twelve may be too sudden and too quick a departure from the past.
3. Similarly, what makes Newton so unique among other things is the duality of having local villages, and still being a city, so close to Boston. As @Bob Burke says maintaining ward Councilors seems to be a political stronghold; along with the fact that having city-wide candidates and Councilors emphases the city part.
Toward the consensus that Gail suggests, the YES campaign can declare victory for having moved this so far; the Council can get credit for responding, albeit with a plus one reminder of the peoples’ voice, and those in the NO campaign who are open to some change can rejoice for having improved the previous proposal. Such a perspective might embrace much more than 50% of the community perspective, and in life and surely politics 100% cannot be the goal.
Please consider, thanks.
P.S. Newton, you have already done an amazing job, on this issue. Few, if any communities could come so far in such an open and public process. Whatever happens, please be proud, already!
P.P.S. Enjoy the day; as I am off for now.
On Nov. 7th, Newton residents voted decisively to SAVE LOCAL REPRESENTATION. More voted for it than voted for either mayoral candidate. It was on the signs on nearly 900 lawns. Saving local representation means saving Newton’s 8 ward-elected seats. Period.
Despite this, the YES group is now AGAIN proposing to eliminate our ward-elected councilors; this time by replacing them with 4 double-ward seats.
A councilor representing 22,000 people — a quarter of the city — is not local.
No city in MA has only 4 district-elected seats. With only 4, Newton would rank LAST in MA in % local representation on council and THIRD TO LAST in residents/locally-elected councilor. That is NOT local representation.
Throughout the campaign, the incessant mantra from YES was that the City Council would never vote to downsize itself. But now YES insists that the Council NOT VOTE.
Throughout the campaign, the incessant mantra from YES was that the City Council bogs down in endless deliberations. But now YES insists the Council BOG DOWN.
Irony much?
A small group representing the $63,000 YES campaign along with the LOWV president turned up in the Council chamber the day after the election to explain to the council that you voters were all confused and actually don’t want local representation, that you really do want “everyone to vote for everyone.”
The ballots have been counted. The people have spoken. They want local representation.
A majority of the council docketed the 8+8 proposal. It’s in line with the results of TWO citywide referenda on downsizing the Council.
If you believe in retaining local representation in Newton and that residents have the right to have the 8-8 proposal on the ballot for ratification, please email the council ([email protected]) and remind them that the ballot question was defeated, 53%-47%, by 12,519 voters last week. Tell them – LET THE COUNCIL VOTE.
Data: http://newtonwatch.org/2017/11/12/district-representation-is-not-local-representation/
@Jack Prior – you’re doing just what you’re claiming your opponents are doing … putting words in the voters mouth.
Last week the voters only voted on one thing. They voted against ratifying the proposed charter. Anybody on either side claiming what the voters meant or want beyond that is just making stuff up.
In big pic commentary – many times that which appears to be the opposition serves an important function of being that of which not to be. This relevance of being able to step outside of ‘me’ to ‘we’ provides the catalyst of innovative ways of governance.
This goes to the meaning of municipal government, as many times many people need a means by which to feel comfortable in creating rules for others to follow. It is the right of a free people to interpret that meaning in a constructive adaptive way, the basis of free enterprise.
– and then there are times where we unfortunately have to just take a back seat and let them self-destruct.
@jerry @jack @citycouncil
I voted NO.
I was not affiliated with the NO campaign.
I was NOT confused or misinformed.
I can speak only for myself and a few of my neighbors who have a vision for Newton being strong vibrant villages who are represented by councilors of OUR choosing.
This vote was not simply YES campaign vs NO campaign … I assert many of us simply voted against loosing control of our Ward Representation.
We may have bolstered the no campaign and confounded the YES campaign who thought we could be easily manipulated.
If you see this issue as YES vs NO, pro-development vs perocialism/NIMBY, progressive vs business as usual, you need to consider that a third group who simply value local ward representation emerged and voted NO.
Do not vote on anything unless it contains strong undeniable Ward Representation.
If my comment on the Plus One, did not meet with initial success on consensus; then let me focus on the “healing” part, which Gail aptly mentions as well. Let me extend a sense of compassion for the really hard battle that took place, and still continues in some way. I will still point to the unique nature of this situation and the challenge and thereby opportunity that exists.
Harry Sanders makes a wonderful point, in the capacity to switch from the “me” to the “we.” I would respectfully encourage folks to step back just a tad, examine what you like about your position, and see if there is anything that you like or at least respect in a position of someone, you consider to be in opposition.
Maybe there still is a historic opportunity for Council President Lennon to successfully hand a Home Rule petition over to leaders from the State House. If I am not mistaken, the Council cannot bind actions over to 2018-2019. Don’t give up Newton!
Anyway, I wish you well with this discussion; much to do this week, if not this month. To the degree there is honest disagreement with what I am saying: Wonderful. To the degree there is anyone who seeks to bring me down, I would respectfully say, don’t; my work is too tested, my story too strong, to be brought down for real now. Save your breath and fingers on the keyboard, it will go nowhere! Peace out people.
Hanukkah wish list: Setti will transition his gubernatorial run to gather Newtons’ home rule experience by running in Kay Khan’s state house seat.
@Jerry
I can speak for about 50 people, who were at a meeting to discuss the Charter Commission’s recommendations. 100% raised their hands in response to “does the Charter Commission’s proposal eliminate what ward or local representation means to you?”
@Jerry: the 2 referenda that passed overwhelmingly on the 1996 and 2000 state ballots were worded as reduction to 8 and 8. On Nov 7, the voters said no to all at-large. Logical deduction is that voters want ward representation enough to defeat the whole charter. No words in anyone’s mouth. @Jon…sometimes mediation doesn’t work. Emotions in newton are as vitriolic as in washington. There seems to be no grey…only plotting the next fight. Too bad for most of the people.
@Sally Lipshutz – Did those voters vote No on Nov 7 because they want to increase the ratio of ward representation (8:8) or keep it the same (8:4)? Nobody but each of those voters know for sure.
From start to (not yet) finish this entire Charter process has had a none-too-subtle subtext. The one thing everyone can definitively agree on (I think) is that the electorate would like to see a smaller council. The Yes side proposal had a side effect of substantially undermining local ward representation and it failed. Now the No side is trying the opposite, seeing if they can pass a No proposal that will substantially increase Ward representation.
Will it pass? maybe. Will that be a good thing? maybe What strikes me though is that the 8:8 proposal is just as much about changing ward representation (increasing it) as the Yes side was (decreasing it).
Jerry: i was surprised when i read the 2 state ballot questions from 1996 and again in 2000…not so very long ago, that the voters wanted 8 and 8. Resoundingly. Thats what sold so many on having a constitutional convention, i.e., a charter commission!
@Jerry: The two referenda were very clear on moving from 24 to 16 aldermen. It’s my recollection that the 16 was widely assumed to be 8 at-large + 8 ward-elected. In any case, it specifically called for 16, and 8+8=16, whereas 8+4 does not.
1996 Ballot Question: “Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a rule requiring a bill to reduce the size of the Newton board of Aldermen from 24 members to 16 members?” PASSED by Newton voters — 2,024 to 1,225.
2000 Ballot Question: “Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would reduce the size of the Newton Board of Alderman from 24 members to 16 members?” PASSED by Newton voters — 2,159 to 1,428.
@Jerry I doubt anyone here wants to hear this, but I DONT think we can agree that the electorate would like to see a smaller council. All we really know the electorate wants direct ward representation. I don’t think the electorate cares what the size is as long as it is fair, administers services efficiently and does an adequate job of running our city.
@Sallee Lipshutz 1996 and 2000 is a VERY VERY long time ago. 22 years ago I had a full head of hair. – Before 9-11, Before the economic downturn. I would have to say using that vote is
As I have said before, to do this correctly, we need to be clear about what we are fixing. As vocal as I have been here, even I have not yet invested the time into analyzing how each configuration would play out.
The thing is, the configuration of our city council is probably one of the most important structural elements of our city’s government. And now especially given there are both covert and explicit political agendas at play, we need to be damn careful of our actions.
I would so much prefer doing NOTHING vs. doing the WRONG thing. Gail got this right in her headline to this thread: “Dear Councilors: Please aim for citywide consensus on council size.”
@Bruce, I voted YES twice on the ballot questions to reduce the Board of Aldermen from 24 to 16. But I assumed it would be all 16 at large. Weird.
@Ted: Glad to have your confirmed support for 16!
I don’t think you can make any assumptions from those past votes on what today’s Newton citizen wants regarding configuration of today’s council. My guess is that even the people voted to reduce the size of the council back in 1996 and 2000 they voted purely to reduce the council but did not give much thought on the actual configuration.
Don’t count on it this time around, Bruce. After fourteen years, I’ve learned a thing or two.
In conversations with Rep. Ruth Balser who was a member of the Board of Aldermen at the time, she said the 1996 and 2000 votes were about downsizing to 16 via a model of 8 ward, 8 at-large… NOT 16 at-large.
From the League of Women Voters in 1999.
I’m not sure what the League advocated in 1999 matters now, but it certainly does provide insight into how the group’s thinking changed over time.
*Thanks to Councilor Sangiolo for digging this up.
That’s interesting, Emily. What is more interesting, however, is the fact that Ruth Balser was not a member of the Board of Aldermen in either 1996 or 2000. And what is even more salient, is the fact that the ballot questions did not make any mention whatsoever of 8+8, only 16.
Facts matter. True facts even more so.
@Jerry
Just to be accurate:
8:4 eliminates Ward representation in favor of a new district-type direct representation. 8:8 maintains Ward representation.
“Support the reduction of the size of the Board of Aldermen to not less than 16 members while maintaining a balance between ward aldermen and aldermen at large.”
This is where TH-M snarks in that they didn’t stipulate a 50/50 balance 🙂
As I recall, both ballot questions were non-binding, and it was left to the BOA to adopt special legislation reducing the size of the board, with the Mayor’s approval, after which the General Court would have to approve it and send it back to the voters for a binding vote. I was involved in several efforts over the years to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen, and our inability to pass something always came down to disagreement over whether to reduce the size of the board, and among those who wanted to reduce the size of the board how many members and the proportion of ward vs. at-large representation. We were unable to reach consensus then, and I sincerely doubt we will reach consensus now (and probably also not the 16 vote majority to overcome a veto by the Mayor). That is why a signature drive to elect a Charter Commission came about.
The emails the councilors are receiving from residents reflect this division over how the City Council should be configured: 8+4; 8+8; or “no means no, you knuckleheads, leave it at 24”. Personally, I think it is unseemly for a lame duck City Council and Mayor to vote on such a dramatic change in the composition of the council with little or no study and precious little deliberation, regardless of the merits. Let the next City Council and Mayor do this right, just like we did when we appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission to do research and make a report and recommendations for salary increases for local elected officials. This “8+8” proposal seems half-baked, and the “8+4” even more so.
And here is where Claire, unhindered by the facts, snarks about what the ballot questions actually said.
1996 Ballot Question: “Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a rule requiring a bill to reduce the size of the Newton board of Aldermen from 24 members to 16 members?”
2000 Ballot Question: “Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would reduce the size of the Newton Board of Alderman from 24 members to 16 members?”
Notice any similarity? Regardless, it was still up to the BOA to adopt special legislation to reduce the size and composition of the board, which it was never able to do. The Board was free to disregard the non-binding vote as well as the LWVN’s advocacy, and the board in fact did so by failing to act.
BTW, the reason there was a second identical ballot question in 2000 had to do with the fact that the 1996 ballot question was inadvertently left off the ballot in certain precincts.
“little or no study and precious little deliberation”?!? There has been plenty of study, plenty of deliberation, and plenty of voter feedback on this topic over the years. It has been the main topic of civic deliberation regarding the two referenda and this year’s charter-revision-proposal ballot question. What questions remain unanswered that the Council could address? 8+8 is not “half-baked.” It’s ready for a vote by the City Council.
@Bruce It doesn’t matter what has been done in the past. Due process is required. The CC presented their proposal and it was defeated by the public. If their proposal had reflected the will of residents it should not have been defeated. That was the end of that process. Whether you like it or not, a new process needs to start from the beginning with all due process that you would expect.
@Bruce, you’re so cute when you get all mock outraged.
Seriously, while the Charter Commission studied the issue of reducing the size of the council–and came out with a very different recommendation–the City Council has had very little time to study or discuss how a change in its composition would impact the way the council functions. Indeed, had the Charter proposal passed, I expect that would have consumed the council for the next two years, i.e., eliminating or curtailing various committees, roles and responsibilities of the council, etc. Yes, I know Rick Lipof and Verne Vance wrote a memo many years ago about it. But that’s not the same as putting together people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives to study the issue and come back with a report and recommendation about how it would work today. Some things may be different, but a lot has changed.
Frankly, I think the Charter Commission would have benefited from having sitting councilors and school committee members, who could have provided their input on how those bodies currently function, but also influenced the final recommendation of the commission. But I recall getting chewed out when I threw my hat into the ring, so ultimately I withdrew. And, in retrospect, it would have been an inordinate and futile time suck for me.
Here are some fun facts:
Docket No. 361-88 – Alds. Balser and Shick requesting consideration by the Board of Aldermen to revise Section 2-1(a) of the Newton City Charter to provide that: “There shall be a Board of Aldermen of sixteen members (change from twenty-four) which shall comprise the legislative branch of the City”
Docket No. 175-89 Ald. Balser requesting the Board of Aldermen to place on the November 1989 ballot the following non-binding advisory question: Shall the Newton Board of Aldermen pass a motion to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen from its current size of twenty-four (24) (two Aldermen-at-Large and one Ward Alderman from each of the 8 wards of the City) to a total membership of sixteen (16) (one Alderman-at-Large and one Ward Alderman from each of the 8 Wards of the City)?
Docket No. 381-95 Ald. Balser and MacLeish recommending the reduction of the size of the Board of Aldermen from the current 24 to 12 – 1 from each ward plus 4 at large from across the City.
There’s a whole lot more fun facts to come…..
I wonder if certain folks would be pushing this so hard if it didn’t happen to increase the power and influence of the ward councilors…
I do love the irony. What happened to the horror of reducing the council? How a smaller council couldn’t do the work of a larger council?
I still think we should double the salaries, and reduce the council in half, in the same ratios.
@Emily Norton @Ted Hess-Mahan Term limits? Please tell us that all of these proposals 8+8,8+4 or even leaving the council at 24 will include term limits. All we are seeing in this forum is about the configuration of the council in number terms but nothing on the other parts of the Charter Commission proposal – Term limits. Many believe term limits are a much needed mechanism for new perspectives – Too many council members occupying seats for life.
Otherwise as @Fig points out, this is just a political power grab.
Correction: Under Section 8fo Article LXXIX of the Massachusetts Constitution (the Home Rule Amendment), the approval of both the City Council and the Mayor is required for a home rule petition to amend the Charter. So if the Mayor vetoes the petition passed by the City Council, or simply does not sign it, it is a dead letter.
If I were to place a wager, I would bet that even if the petition gets the requisite majority approval from the City Council, the Mayor–whoever he or she may be at the time–will not sign it unless there is an overwhelming majority of the council that votes to approve it.
I’m still all in for Town Meeting
Ted writes: “Notice any similarity? Regardless, it was still up to the BOA to adopt special legislation to reduce the size and composition of the board, which it was never able to do. The Board was free to disregard the non-binding vote as well as the LWVN’s advocacy, and the board in fact did so by failing to act.”
Except now, there is a majority of the current City Council, ready to move forward with reducing the size of the City Council. Seems “ironic” that the LWVN – who has fought for years to reduce the size of the City Council does not seem to favor this option which has been kicking around the Board/City Council for years. Perhaps because the real reason is not to reduce the size of the council but to take away local – Ward only elected Councilors from the Ward.
@amysangiolo, you have, at best, a bare majority of the City Council that supports 8+8. As I noted above, the Mayor can just put the home rule petition in his/her desk drawer and it will die. And without an overwhelming majority of support on the City Council, I am pretty confident that is exactly what will happen.
@Ted – As Amy noted, Rep. Balser was on the Board of Aldermen during the runup to those nonbinding resolution votes, which is what matters – her point was that the discussion was about downsizing to 8 ward, 8 at-large, which underscores my point that the model under consideration now has been discussed for decades.
Genuinely curious: if it has been discussed for decades, why has it not passed? Why should it / would it pass now?
@Emily, your argument proves too much. If there had been consensus on the Board of Aldermen about 8+8 at the time, the board would have put Rep. Balser’s question on the ballot as docketed. Because the question that was approved and put on the ballot did NOT reflect the 8+8 composition, it is more reasonable to assume that such consensus was lacking and that the best she could achieve was a question as to whether to reduce the board from 24 to 16, which is in fact what went on the ballot not once, but twice in 1996 and 200.
Gail Spector’s original plea was for consensus before placing another potentially divisive question on the ballot. Once again, I don’t think that either Mayor Warren or Mayor-Elect Fuller–both of whom supported the Charter proposal for 12 at large with 8 from specific wards–will sign a home rule petition that does not have overwhelming support from the council. And. I’m. Just. Not. Seeing. It.
@NativeNewtonian: It is never easy to ask a Board to downsize itself as people will lose positions. We have a unique opportunity now with all the natural turnover taking place – there are fewer people who will be affected. I fear if we do not do it this session, the opportunity will be gone. Another possibility is that even if the new city council is open to a change, they may favor a model of 8 at-large, 4-“districts”, which is NOT ward representation, and which I believe will mean another long drawn out campaign. So “now is the time”, to quote the former President.
@Ted: If Mayor Warren or Mayor-elect Fuller want to keep the status quo – keep 24 City Councilors including Ward only elected representation and deny the voters of this City, the opportunity to reduce the size of the City Council and still retain Ward only representation, that’s his/her decision and that will be part of their legacy.
I wonder if in the past people considering the reduction to 16 ever really thought of the make up of the seats. Before the level of discussion on the charter I’m not sure I would have truly understood that ward based seats are only elected by the people who live in that ward. The School Committee has wards however everyone can vote for those representatives. So how we define ward seats differs in these two scenarios.
Even talking to people about our recent election where there was tons of info out there I found many friends not clear about who they could vote for and what the yes & no camps were talking about.
Warren is out the door.
But herhoner elect could certainly gain the Peoples’ confidence from the blue collar workers cross lateral lines of the wealthy and still be recognizing ‘new growth’ prop 2 1/2 levy base exemption while certainly engaging over ride potential with the popular marketing confidence universally accepted.
Her fate is cast, will she recognize such?
Fewer people will be affected? How do you figure that, Emily?! Perhaps you mean fewer longstanding Councilors? Are you planning to eliminate only freshly elected ones? When would the 8 excess Councilors be eliminated? Who would choose the ones to go? Still don’t get it. Sorry
@Jerry. To have a “town meeting”, we’d need a town setting or at least a virtual town setting. Perhaps Newton Upper Falls and the Highlands could tear loose the shackles that tie us to the past, break away from the rest of the City and form the town of Newton High Falls. Then we could move to finally settle the bitter and long simmering fight about which of these two villages has the better Irish Pub. I don’t want to get into this now, but there are strong feelings about this on both sides of Route 9.
Amy – If the mayor or the mayor-elect choose not to sign this HRP without a process that includes a working group to study the issues and present options for the full council, public hearings with the entire city council (not just one committee), and a report to the Programs and Services committee, their legacies will be that they recognized the importance of a deliberative and thorough process.
At this point, none of this has happened. So their legacy will be that they exhibited leadership. I fully expect that of both the mayor and the mayor-elect.
@Jane — I know I can be annoying with quotes and such, but you posted this comment on the Newton Democracy Facebook page on 10/14/2017 at 8:26pm:
https://www.facebook.com/newtondemocracy/posts/1474030212684423?comment_id=1475491869204924&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R4%22%7D
“The majority of the 14 councilors are on the record as saying they do not want the city council downsized at all: Ciccone, Norton, Cote, Brousil-Glaser, Sangiolo, Harney, Danberg, Schwartz, Balzer, Laredo, Lappin, Kalis. Add to that the 3 Councilors who actually had the integrity to admit it and didn’t sign on: Baker, Gentile, and Yates. !5 Councilors are on the record for two years as saying that they don’t want the city council downsized, but 6 weeks before the election, they come up with an unvetted plan that they are “hearing” people want? Do I question their integrity? you bet I do. Right now the ward councilors are in a self-serving battle, Just wait until the two at-large councilors begin to compare election results, knowing that one of them will be off the council. We’ll see another group of councilors suddenly think 8/8 isn’t such a great idea”.
To repeat: “Do I question their integrity? you bet I do.”
These councilors preferred 24 to the CC proposal — that’s all. They are all in favor of downsize the right way, and the 8-8 proposal is fully vetted. And now they want to follow through on their commitment. You publicly questioned their integrity. LET THEM VOTE.
To repeat: “Just wait until the two at-large councilors begin to compare election results, knowing that one of them will be off the council. We’ll see another group of councilors suddenly think 8/8 isn’t such a great idea.”
Now perhaps you are correct about some at-large city councilors. Which of the 16 at-large city councilors lost by the largest margin (2426 votes) to their more popular at-large counterpart? I wonder if that councilor will support giving the voters the change to ratify a downsizing to 8-8, or seek to save his job by suddenly seeing the wisdom of the long drawn-out, endless, deliberations of a 24 member city council?
A small group of councilors thought they could force the current mayor into vetoing the 8/8 proposal and thereby keep the 24 member council with no repercussions to themselves. Why the others jumped on the band wagon I will never know. Do I question the integrity of those councilors? Yes, I do.
Now we all realize that a veto isn’t necessary, so the burden is back on the council. I hope the councilors do the right thing and follow a deliberative process that involves the elements I mentioned above. That’s what’s best for the city in the decades to come.
I think there is burnout on the charter issue and perhaps we should just let it rest for a bit and deal with more pressing issues in people’s lives such as the winter parking ban ….and (please add on)
Maybe after tomorrow night. See you at City Hall at 7 😉
Jane — Your proposal is now 4 district-councilors representing quarters of the city and 8 at-large councilors
* No city has only 4 ward-elected councilors
* No city has that many at-large councilors
* No city has that small a local representation percentage (except the 9 with the all-at-large model Newton just rejected)
Newton voted to retain local representation. Not half. All of it.
The commission deliberated. It came up with the best option among the options it considered. It was voted down. Please let voters decide on the one option that both the council and the residents have expressed strong interest in for the last 20 years, but that the commission dismissed with 100% agreement on 4/13/2016.
@Jane: Do you want the City Council to redo the work the Charter Commission did or the work the Charter Commission should have done but didn’t do? The Commission’s March 29, 2017 minutes suggest that “This commission has had unanimous agreement since Day 1 that the whole council should be elected at-large” and in fact, the first time the Commission took this issue up, there was unanimous agreement to go with option D: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/75057.
The Charter Commission had two years to study the composition of the Council. And despite your good efforts to try to find a compromise – which, by the way, still takes away the Ward -only elected representation, the Commission chose an option that the voters REJECTED.
The 14 Councilors put forth a “Plan B” to address the size of the City Council because we heard loud and clear that Newton residents want to save local representation and local democracy but still want to reduce the size of the Council. The vote was 12,519 to REJECT the Charter Commission’s proposal vs. 10,912 to support it.
I respect the voters. Move this Home Rule Petition forward and let the voters decide.
Jack – My proposal is to set up a working group to study the issue, hold public hearings before the full council, submit a report with several proposals to be discussed.
Call me naive, but when I spoke last Wednesday, it never crossed my mind that the city council was considering doing this in five weeks. One councilor proposed it on one listserv, but the idea seemed too preposterous to consider seriously, and for goodness sakes, you don’t propose docketed items on a listserv. You might float an idea, but an item you plan to docket? If I’d know that the council was actually planning to vote on it in less than 5 weeks, I would have made a very different statement.
Amy – One person on the Commission made that statement once and did so without input from any other member of the group. So let’s keep the facts straight. From my experience, very few councilors had much interest in the work of the commission. Two councilors spoke about maintaining a 24 member council about 8 times each but generally didn’t stay for the meetings, several came to meetings when we discussed term limits, and that’s about it, though I think you came to one of our 30 meetings. So yes, unfortunately, I do think the council has yet to do its due diligence on this issue.
The fact is that many people in the community think the docketed item was a political stunt. It was was not done transparently and no one knew about it until the day it was announced. It’s actions such as this that undermine the credibility of the city council.
The voters did not vote for a city council of 8/8 and there is no data that says that, and no one is even attempting to gather any.
@Jane: You and the YES folks now have data – despite the 2 years you spent to gathering data on the structure of our government, listening to the residents and putting forth recommendations – that you got it wrong. The voters REJECTED your proposal to eliminate Ward representation.
@Jack Prior –
“Newton voted to retain local representation. Not half. All of it”.
By that same logic I can say
“Newton voted to retain all 24 councilors, not 16”
or
“Newton voted to reject term limits”
The only thing Newton has voted on so far is to reject the Charter Commission’s proposal, everything else is speculation posing as facts.
So there’s a simple solution to dispel speculation: those who voted no, email all councillors via David Olson and be specific about why, and if you favor 8@ large + 8 ward. Also, show up tomorrow night at City Hall at 7.
@Jerry: Newton voted to save local representation. The 8 + 8 model retains all of it – all 8 Ward only elected City Council seats would be retained.
I guess you could say that Newton voted to retain all 24 councilors not 16. But the fact is, that the voters decided to reduce the size of the City Council fro 24 to 16 – twice – in 1996 and in 2000 and there is historical evidence that certain Aldermen now Councilors and the League of Women Voters of Newton – advocated for a reduction to the size of the City Council from 24 to 16 while retaining the 8 Ward representatives. Those are facts. Real facts. Not alternative facts. So we can move Newton forward or maintain the status quo.
[email protected]
I will ask again: Emily says that this is the right time to reduce our at large Councilors because it won’t effect as many people. I am trying really hard to understand this process of eliminating at large Councilors but instead of anyone explaining to me how this will be achieved, I get “thumbs down”! Really? Great way to try to sell this plan to me. Emily? Amy? Any actual answers about the timing and process of these eliminations?
Our independent poll 2 weeks before the final found 92.5% favorability for 8/8 composite to downsize; 0% for term limit. We sensed we had the momentum. Timing proved us right..
@NativeNewtonian — I’ll answer your question in two parts so the up and down voters can judge each separately. First the up and down voting on this local serpcom site https://serpcom.com/digital-marketing-agency-marketing-strategy-marketing-plan/team/ are entirely a fiction.
Up votes just mean at least one person liked your post. Down votes just mean at least one person disliked your post. Anyone can up or down vote your comment as much as they like just by refreshing your browser, so while you are thinking, “Gee, 7 people really don’t like me or my input”, its just as likely its one person with time on their hands or vice versa.
It really should be limited to just up-voting. Linking votes to accounts to limit votes would be a significant privacy issue, although given that the site conspicuously lacks a privacy policy, that may be moot in any case.
Up down vote if you agree/disagree/have time on your hands…
@Jack Prior – Anyone can up or down vote your comment as much as they like just by refreshing your browser”>
No, that’s not true. Refreshing the page in the browser will not allow you to give an additional thumb up/down. Try it.
You are correct though that no one should take the thumbs up/down too seriously as a measurement of anything important. It’s often times best viewed as a measurement of how contentious a topic is. On the contentious topics in particular they end up being used as “my team”/”the other team” buttons.
are we trailing cookie crumbs..
@NativeNewtonian re: “Fewer people will be affected?”
There is a school of thought that the council has not reduced itself in size over the years because they are conflicted by the reality that it will make it harder for them to run again and would requires them to run against their fellow incumbents.
We now have 7 councilors leaving the council — nearly a third. Blazar (ward 6), Fuller (ward 7), Harney (ward 4), Hess-Mahan (ward 3), Lennon (ward 1), Sangiolo (ward 4), Yates (ward 5). The proposal has 2 seats in each ward and there are only two returning councilors in all but wards 2 and 8.
In wards 2 and 8 the current 3 incumbents will have to face off against each other for the 2 remaining seats, move, or retire. Of those 6 incumbents (Lipof, Lappin, Kalis, Norton, Albright, and Auchincloss) , 4 have signed on to the docketed 8-8 home-rule proposal. So you have a unique opportunity where the impact of that perceived conflict of interest is reduced.
During the campaign YES stated, again and again, that council has not voted to downsize itself for 100 years and they won’t do it for another 100, and that the 24 member body can’t get anything done, and that the HR proposal would be withdrawn the minute the ballots were counted. But now the YE$ component of YES is out in force to prevent the council of downsizing and praising the wisdom of the 24 member body to deliberate over this further with full confidence that it will do what they said it would never do. Let them vote.
I’ve been watching this debate run out since the question failed last Tuesday night. I harbored known and expressed doubt that the City Council would move forward with the 8-8 option, and would do so quickly, I guess I’m now looking at it more in the spirit of the moment.
I suppose my question is: what is the harm in making sure that in fact 8–8 is “the will of the people“? Just as the charter proposal of 12 councilors, all at large, Represented not just a reduction in the council but also a shift in the nature of representation, the 8-8 proposal also changes the structure and balance. We go from 2/3 at large voting to 1/2. This – in theory – shifts the balance of dialogue to a more local perspective than citywide, and that point ought to be discussed openly.
I do understand the assertions that this has been studied, but not recently (the last referendum was 17 years ago), not openly for any period of time, and not in the way that has educated today’s Newton voters on with that structure looks like and what it affects might be.
So again, what’s the downside in doing this properly?
@Jerry — “No, that’s not true. Refreshing the page in the browser will not allow you to give an additional thumb up/down. Try it”
I did. It did. Or maybe 31 and counting people just don’t like you…
Timing – new corner office seating, or perhaps we might say, welcoming arms outstretched standing in the doorway of opportunity..
@Chris — “I suppose my question is: what is the harm in making sure that in fact 8–8 is “the will of the people“? ”
Great question Chris — lets get 8-8 on the ballot for ratification by the people and find out. If YES acts quickly, I can them a great deal on 100’s of signs that with a small piece of tape can be modified to read “MINIMIZE Local Representation. Vote No on Charter Change.”
@Chris: “The will of the people” can be expressed by their representatives. A majority of City Councilors have signed onto the docketed 8+8 proposal. From my conversations with many voters before and after the election, I believe that the voters’ rejection of the proposed charter was due primarily to the potential loss of local representation by ward-elected councilors. That’s just my view. If you doubt that that is an accurate measure of “the will of the people,” then we can poll the voters’ representatives on the City Council to get their view. That’s what we’re asking for. Let the City Council vote on the 8+8 home-rule petition.
Okay, I understand. Thank you. What Emily means is that the Councilors may be more likely to vote this in since many of them will not be eliminating their own jobs but rather eliminating someone else’s. Well, that paints a rather unattractive picture of our elected officials, doesn’t it? Aren’t they always supposed to have put their constituents needs above their own? Sorry folks but this should not be their decision, particularly the “lame ducks”; it should be the decision of the voters.
@Bruce – you’re right, the will of the people is conveyed through theit elected representatives. Unfortunately, the body who is deliberating this item right now is not the body that was just elected in the election of last week. So, can’t we also make the case that the currently sitting body is not representative of the current will of the people?
the referral docket is/or about to be no longer..
@Chris: The outgoing public servants that you reference represent a combined 110 years of service to this city. To suggest that these distinguished individuals do not represent the will of the people is quite frankly ridiculous, as is the reality that the “yes” campaign is working so hard to block 8 + 8 from moving forward to a vote. Are these not the same games played in Washington? Unless either Mayor Warren and/or Mayor-elect Fuller have said that they will not sign the home rule petition, in my own opinion and that of 100% of the people that I’ve spoken to about this, moving to a vote on 8 + 8 is the right thing to do.
@Chris: “I do understand the assertions that this has been studied, but not recently (the last referendum was 17 years ago), not openly for any period of time, and not in the way that has educated today’s Newton voters on with that structure looks like and what it affects might be.”
Hmm…you guys spent 2 years supposedly looking at various options in the structure of government. Yet – from Day One – you were all in agreement in eliminating Ward only elected Councilors. First you had 13 on the table, then moved to 12. Then there was a last minute effort to move to a district model – but really – the whole district model was too complicated to figure out – who was going to carve out the districts, what would the districts look like – and well – you were running out of time so you reverted back to the 8 – 4 model – still eliminating the Ward only elected Councilors (because you might have created districts under that model – but you were still pushing that they be elected city-wide so that the new districts would still not be able to determine who their district representative would be) despite public sentiment and comments asking you to retain the Ward Councilors. Where was the vast discussion about the workload of this new council model you were setting up? Oh right- you were going to let “them” figure it out.
The 8+8 model preserves local representation – keeps Ward only elected Councilors and keeps a pool of at-large Councilors with a residency requirement. Instead of voting for 2 at-large Councilors from each ward like you do now, you only vote for one. You preserve representation on all of the Committees by ensuring that each Ward has a representative to serve – on Finance, Public Safety, Programs and Services, Public Facilities, Land Use and Zoning and Planning. That’s it. Will it now put more work on the Councilors? Sure – but that’s what you get when you want to reduce the size of the Council.
@Tom – “….and that of 100% of the people that I’ve spoken to about this.” Due respect, but you and I are speaking about this right now. So at the very least that’s n-1/n and not 100%. My own observation is different, and I strongly suspect that results will vary depending on who one speaks to across the City.
But that’s my point in its entirety, and in fact the one that Gail made at the beginning of this thread – There remain significant, sharp, and divisive differences of opinion with regards to how we ought to arrange our municipal legislature. The one we put forth in the Charter failed to carry. Do we not owe it to ourselves and the voters as a whole to work in the open (again), examine the downstream effects of a change, educate the public, and then put it forth?
As opposed to the Charter Review (where there was a deadline mandated by law), this is not a term paper with a due date. We now have the luxury bringing this one question into its own and examining it properly. I for one do not want this issue to linger – It’s already proven itself to be a caustic issue in the City dialogue. But I do want it to be examined and debated properly.
The only way to find out what Newtonians really want would be city wide vote where we get to pick one of three options: 8/8, no change, 12 (8 at large and 4 district only).
@Jack Prior – Wah, nobody likes me 🙂 I stand corrected (I hope).
You must have to turn off your cookies too
@Chris: I hear you and appreciate where you’re coming from. However, this particular debate is all about context. The 8 + 8 home rule petition is about changing the size of the City Council, whereas the proposal put forward by the Charter Commission was about changing Newton’s governmental structure as we know it. It’s important to not conflate the two. Why should we not trust that our longstanding City Councilors have the wherewithal to make this decision?
@Tom – Again with my “yes, but…”
The 8 + 8 is not just about changing the size. It too changes the proportions of ward/ward-at-large within the Council and alters the fundamental structure.
@Patricia’s idea would be wonderful if there were a way to actually get the input from a broad swath of the voting public.
@Chris: That is precisely why the home rule petition process ends with putting the ultimate decision before the voters…
1. clean hands doctrine of WGC stacking the CC election in question
2. CC spin that there was no predisposition for elimination of ward onlys
3. CC reverse logic of groupspeak was not proofread by logisticians.
need more??
Tom, does it end with the voters? When would the election be held – a special election or are we talking about next November? If not till next November, why the rush to get this in before the new council takes office?
@Chris Steele
If the majority chooses not to have an opinion and have the decision made by a minority, that is their prerogative. In any case it would be a lot more democratic than representatives guessing what their constituents want or worse, if they vote whatever they feel is right.
I owe Bruce Henderson an apology for my comments above directed at him. My frustration with the sponsors of this docket item is no excuse for being a dickhead to an old friend. Please accept my sincere apology.
Ted, your graciousness and active participation helps keep these conversations civilized and informative. Many thanks.
@Jane: “Amy – One person on the Commission made that statement once and did so without input from any other member of the group. So let’s keep the facts straight. ”
From the infamous March 29, 2017 Charter Commission meeting minutes:
“Brooke is agnostic on the issue. She seconded because it’s an important discussion. All of us have had more discussions with members of the public than we have over the last year and a half which is pretty typical near the decision making moment. What makes her want to revisit the district model is the substantial amount of input we have from people who really prefer retaining the ward model. These people may be energized by the flyer Ms. Zollers held up, by Councilor Baker who [both] have praise for the ward councilors. Or, they know a particularly responsive ward councilor. She stresses that the data [Rhanna] collected reflects disproportionate number of comments/emails in support of ward councilors. The supporters were well organized and turned out. We are naive not to consider this a potential problem for passing the charter we unanimously approved in the preliminary report. She has not heard anyone on the commission speak in favor of retaining ward councilors as they exist today, elected by ward only. She is not in favor of this either and does not doubt that no matter what we do, we’ll support all councilors being elected at-large. The proposal on the floor at least partially addresses having somebody who feels local, having someone who represents two wards or at least lives in one of two wards. The problem from her
is that the nature of our communication with the public is one-sided. We can’t say to people who want the ward councilors: “We know that’s what you want but can’t give it to you. Would a district councilor elected at-large be more satisfactory than four totally at-large?” Because we have not had that communication, we’ll need to make our best judgment about whether that is a meaningful change.”
@Jack Prior
You don’t know why people voted no. Clearly more people didn’t want to get rid of it in its entirety. But Newton residents chimed in twice about wanting a smaller council and you don’t know if they would be OK with reducing ward representation by half, unless you put that question in front of voters.
@Paul
You wrote: “Just to be accurate: 8:4 eliminates Ward representation in favor of a new district-type direct representation. 8:8 maintains Ward representation.”
Being accurate would include saying that 8:8 INCREASES Ward representation to that of 1/2 of the council.
@Patricia Loewy: The 8-4 proposal that was contemplated by the Charter Commission and dismissed had the 4 district Councilors voted at-large – NOT by the districts thereby eliminating the Ward representation. That model only had a residency requirement which is why that model would still not address what the voters want – to retain Ward only elected Councilors.
The Programs and Services Committee voted to recommend approval of the 8-8 model by a vote of 5 – 2 – 1. Voting in favor: Sangiolo, Rice, Schwartz, Kalis and Baker (who reserves the right to vote against it when it goes before the Full Council because he prefers the current 24 member Council). Voting against – Hess-Mahan and Leary. Abstaining – Auchincloss.
As @amysangiolo knows, the Mayor has said he will not sign the home rule petition, effectively rendering it a dead letter. Under the Home Rule Amendment, Art. 2, Section 8 of the Massachusetts Constitution, the Mayor must sign the home rule petition to reduce the size of the City Council before the legislature will docket it. Since that will not happen, this debate has become academic until next term.