The Programs and Services Committee voted Wednesday to send a proposed home rule petition that would reduce Newton’s city council from 24 to 16 members (eight elected at-large with ward residency requirements and eight elected exclusively by ward).
Councilors Rice, Sangiolo, Kalis, Baker and Schwartz voted in favor. Hess-Mahan and Leary opposed and Auchincloss abstained.
The 8/8 proposal now moves to the full city council for a vote, likely on Dec. 4.
However, Newton Mayor Setti Warren wrote to the council earlier in the day saying he would not sign the proposal, a move that would effectively halt the plan from moving to the next steps (at least for this year) in a long process which includes approval by the state legislature and governor followed by another ballot question before voters, likely in 2019.
Here’s the letter from the mayor:
Dear City Councilors,I am writing to share my thoughts on docket item #313-17 that will be taken up at Programs and Services this evening.I believe that the City needs additional time and engagement on this topic. We are just coming out of the recent election in which residents rejected the proposed changes to the size and composition of the City Council by voting “No” on the charter reform ballot question.This conversation we are having about the City Council is critical and I believe this topic should be discussed thoroughly over the next several months with robust resident engagement.Therefore, I cannot support this docket item. If the item is voted out affirmatively by the City Council, I will not give it my affirmation.I am happy to answer any questions you may have.Thank you,Mayor Setti Warren
Way to go Councilors Sangiolo, Rice, Baker, Kalis & Schwartz for listening to the voters & supporting the 8 + 8 proposal! Hate that Setti Warren decided to turn a deaf ear to what voters want and instead pursue his own agenda. Hopefully our next mayor will be more responsive.
@Lauren right now Setti’s agenda is getting elected Governor and I am sure he is depending upon and hoping for strong support from Newton. He is playing an “inside’ game right now, but I wouldn’t bank that he thumbs his nose at Newton voters at the end of the day
Well, Claire, he may get support from a little less than half of Newton, but these may be the more moneyed interests. Either way, I don’t think he has a ghost of a chance against Charlie Baker.
This is the first time in my 35 years in Newton that the city council has taken up an issue of significance and expected it to be voted on in 5 weeks. In fact, the council has rejected the 8/8 configuration multiple times over the years. None of this makes any sense. The mayor shouldn’t sign this rushed, misguided docketed item.
Two low points in the evening: Ted Hess-Mahan informing his colleagues that this was a dead letter item and his comments being totally ignored. The second was Kalis expressing umbrage that the mayor had informed the council that he would not sign the item, thus allowing the council to spend their next three meetings dealing with issues of concern to residents (please see the thread on the inequity of the parking ban for an example) rather than wasting time on a dead letter item.
The low points of the evening were the prognostications of Alison Leary, Jake Auchincloss, Deb Crossley, and Ted Hess(sss)-Mahan in their attempts to obfuscate &/or delay the vote. Waste of time? Is that what the will of the voters is? Apparently some councillors think so. We are “self-admittedly ignorant”, according to one. The overall impression I came away with was that for some, anyway, what the voters have REPEATEDLY asked for is just some background noise to be tuned out. One wonders, then, who’s voice is more important?
Maybe its still too soon, but perhaps Scott Lennon would weigh in on this, reflecting upon things he might have done differently in regards to following on the mayor’s coat tails.
– also Ruthanne needs the confidence value of the middle class ‘NO’ side if she will ever try to put thru an over ride. The debt exclusion for OPEB in particular, which she has expressed on the campaign trail, will need cross class support. Otherwise we will see a situation similar to David Cohen’s 2008 override attempt which failed.
do we learn from our municipal mistakes of the past? or continue down the same path in the name of new administrations – same mistakes with different labels?
@Jane – Trying to do something better for the city by listening to its citizens and overwhelming amount of data is never a waste of time. For that matter, I would not even say the 2 yrs of CC was a waste of time – even though you ignored the citizens wishes FOR ward Councillors or data that supported it.
I am disappointed in Setti – Is this the approach he will take to the Governors office – we need to deliberate more.. need more analysis and have more paralysis. I had hoped he kept his personal biases aside and do what citizens and their representatives have said.
And @Harry said it best – This is the opportunity for RAF to step up and out of Setti’s shadows…. Lets see how she leads, and will be my mayor as well.
PS – Congratulations to all Councillors who listened to the voters and kept their promise.
A legislative body pushing through a plan with little discussion or deliberation. Sounds familiar and pathetic.
City Council undermines Charter Commission by docketing Home Rule petition: YES side unhappy.
Mayor undermines City Council by issuing pre-emptive statement: NO side unhappy.
Everybody unhappy and fading political capital for thoughtful change.
This was predictable (and predicted), and precisely why Ruthanne, Scott, and I voted against docketing the Home Rule petition in October.
I’m amenable to the 8 & 8 proposal, but we need to downsize the council and maintain ward representation in a way that makes residents feel invested, not discouraged.
RuthAnne is likely to follow in Setti’s footsteps and refuse to endorse the 8/8 item. Her biggest supporters were the YES people like Anne Larner, Brooke Lipsitz, Rob Gifford and his wife Claire Sokoloff, all school committee people who need overrides for their grand design for NPSs. For them hew housing development is key. If 8/8 passed then 8 at large councilors would be eliminated, Jake and Allison Andrea Kelley and Josh Krintzman as well as Brenda Noel would lose their seats.
Ruthanne Scott & associates miss the intimate nature of ward agency.
Forward thinking invests in novel revenue enhancement primarily achieved through unilateral class structure support.
NO base disheartened in YES class arrogant power play; success in the corner office requires more than token admission of miscalculation.
Due to unprecedented charter election draw overshadowing electeds, an extraordinary effort is required beyond previous admins procedures.
City runs itself, mayor this time around needs to be more that a custodian of trust..
Thanks, Greg, for posting this. I was at last night’s meeting, taking lots of notes, and have been thinking about the 8&8 petition and the logic behind it. I’m hoping that others can help me with some questions. First, though, before anyone else says it, I understand that the charter commission proposal lost–I’m not trying to re-litigate it. I AM,however, trying to pull together all the various arguments I’ve heard so that I can fully understand what others are saying and consider the 8&8 petition on its own.
With the vote, it is clear that a majority want to keep their ward councilors–the argument I heard before last night was that they represent their local ward best, are people who are responsive to their ward only, and are a bulwark against the Newton City Council being beholden to developers. But what I heard last night was a number of councilors talking about how there is not much difference in how ward councilors and at-large councilors govern and vote, even when it comes to land use decisions. Even Emily listed several votes she made that she felt were not what her constituents preferred, but were in the best interest of Newton. I also heard (and have heard before last night) that some people mistake who their ward councilor is–looking at who is more responsive to them, instead of who actually has that seat.
So what I hear are contradictory arguments about ward councilors that I can’t reconcile into one argument in favor of them–if it doesn’t matter, why DOES it matter?
The other thing that I heard were contradictions about why to vote before the end of the year. People clearly said that they felt the Charter Commission didn’t do their homework to keep the ward councilors–not saying I agree with it, but this is what I heard. But last night, the argument was that there had been enough time and research done on it and that the City Council should forge ahead. So had there been enough research or not? What is wrong with taking a little longer and building consensus on this, if it is the right choice? What if there are other options out there that people like even better?
I thought Setti’s memo was to give the City Council a chance to finish up other business in the short time left, and to suggest that this discussion should be put off until next year. I actually thing that is a good thing–I know how hard it is to educate people on these complex issues, and I think there are repercussions from a change that we haven’t had a chance to consider yet. We’ve spent a lot of time and thought on the proposal that was voted down, and maybe we need a little time to be sold on this option.
Last thing: Emily told a story last night about her docketing–and then voting against–an item about drones. I took the story to mean that waiting and learning more about an issue, instead of rushing to judgement without full information, led to a better and more informed decision. I don’t think that was what she meant the takeway to be, but it was how I heard it–and I agree with that and appreciate her honesty about it.
@Sue Flicop:
Here’s one possible explanation: It’s possible that some ward and at-large councilors believe that their jobs are very similar, but voters feel differently. Maybe it’s a comfort to know that they have one vote that directly links to their lives right outside their door, one way that they can help affect change. I assume that Ward 5 voters who threw themselves into electing Bill Brandel in 2007 felt that way, as did Ward 6 voters this year.
There’s not a right or wrong here. But I think you’re drawing a false equivalency between how elected officials and voters see the job of city councilors.
Why is it in Newton politics that the obvious can so often become complicated?
Ordinary citizens spend great time, money, and effort running for office – is there an expected payback for that?
Numerous motives by diverse people, once into office find a niche of comfort & efficiency whether an officeholder of ward or at large.
The leadership of the Council are the ones to recognize the members’ strengths and weaknesses, leading to committee assignments.
Whether 8/8 is ever the composition of the City Council or not, I was there last night also, and what I heard loud and clear is that the citizens of Newton don’t want to lose ward representation. It may end up that we stay with what we’ve had for a long time, 24 on the City Council, keeping the 8 ward and keeping the 16 at-large. Many citizens have expressed desire to downsize the size of the Council. Lots of good discussion last night about why keeping the 24 is helpful for hearing from multiple perspectives, more accountability for all of the citizens, and good reasons for having 8 voices each on the committees of the Council. What I also heard was that the citizens voted NO on the charter proposal. There is no way (unless all 12000+ voters are polled) to know whether the NO vote was against just losing ward representation or against the proposed Charter in total. I also was impressed by David Kalis and Amy Mah Sangiolo’s eloquent, polite, but firm statements that this item was docketed and needed to be voted out to the whole. Mayor Warren sending out a memo at 3:48 pm yesterday was disrespectful. If he has no intention of signing this particular 8/8 item, that’s fine. However, the item was docketed, a public hearing was held, and it was due process to vote it up or down in committee. If voted down last night, it would not proceed to the whole council. Now that it has been voted up in committee, it can be discussed on the floor by all 24 members of the council. If it gets voted down by the whole, then it will end there. If it gets voted up by the whole, it will move to the Mayor’s desk. If he shelves it, then any new process on the composition of the council can be looked at by the new administration. I also want to say that Councilor Baker and Councilor Schwartz were the most eloquent, courteous, and thoughtful in their remarks.
@Sue
I think folks are getting confused about the steps involved for 8+8. I know you’re probably not one of them, but your comments share some confusion.
The best rationale for 8+8 is this: Based on the information we have, its the configuration that Newtonites want. It passed two referendums twenty years ago, and as you noted, the desire for a local Ward representative was the principal driver on the winning NO vote. Do we know this for sure? No. As others have noted, there are a number of reasons why people voted the way they did, but this is the most reasonable conclusion.
The key point on the steps for 8+8 is this: the voters would have to choose it on the 2019 ballot. So we can have definitive proof that 8+8 is in fact the preference of voters. You highlight the concern that there isn’t enough time to sell voters on it, they’ll be two full years to discuss its merits, and after being discussed within the community for the past 20 years, its not like this is something that is a new concept.
This isn’t about the logic of the structure anymore. You pointing out various contradictions frankly isn’t relevant. Its the will of the voters that matters. There have been three votes, that an unbiased perspective would say supports 8+8 as the preferred structure. Its aligned with the approach of many communities across the country and in Massachusetts– this isn’t some outlier, rogue structure. Its a standard approach that many in the community support.
There really isn’t a good justification to not make 8+8 the structure to put on the ballot. It would be blatantly ignoring the will of the voters to this point. Its time to give the people what they want.
@Sue: The Charter Commission did a lot of work. No one is saying they didn’t. They just decided very early on, that they preferred an at-large model with residency requirement despite the many, many people who asked them to keep the Ward only elected Councilors. Since 1977, the Board of Aldermen/City Council has discussed and reviewed options to downsize the Council. In 1977, Ald. Ethel Sheehan submitted a voters’ petition signed by 10 registered voters asking that a non-binding public opinion question be placed on the November 1977 Municipal election ballot: “Shall there be a reduction in the total membership of the Board of Aldermen from the present twenty-four to sixteen members elected as follows: Eight (8) to be known as Aldermen-at-Large, elected from each of the eight wards of the City. Eight (8) to be known as Ward Aldermen elected from each of the eight wards of the City.” In 1988 and again in 1989, Ruth Balser filed two items dealing with reducing the size of the Council – the 1989 docket item was to reduce it to an 8 + 8 model. In 1992, Ken Parker filed an item to reduce the Board to 12 – 8 Ward Councilors and 4 elected at-large with no residency requirement.
In 1995, Ruth Balser again, filed a docket item to reduce the Council to the 8 + 8 model. In 1995, Ken Parker filed an item to reduce the Council to 13 – 8 Ward only elected Councilors and 5 at large with no residency requirement. In 1999, Ethel Sheehan submitted a petition for a ballot question to reduce the size of the Council to the 8+8 model – and that very same year, Deb Crossley – then President of the League submitted a letter in support of it. In 2004, Rick Lipof, Ted Hess-Mahan and Jay Harney filed an item to reduce the size of the Board to the 8 + 8 model. In 2006, Alds. Lipof, Vance, Hess-Mahan, Lennon, Lappin, Schnipper, Harney, Weisbuch, Parker and Sangiolo requesting that the Board of Aldermen and His Honor the Mayor submit a Home Rule Petition to the Legislature seeking approval by the Legislature of an amendment of the charter of the City of Newton reducing the number of aldermen by at least seven, the exact number and composition of the Board specified in such petition to be determined through discussion and vote by the members of the Board. That same year, Ken Parker filed a resolution for several charter amendments – including reducing the size of the Council to 15 – 8 Ward Councilors and 7 at-large with no residency requirement.
Each time, these failed because there was not enough Councilors willing to reduce the size of the Council. Now you have at least 14 members ready and willing to support this idea. And now you and the YES on Charter folks, want to delay it? Isn’t part of the reason that you have advocated for years to reduce the size of the Council was because the size was too unwieldy – can’t get anything done in a timely manner. Now you want the Council to take their time and study it?
Sorry for my cynicism, but this just confirms that the Charter Commission and the YES on Charter folks real issue is not the size of the Council – but just getting rid of the Ward Councilors. 2 years worth of work shot down the drain because folks were unwilling to retain the Ward Councilors. The March 29, 2017 which I keep referring to is very illuminating. The only reason the district model – which also didn’t retain local representation because there would be district residency requirements but the representatives would be voted at-large and not by the districts – was because they were worried about passage of the proposed charter and it was made clear in the minutes that there was no interest on the Commission to retain Ward representation.
The very people who want to move Newton forward want to hold Newton back.
Mayor Warren, who’s attention is divided between Newton and running for Governor, refused to approve landmark legislation to change the constitution of Newton, the city he is leaving in a month and half, that had not been studied in current years. Pretty good decision. It’s wasnt disrespectful to save the entire council’s time debating the docketed item by letting them know that time would be wasted.
He’s telling the City Council not to rush into passing a new composition with limited current study as to how it would work in Newton or whether to include other popular parts of the charter changes – such as term limits. That takes time. The voters just defeated the proposed charter after a divisive process. It included an all at-large composition of the council, term limits and many other changes to the charter.
It was solidly voted down. One failed process should not be substituted for another. I have no idea if the 8+8 composition is what voters want over all other choices to downsize the council, or even keep the current council size, but I’m willing to find out.
Now is the time to address President Newton matters before the end of the year, such as the arbitrary parking ban already making many residents move their cars before 4 am with temps predicted to reach the 50’s.
The next step in the Charter process is to bring residents together to find consensus or at least a compromise. The Charter Commission obviously failed to listen to a large group of voters who wanted to keep ward-elected councilors. The City Council now needs to listen to all of Newton, study what would be best for all residents and reach a compromise. I do not want to keep Newton divided.
Jake, please explain your abstention. I understand from your comment that, at this time, you do not support the 8+8 composition but might in the future. How does abstaining reflect that position?
@MartiBowen “The next step in the Charter process is to bring residents together to find consensus or at least a compromise.”
There isn’t a next step with the Charter Commission. The Commission is finished. This isn’t decided by concensus or compromise with the Yes supporters trying to salvage some compromised that gets them closer to their goal of elimination or at least minimizing Ward Councillors. It should be decide by a vote. Why wouldn’t 8 +8 not be put to a vote. Majority rules. Why does it feel like Yes people still seem to think that the Newton citizen’s are incapable of making this decision?
8+8 should be advanced towards a path of a vote by the citizens.
I hope the City Council and its members call Mayor Warren’s bluff.
Claire, please read my comment more carefully before you pounce. I never said anything about the Charter Commission continuing – in fact I said they failed to listen to voters.
I think it’s obvious you will just bash any previous yes supporter, even one who agrees that the process up to now was flawed and says so. You also seem to mostly support continuing to divide Newton. I on the other hand dislike fighting with my neighbors and wish to avoid it in another go around that has no consensus.
@Marti Bowen, I agree with you on the parking ban 🙂
I noticed you wrote Charter Process vs Commission, but had already written and submitted Commission. And as far as I now there isn’t a process per se other the HRP curently being pursued. We don’t decide issues such as this through concensus or compromise but rather by a vote. I will admit that when you suggested that it really stuck a nerve because the charter question is off the table, and not a starting negotiating position.
@Marti, fair question. I abstained because I don’t know how to vote, yet. This was only the first substantive meeting on a complicated topic.
I’m frustrated by the divisive manner in which this has been docketed and the undue haste with which it’s being debated (as I wrote in above comment), but I’m also impressed by the arguments for 8 & 8.
Marc Laredo, Rick Lipof, et al are smart and experienced, and when they make good points I pay attention.
So, I’m genuinely still debating about whether an aye vote this term is appropriate. Readers are welcome to email me at [email protected] with their opinion.
I’m surprised by the comments above—I’ve worked for years to get the issue of a charter on the ballot before the issue of Ward counselors even came up and couldn’t predict what the proposal would be 8 years ago. It’s important to me that that effort doesn’t all go away without anything coming if it.
My concern about the 8&8 is that we get to vote for a smaller percentage of city councilors that we do now—that’s about accountability and was something that appealed to me with the old proposal. One reason a delay might be good is to see if there are other options that don’t reduce that percentage, but do achieve other goals.
I’ve given you the opportunity to convince me, but I’ve read above that it doesn’t matter because this is what the voters want. But I’m a voter too…
When Emily was fighting to retain Democracy in Newton, Bryan P. Barash was quick to go after her integrity by suggesting that she only took such a position so as to save her job. Given that Jake Auchincloss would badly lose his Ward Two At-Large seat under the 8 + 8 proposal, when he comes out against the home rule petition on the table, will Bryan P. Barash also go after Jake’s integrity?
@Sue: My point with the story about the drones is that I don’t think Newton would benefit by a City Council so small (ie 12 members) that there would be strong incentive to make us full time as Cambridge and Boston are. Yes things might move more quickly, we might be more “efficient”, but that means less time for councilors to take in information, less time for voters to know what we’re doing and have time to weigh in. The benefit of the 6 month drone discussion for me was that by the end of it I actually changed my position and made a more fully informed decision than I would have made if we had gotten it done in the space of a month. Now contrast 6 months on drones with literally 40 years on the 8+8 model… I think it is long past time for us to vote this out and give the voters a chance to make the change if they so desire. If Newton residents agree that they’d like a chance to vote on the 8+8 model – either for OR against – they should contact Mayor Warren and ask him to move this forward.
I also enjoyed Councilor Norton’s story last night about her developing a change of heart about drones after actually experiencing them but I also took the lesson to be that councilors need to do their homework before docketing items, regardless of how many councilors we have.
@Tom Davis: Although Councilor Norton repeated last night and many other times that this is not about saving her job, I understand why Bryan and others have a different impression. In fact, back on April 2016 when the commission took its first straw vote on the council configuration she sent an email blast to supporters with the headline: “Charter Commission votes to eliminate me.”
This may be the first opportunity for the new Mayor-elect to show leadership regarding the Council size. Newton voters want the Council size reduced. Now is the opportunity to develop consensus and get it done.
Tom I was Yes on charter so that argument makes no sense… I’ve already endorsed against my narrow political interest. Why not debate substance instead of launching ill conceived attacks?
@Jake: You never endorsed against your political interest. In fact, as you know, you would have had a very high probability of winning one of those ill-conceived four exclusively at-large seats. Clever spin though. If you support 8 + 8, on the other hand, you most certainly will be endorsing against your narrow political interest.
Regardless, please re-read what I wrote as I didn’t attack anyone. I simply asked whether Bryan P. Barash will consistently use the line of attack that he wrongly leveled against Councilors Baker and Norton. If you really think about it, it’s a fair question that goes to the substance of this debate.
Can someone point me to the guidance that says the Mayor’s consent is required? Is this all under 43(B) Section 10? I’ve taken as a given the Mayor has the power to consent here, but clearly Emily did not, and Tom is talking about calling the Mayor’s bluff. Anyone with actual knowledge (and/or a proponent willing to tell me what MA General Law section supports their position?)
Not being snarky, I really want to know the legal back-up for both positions. My read has always been Mayor’s consent is required under 10(a) but that is too obvious to be the cause of confusion. So what IS the confusion?
Ted/Emily, perhaps you could shed some light on Leslie’s argument. Or just share the analysis.
@Fig: Here’s a memo from Councilor Baker on the matter which was widely accepted during the discussion last night as being accurate.
I’ve got the same question as Fig.
The memo is pretty unhelpful, beyond stating the conclusion of the Law Department (who do they report to again?).
Not questioning the validity, at this point, as much as looking for the specific part of the MA Constitution that states the need for Mayoral consent.
Superficially, it seems surprising, as many towns and cities don’t have a Mayor– so does the council-appointed administrator have to sign off? Only the council in those cases? Does the statute really clarify any of this? Or is the legal gray area that hasn’t been resolved in Massachusetts?
Looking for specifics and expertise, THM is probably best suited for this.
Greg:
I’m a fan of Councilor Baker, but it is short on details. I was curious about the reference cites that back up the law dept view. When I looked at this months ago very quickly, I thought the language was clear that mayor consent was required. But I was just looking for the point of view of the 8 + 8 proponents as to why that was incorrect.
I’ve considered this to be a dead issue for a while. Neither Mayor was going to support 8 + 8 under a tight time frame. For this year, it was just a political stunt. That much is clear. 8 +8 was a mirage for exactly why a lot of us said it was going to be a mirage, because even if the council voted for it, the mayor wouldn’t approve it. And that was just step 2!
Looking at Leslie’s memo, I’m struck at how difficult this would have been to do in a short time. In talking to my neighbors and friends who voted no, many of them didn’t want ANY reduction in the council. Some didn’t like term limits. And this idea that we’ve been “talking about this for decades” suddenly is the new standard for legislation in Newton is a remarkable role reversal! Didn’t I hear some of those same folks complaining that there weren’t enough public meetings for Austin Street and Orr Block?
But the 8 + 8 supporters can certainly resubmit under the new council, and perhaps Mayor Fuller will see it differently than Mayor Warren. I think that is probably a waste of time though.
At this point, I’m resigned to a larger council. For me it was never about development, despite the various postings on this blog. Our city council is slow and largely ineffective. Its structure is unwieldy, it causes expensive delays for little reason, it wastes resources, it sucks the life and energy out of citizens who petition before it. It engages in delay as a tactic and seems to use the long no as a means of policy. In short, it has few best practices. It often means well but accomplishes little. And Newton deserves better.
That may seem harsh, but it isn’t a criticism of the people involved. Most of them seem like terrific public servants, and I do not doubt that they are trying to do what is best for Newton. But a poorly designed political structure produces bad and inefficient outcomes.
And I still wish we paid them more to attract more candidates (and better compensate the folks already in office to account for the long hours).
Ah well. Onward.
All I was trying to say was that (in spite of whatever chatter and speculation there has been on Village 14 or elsewhere) the consensus last night (from councilors on all sides of this debate) was that this home rule petition needs a mayor’s approval to move forward.
Folks don’t have to like that answer but there was agreement last night that this is the answer.
@Sue
The objective isn’t to achieve 100% consensus. Simply not possible. I understand your perspective, I simply don’t agree. I suspect no amount of opinions and facts will sway to you 8+8. That’s OK.
I’d prefer all Ward-only, and see 8+8 AS the compromise.
The point is that the best data we have suggests 8+8 is the preferred model of Newton. Its not perfect data, but the best we’ll have. There is really nothing in a future process, short of a scientific survey (with wording agreed to by both sides) testing other options that could provide better data. Hearing the perspective of an extreme few at meetings that very few attend isn’t reliable data at all.
Thousands of voters passed 8+8 twice. Thousands rejected the last proposal because they want Ward representation. Anything less than 8 Ward Councilors is ignoring the voice of those thousands of voters. Respecting the views of your fellows neighbors is an important part of society. They’ve spoken as best they could to date. Its time to ask voters about 8+8 in a binding fashion in 2019.
@Fig
Austin St or Orr block was on the ballot?
8+8 passed twice. Talk and votes are two different things.
Time to respect the will of the voters.
Paul:
The process will be what the law says it is, right? And if folks say the law requires the mayor to consent, and he has come out publically saying that consent won’t be granted, I think this is a dead issue.
I think at this point it would be far worse for the mayor politically to reverse himself. I can’t see why he’d do that.
So basically all I can say is that Emily et al is welcome to bring this up next year. I might even support it. But absent a different law interpretation that says the mayor’s approval isn’t required, or Setti suddenly having a change of heart, I’m not sure what to say except better luck next term.
As for Orr/Austin street not being on the ballet, neither was 8 plus 8. At least which I lived here. My point was that generally folks who aren’t in favor of new development want additional meetings. Austin street had so…many…meetings. And then faced a lawsuit that it didn’t have enough meetings! It is just ironic that suddenly certain folks think we’ve met and discussed enough. Perhaps we have, perhaps it is in the eye of the beholder. But certainly ironic.
Let’s hope our new Mayor will sign off on the home rule petition.
@Fig
We agree that the process will be what it is, and that it would be good if someone could point to the law that states the Mayor’s role.
Thus far we’ve heard opinions- from the Law Dept and the “general consensus” from last nights meeting- but were short of being presented with the facts.
It would be great if someone could point to the specific legal language. I’ve now looked and can’t find it.
Paul: What exactly is your point? No one disputes this, except you. Councilor Norton doesn’t dispute it. Councilor and P&S chair Rice doesn’t dispute it. The TAB doesn’t dispute it.
Paul – look up the Home Rule Amendment to the MA constitution. Article LXXXIX, Section 8.
The council should follow thru with 8/8 til the end of the legislative session.
Just in case other scenarios suddenly appear, such as what if Setti suddenly resigns or for some other reason is unable to fulfill his entire term?
Would not Scott as acting Mayor be able to sign on as he hinted in his neutral gate answer at Angier?
– and then from that delivery a whole different dynamic kicks in from the acting mayor perspective impacting mayor elect future standing.
From Councilor Sangiolo’s earlier post: “this just confirms that the Charter Commission and the YES on Charter folks real issue is not the size of the Council – but just getting rid of the Ward Councilors.” If that’s ALL it confirms, why 14 councilors proposing to change the balance of ward-to-at-large councilors rather than maintaining the 2/3 to 1/3 composition? No one voted FOR that. 20 years ago? I didn’t live here 20 years ago. My next door neighbors on both sides didn’t live here 20 years ago. In fact at least half the people on my block didn’t live here 20 years ago. The world has changed in 20 years and so has this city. Please councilors–do your job, do your research (in this decade) and find the right solution for the 21st century. Thanks in advance!
A busy week of work for me and feel you guys have sprinted miles ahead … Which illustrates reason # 1 that I believe this decision should not be rushed:
Most residents have not had the luxury of time to examine what any of these configurations mean regarding fairness, the balance of power, accountability, and influence. This decision has a genuine and direct impact on our identity as a community.
Quick observation #1: @gail and @gregg are asking the right questions … i.e., What’s the appropriate balance of power on the City Council? And what does 8/8 or 8/4 or ‘x’ mean regarding actual representation, influence, balance-of-power, and accountability? What would these various configs mean for each of our 13 villages?
Funny, though, if my only choice is to choose 8/8 NOW or wait for the new council and mayor-elect to throw down 8/4 or some other plan without due process – I choose 8/8 NOW. (And die a little inside)
So now, a week after the election, I’m suddenly more aligned with @jake and @Mayor-Warren and less-so with @Emily and @Prior, but my mistrust and disdain for @YES is strong as ever.
@Harry Sanders, that is such an improbable scenario that Warren would not complete his term and that Scott would sign off as an acting Mayor in the final days of his term. I couldn’t envision Scott doing that.
Was is more possible is that Setti Warren (who is currently 30 points behind) would either 1) determine that it helps him more politically to sign it or 2) recognizing that he probably won’t beat Baker decides that being the Mayor to finally helped achieve the long standing goal to downsize city council with a plan that has won voter support twice and would likely win it again would be a pretty good legacy.
@Kathy
That’s helpful, thanks for pointing out.
It is mentioned in section 8 (Article 2), and also mentioned in section 4. FWIW, section 4, which is the most relevant portion, also seems to say that Home Rule to change the composition of the council, must go through the Charter Commission process, not via a City Council action. Perhaps I’m reading it wrong. But I recall Bryan claiming similarly months ago.
Relevant document below.
https://www.mma.org/sites/default/files/resources/article89_0.pdf
@Greg
It should be in everyone’s interest to ground ourselves in objective information and facts. That’s all I was looking to accomplish.
Particularly in these heated times, locally and nationally, grounding ourselves in facts and information makes it more likely we find common ground. Preaching that no one is disputing something so “Dude, what’s the problem” is precisely what’s wrong with our dialogue today.
Frankly, the memo from Baker should have been appropriately sourced- any legal or scientific paper does so. That should be the standard- facts and information- not who screams the loudest or gets the “right” people to agree it is so.
Let’s draw on the citywide mailing that YES sent out a couple of weeks ago.
https://yesnewtoncharter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Yes-New-Charter-mailer.pdf
“The voters have a chance to make Newton’s government more effective by reducing the size of the city council while retaining ward representation” — Setti Warren, Candidate for Governor, 11/2017
…..[insert election here]….
“I believe that the City needs additional time and engagement on this topic.” — Setti Warren, 11/15/2017,
Setti is now preemptively threatening to deny voters, in his words, ” the chance to make Newton’s government more effective by reducing the size of the city council while retaining ward representation”.
Further Yes quotes from flyer:
“Newton residents have been calling to reduce the size of the city council for the last 50 years.”
“Newton current city council has 24 members — its just too big. The state’s average council size is 10.”
“With 24 city councilors, Newton’s council can take years to accomplish its goals”
There are two groups that favor 24. Those that truly believe/know it works well for the city, and those that fear the impact of a a lower than 2:1 at-large to ward ratio on development. For Kathleen Hobson, per her public hearing testimony, this fear is based on this MIT masters thesis on the “Battle of Victory Field” in the 70’s. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/64508/25943125-MIT.pdf?sequence=2 Ironically the dspace service that serves up this link is a creation of Hal Abelson.
On the development front, people should remember that less than 2 years ago 5 of the 8 ward-elected councilors approved Austin St. while only 12 of 16 At-large approved. If the vote was held again in January, it would likely be at least 6 of 8 ward councilors with Brenda joining the council, and if Ward 3 had not been a write-in battle, perhaps it would be 7 of 8 if Allison joined the council. In their discussions last night, the councilors on both sides of the issue were basically coming around to that conclusion. 8-8 is not to be feared. It also yield tremendous simplicity — basically a ward gets the equivalent of a representative and a senator, head to head elections rather the current 8 slate-elections for 2 at-large slots. Note that the current council that is 50% bigger than the proposal.
Trust me, No amount of deliberation is going to yield a council smaller than 16 that retains ward-elected representation and has a better at-large ratio for those that think it is important. A conventional MA council would be 8 ward-elected and 4 at-large non-residency, and YES is not going to go down that road, even if 8-7 at-large-non-residency was on the table. 8-8’s 1:1 ratio already is an unusually high at-large ratio for a typical city council. A double-district is just not ward-representation and will not yield the same diversity of opinion that 8 wards do. It is an outlier on three different fronts http://newtonwatch.org/2017/11/12/district-representation-is-not-local-representation/
Someone asked earlier in another thread essentially “Jack — how do you know whether a NO voter who voted NO to retain ward representation wouldn’t be happy to have half as much?” I don’t. Could a NO voter chime in if you fine with half as much representation? Now that we’ve had the debate and the discussion of the past 6 months, I just don’t think there are any/many that would be in that camp.
The HR proposal gives Newton residents the option to ratify 8-8 or stick with 24. If YES believes their own statements, the window of putting that option on the table is closing. If it closes now, just let it be remembered it wasn’t the city council or the NO campaign that closed it. The city has other things to focus on in the next 6 months as we get a new mayor and a new agenda. I think I’ve said all I can say on this front and will sign off from further V14 comments on the topic.
Let them vote. Let us vote.
Jack
Jack:
I’m fine with us voting. Just do it the right way, per the legal requirements:
1) the same way the charter commission folks did it (gather signatures for years, have an election to elect the charter commissioners, then we vote). Yes campaign lost, here we are.
2) Home Rule Petition, satisfying all of the hoops in front of you. The lame duck city council is just one. And while you clearly like and approve of the 8 plus 8, many folks feel differently. And the current lame duck mayor apparently doesn’t agree (which we warned you about a few weeks ago….) So either convince the mayor (unlikely with just a 2 month window) or reintroduce in the new council. Because those are the rules, as I now read them.
If the city council, the new mayor, the AG, and the legislature all agree, we get to vote. I even think I’d vote for it. Maybe.
Otherwise, 24 it is. I’m happy to listen to the 8 plus 8 proposal, and I’d love to vote on it eventually if you get your ducks in a row. Until then, we should move on to more important topics that actually have a chance of passing in the lame duck session. Maybe the parking ban?
Quoting the charter campaign yes folks, including the mayor, isn’t an argument that carries the day. Because you aren’t comparing apples to apples in your proposal. And as your proposal decreases my ability to elect my representation directly, that’s a pretty material change in my book. It isn’t just about a smaller council. Posting that it is multiple times with multiple quotes meant to show hypocrisy of the Yes side doesn’t change those facts.
Regarding this proposal, many of us told you the only realistic way to shrink the council was the charter and that it was unfair to give the impression this option was viable in the same way. This setback proves the point, and further proves the following: It is always easier to tear a proposal down than build one up. If you and others are determined enough, it might be possible to get the 8 plus 8through a new city council and mayor and create the change you desire. Good luck.
My guess is that 5 years from now, we’ll have the same 24 member council. Change is hard.
Lisle Baker made a compelling argument for keeping a 24 member council last night.
I would too especially if it consisted of 16 ward councilors and 8 at large.
@fig “And as your proposal decreases my ability to elect my representation directly, that’s a pretty material change in my book. It isn’t just about a smaller council.”
Sure — The proposal is per legal requirements and residents had a choice to go the “everybody vote for everybody” route and, despite a pretty stacked deck (see flyer link), voted it down handily.
“Posting that it is multiple times with multiple quotes meant to show hypocrisy of the Yes side doesn’t change those facts.”
Whether the pre-election statements of YES and the Mayor are hypocrisy or wisdom, we have a moment to act on it to give voters a choice. The more councilors vote for it, the harder it will be for either mayor to veto it. If they outgoing mayor wants status quo as his legacy, that’s his choice. Chances are we’ll have status quo in the governor’s seat as well.
I am OK with 16 or 24, but I think the 24 council needs named A/B seats for the at-large seats. This is not uncommon. A challenger should be able to pick who they are challenging and an incumbent should know they are being challenged. The nuances of bullet voting are just too much inside baseball. 8-8 addresses that and creates a simpler more understandable council structure.
Questions that need to be answered before we can really decide to support 8/8 now
1- Where does Mayor-Elect Fuller stand? What is her position/preference?
2- If 8/8 passes now and Waren does nothing with it, can she sign it as is, or would it require a new vote from the new council?
3- If Warren does nothing or vetos 8/8, how likely is it that new council with Mayor-Elect Fuller’s support will docket a new re-config proposal of their choosing – 8/4 or otherwise?
I would love to hear from past/current Councilors –
On the playing field, what are the distinctions between an at-large councilor and a ward councilor’s job?
Are the differences in the job description and approach subtle or major?
Ward Councilors, how strongly did/do you feel accountable to your Ward vs the city as a whole?
How do you decide on issues when what is best for the city as a whole isn’t supported by your constituents – Or your opinion isn’t popular in your ward?
1- Where does Mayor-Elect Fuller stand? What is her position/preference? –
I don’t know where she stands now, but during the campaign she said she would not support the 8 + 8.
2- If 8/8 passes now and Waren does nothing with it, can she sign it as is, or would it require a new vote from the new council?
My understanding is that it dies with this term.
3- If Warren does nothing or vetos 8/8, how likely is it that new council with Mayor-Elect Fuller’s support will docket a new re-config proposal of their choosing – 8/4 or otherwise?
Don’t know. New Council will have to decide if they want to take this issue up.
@Mike: On the playing field, what are the distinctions between an at-large councilor and a ward councilor’s job?
Clearly, we each do our jobs differently. As an at-large Councilor, I view my role as serving the needs and concerns of the entire City – so folks who have not been successful reaching other Councilors or getting other Councilors to acknowledge or address their concerns, generally call me. They also call me because I am very accessible – being at-home taking care of my children and now my mother.
I send out weekly newsletters – not about what I think residents want to know – but providing a resource of all the meetings happening both within the Council and with other Boards and Commissions and any other meeting notices that I come upon – so that Newton residents can be informed of what is being discussed, what is happening and how their tax dollars are being spent.
Ward Councilors generally service just the needs of that particular Ward or Ward issue or neighborhood issue or school issue. For instance, we rely on our Ward Councilor to attend or set up neighborhood meetings on particular issues. Maybe it’s as big as a development – like Riverside or Rowe Street or maybe its a much smaller development that involves changing a single-family into a multi-family dwelling. Maybe the issue is about parking restrictions or the need for speed tables or traffic calming measures. Maybe it’s about how a blue-zone is working at a school or about general safety issues or road conditions – like constant flooding. Again – focus is on the Ward they represent.
Are the differences in the job description and approach subtle or major?
There really isn’t a “job description”. But I can say, that even as a stay-at home mother, I would not be able to coordinate all of the local Ward meetings and deal with all of the local issues and still do my weekly newsletter and service the needs of the rest of the city and work on policy issues so I cannot imagine how a Councilor-at-Large would be able to be effective unless this became a full-time position. The beauty of our current 24 system is that we can divide up the work.
The conversation about apportionment of workload was punted by the Charter Commission. They decided that the conversation about how work would be distributed and allocated would be left with the Council. Which is why I find arguments – that the City Council has to have these conversations about the impact on the 8+8 model as totally ironic. The Charter Commission had full confidence that the Council would figure it out after the proposal went out to the voters – but when it comes to the Council making a decision about reducing the size of the Council – we have to figure it out first – before going to the voters.
During the campaign, we heard ad nauseam from the yes campaign that the time for change is now. In their own words, “And to all the voters who #VotedYES, glad you agreed the time for change is right NOW!” Another point of emphasis of theirs was the importance of downsizing the City Council.
Personally, I would love to engage in a substantive debate on this subject with someone like Jake Auchincloss as I know that my arguments are stronger. But at this point in the game, I guess my point is simpler than all that. If the current home rule petition does not move forward, charter reform is done. There will be no change, period. If the time for change truly is now, the home rule petition should be debated and voted on this legislative session without fear of Mayor Warren’s bluff. It really is that simple. In my opinion, pretending that there is some holy grail of a perfect solution is folly.
The irony!! Before the vote the Yes side predicted the the 8+8 proposal was just a ploy to muddy the waters and that it would newer be taken up and die on the vine because CC would never voluntarily vote to downsize.
And yet the 8+8 proponents have followed through and are supporting exactly that. Now the Yes contingency is arguing to put the breaks on the debate.
Personally I could live with the status quo (although not my preference) or 8+8. But I have no interest in an 8+4 or any other ploy to shift the balance from wards to at large.
would YES negotiate to a more reasonable compromise than the 8/4 ???
@claire “.. I have no interest in an 8+4 or any other ploy to shift the balance from wards to at large.”
16+8 is equivalent to 8+4. Meaning 8+4 is the same ratio as what we have now albeit the size is just cut in half. How does this shift the balance from wards to at large?
Wards are not aligned with town centers. For example in Newton Highlands the wards are both 5 and 6.
to me the ploy in pushing the 8+8 is just that…. The shifting of power from At Large to that of the Wards.
@Harry Sanders I think we can get this done. Let’s do simple math here. Pick one. 12+6 or 8+4 with term limits. I would bet that the YES side would do either one of those options if you include what most wanted with the YES vote and that is Term Limits.
Compromise from both sides – The NO gets to keep “Ward” representation. Yes gets Term limits. Both sides get the reduction in size and keeps the political power ratios the same.
So in the spirit of compromise which one do you like?
Apparently the same kind of mass hypnosis that allowed Trump to become President is also affecting us on a local level in Newton. Pay close attention…
After 20 years and 4 ballot box votes the Charter debate is over! The City Council will continue to have 24 members. Alternative schemes for changing the size of the Council will go nowhere. As a long time advocate for a smaller Council, this is painful for me to say… But it’s time to acknowledge reality and move on.
@Mike: There’s another current-day analogy at play here and that’s the effort to force through legislation written by a select group of legislators for the sake of a political victory and without adequate discussion about alternatives.
@Greg: The Charter Commission was supposed to look at alternatives. The problem is that all they were focused on was getting rid of the Ward Councilors. They did plenty of research and looked at comparable communities around the Commonwealth that show – that most like communities have a Ward or district component in their legislative body. In fact, some have more Ward/District Councilors – than at-large. And what did they come up with?
The irony here, is that the very people who for years have been working to reduce the size of the Council are now halting that process – when we finally have enough votes to pass it – because they don’t want Ward Councilors – despite the vote of the electorate.
@Councilor Sangiolo: If we’ve learned one thing this year it should be that the devil is in the details.
We’ve learned that the final configuration of the council matters much more to the people than perhaps anyone could have predicted. What we haven’t learned is if 8/8 is the right configuration.
And given that the mayor says he won’t support this now and it can’t go on the ballot until 2019 anyway, why are we scrambling to reach yet another dead end?
Really…why are we?
Amy raises an excellent point.
For those like Greg that are concerned about things being rushed- did the Charter Commission do sufficient research or not? And if you say they didn’t research 8+8 in detail sufficiently, what specifically did they research for an all at-large council that you would like to see replicated for 8+8?
If they did enough research, isn’t it as simple as choosing another structure that is considered viable based on their research? As Amy noted, 8+8 is more consistent with their benchmarks than all at-large.
@Paul: I’m not interested in litigating what the commission did, I’m interested in improving the effectiveness or our city government.
What Amy said. In fact, what Amy said for past few months. In fact, hell, I’ll make an extension: What Amy says for the next six months.
This part especially: “The conversation about apportionment of workload was punted by the Charter Commission. They decided that the conversation about how work would be distributed and allocated would be left with the Council. Which is why I find arguments that the City Council has to have these conversations about the impact on the 8+8 model as totally ironic. The Charter Commission had full confidence that the Council would figure it out after the proposal went out to the voters – but when it comes to the Council making a decision about reducing the size of the Council – we have to figure it out first – before going to the voters.”
@Greg
To your question to Amy on keeping it going: do we have clarity on whether the Council can pass it this year and have Fuller consent in January? (I don’t see anything in the Home Rule amendment that would prevent that.)
Maybe Setti Warren is irrelevant.
@Greg- the point is about YOUR consistency. You either voted for something that wasn’t sufficiently researched, or the research was done and you’re making excuses about being rushed.
@Paul: Maybe you’re mixing me up with someone else. I wasn’t on the charter commission.
I’m the guy who kept saying: I understand why people like to have their own ward councilors. I like my ward councilor A LOT. What I don’t like is having seven councilors I can’t vote for (and I like a lot of them too). So I’d prefer an all at-large council.
That didn’t prevail on Nov. 7. Along comes 8/8 and I’m saying: Hmmm, that wasn’t my first choice, I’d like some time to think about it, to listen to others, to think what that would mean. And so should everyone else because this is a big, multi-generational decision.
And guess what? We have time because the mayor also thinks, and I quote, “this topic should be discussed thoroughly over the next several months with robust resident engagement.”
Paul:
I believe your question regarding Setti being not relevant to this has been answered on another post. Nothing carries over. If you want Ruthanne to approve it, next years council needs to approve it too.
Amy:
You are simplifying the debate a great deal. For some of us, it isn’t just about size of the council. If you had wanted to do this 8 plus 8 structure, you had your entire time in office, to speak up for it, fight for it, talk about it. I don’t recall that happening until about a month ago. Isn’t that also inconsistent? Did you suddenly see the light? Or is it just now when you won’t be potentially eliminated your own job that you are willing to vote for it?
For all of the “no” sides complaining about lack of openness, meetings that had a predetermined outcome, and general anger about process, I find it very inconsistent for a 8 plus 8 proposal, with limited public meetings over the past few years, to be the chosen model.
Be honest, does anyone think that if this didn’t strengthen the ward councilors over the at-large councilors, you’d be supporting it? If you were complaining about the yes side using the charter process to strengthen their desired political positions, how is this any different?
So I’m back to where I started. This is why we can’t have nice things people. 24 city councilors and a bloated and ineffective govt. Bah humbug to both yes and no.
What fig said. Now for some turkey & pie. *mic drop*
Bravo, Fig. Your comment to Amy summed my thoughts up better than I ever could have articulated them.
Actually, I do have one more thing to say: I resent this whole 8+8 process. The election is over and done with. Yeah, “my side” lost but I am an adult and I will live, and I am “good” with the majority ruling. But the “sore winners” here are just elongating and perpetuating all of the anger and divisiveness by making the assumption that the reason people voted NO was in reaction to the proposed structure of the council … yet, maybe people voted NO because they like the number of councilors that we have in place right now. Or have another idea in mind. Did you ever think of that possibility? I’m sorry but this whole thing is divisive and rushed, and is not healthy for this city. Reading some of the comments, here and particularly on the Newtonville listserve…. well, let’s just say that we are better than this. The election is over. Your side won. Let’s catch our collective breathes and try to heal. Knock it off….
@Fig: Oh Fig. Did you not see my earlier post detailing the history of the City Council’s on and off deliberation of reducing the size of the Council. 40 years. That’s right – since 1977, the City Council has considered downsizing the council. Even current Councilors were on that docket item. Let’s see, Deb Crossley – then President of the League of Women Voters wrote an eloquent letter in support of the 8+8. Ted Hess-Mahan and Rick Lipof joined with Jay Harney on a docket item for this same configuration – 8+8.
And as for more recent attempts – the necessity wasn’t there since the Charter Commission was convened in 2015 and was supposed to spend the past 2 years looking at different ways to downsize the Council. As I will continue to remind people, the Charter Commissioners were hell bent on getting rid of Ward Councilors from the beginning and that was their downfall. Two years and how much in tax dollars? The 14 City Councilors put together a “Plan B” just in case their recommendation failed. Now the City Councilors are moving forward with a reduction in the size of the Council – a reduction that has had on and off review by the City Council and the endorsement of the League of Women Voters and voters in general since 1977. You and everyone else who want to study it, can do all the studying and campaigning you want against it. Let it go to the voters.
I doubt most of the general public gave the configuration much thought in the past except that it was downsizing the council. So I really don’t think today that you can view this as support for the 8×8 configuration. Didn’t Ted Hess-Mahan say that his feelings were different today than they were at that time your reference? Also today’s population are not the same people who voted back then so you really cannot tie in votes made then to how people are thinking today. With all the discussion that has occurred due to the Charter Commission process I think some people (i won’t even say all because I think the people who post on this blog are more in-tune with the details than most) have a better awareness of the configuration aspect. Just as some people voted against the Charter proposal even thought they favored a smaller council because they did not like the the lack of ward only councilors you cannot assume that those people favor 8v8 or any other configuration. I agree with Fig and think this issue deserves more time and should not be rushed.
@Fig: I am being honest. Are you implying that I have a hidden agenda? What could that possibly be? Let’s see – I don’t have any direct or indirect benefit by reducing the Council and getting rid of 8 of the at-large reps. I even signed on to docket items in the past to reduce the size of the Council eliminating at-large reps while serving. All I am doing in my advocacy for the 8+8 is to give voters an opportunity to reduce the size of the Council while maintaining Ward representation. If they don’t like it, they can vote it down. Again, the Charter Commission spent 2 years and tax dollars studying the composition of the Council but because they had an agenda – that was to get rid of Ward only representation, they went with their 8 + 4 model and lost. Now it’s time to move on. The City will have the next two years to debate and study this all they want before it goes to the voters.
I wasn’t implying a hidden agenda at all. I think your agenda is right up and center, and I respect that.
Just saying that you didn’t really push this as your issue during your many years on the council, and now, at the end, you are. When it suits your upfront agenda to increase the influence of the ward councilors by shrinking the council. Or maybe it is just to shrink the council, and the way you want to do it will just happen to give the ward councilors more voting power. Both things could be true. I don’t know, and frankly I don’t really care, since they are a distinction without a difference. Can’t have one, without the other in the 8 plus 8 model. (just like you couldn’t have one without the other in the Charter vote (except to shrink the ward councilor influence, much to my dismay)
My view is that the horse has left the barn on this one. The charter commission is the only process that would have worked, and it didn’t pass.
And the 8 plus 8 option being brought up at the end was a sham, and now it is proven to BE a sham. Because many of us, me included, said the mayor wouldn’t support it, that it wouldn’t have the months of analysis and meetings and public events the charter commission held (I know, I know, predetermined, 100% groupthink, worthless, etc).
So here we are. Charter commission voted down. 8 plus 8 option never really an option.
On to next year. As a citizen just like the other posters, I’d welcome you continuing to advocate for a smaller council. In a vote next year. Because a vote this year isn’t going to happen. Too little. Too late. On to pie.
@Fig: No, I didn’t push this as my agenda because I had a lot of other important items to deal with. Neither did Deb Crossley – who came onto the Council and decided to work on “other”pressing issues – like Water and Sewer and Green Energy. Or Ted Hess Mahan – who focused on Zoning, Land Use and Fair Housing. You see, there are a lot of pressing issues that the 24 member council deals with on a day-to-day basis. They may not be issues that directly impact you on a daily basis – but they have effect others and have a great impact. Reducing the size of the City Council has been an issue for the past 40 years. Mostly an issue with the League of Women Voters and mostly because there is the sense out there that the Board/Council is dysfunctional. I keep asking – in what way? Is it because you don’t want to hear all of the various voices in the community? You don’t like how certain aldermen/councilors go on and on or like to hear themselves talk? Well you know what? Most of what they/we say is reflective of our community and if you don’t want to hear what they have to say -that is crux of the problem – here and in the federal context. We don’t want to hear others speak when it is not parroting what we want to hear or are “our “beliefs. We want everything done in a quick and what we think is an “efficient” manner. Democracy is not efficient.
Too little – too late? Too bad the Charter Commission and the YES people decided to not advance a proposal to reduce the size of the Council and let the voters decide.
Amy, you sound as though what you really want is to leave the Council in its present size and in its current configuration. So why are you trying to push through this 8+8?
@NativeNewtonian: ” But the “sore winners” here are just elongating and perpetuating all of the anger and divisiveness by making the assumption that the reason people voted NO was in reaction to the proposed structure of the council … yet, maybe people voted NO because they like the number of councilors that we have in place right now. Or have another idea in mind. Did you ever think of that possibility? ”
Sore winners? No. Perhaps you have not seen or listened to this: http://vp.telvue.com/preview?id=T01443&video=324168
Elongating the perpetuating all of the anger and divisiveness? No. We want the voters to have a say on whether they want to reduce the size of the Council from 24 with 16 voted at-large with a residency requirement and 8 elected by the Ward only with a residency requirement to 16 – 8 at-large with a residency requirement and 8 elected by the Ward only with a residency requirement. Under this proposal – 8 – at-large Councilors with a residency requirement would be eliminated. Ward only elected Councilors would be retained.
@NativeNewtonian: It’s not about me or what I want. It’s about what the people want. Let them vote.
Style of leadership is trending in Newton, looking beyond oneself becomes the mother of innovation. The ability to explore and seek out solutions to problems which are many times obscured by the obvious, camouflaged in the intricacies of the mind of personal desire and goal.
An open mind, an open door, an open opportunity is there, we just need time and patience to find it.
45 years is not that long in Newton time; we still have 5 years before a half century, enjoy the wait.
Amy, you’re comment to Fig was very well put. Your description of how candidate’s priorities are shaped by issues present in Newton after being elected is pertinent.
I agree that the community’s voice needs to be heard and understand that 8+8 or even 8+9 would continue that with just one less councilor per ward. It could be a viable solution. The thing for me is, even though this configuration has been discussed before, I think it should be vetted more today to know how it would actually work. Would half the council just concentrate what they perceive to be in their ward’s best interests without considering how that perception fits city-wide?
The Charter Commission did advance a proposal and let the voters decide. It lost. I firmly believe their loss was based on not considering the future of Newton itself and by not listening to the very voters who would decide its fate. Too much concentration on models and not enough on Newton itself.
But the charter commission has completed its tenure and the Yes voters are now just voters, so they are not prohibiting anything from going to the voters – in 2019. A new structure deserves time spent analyzing how it would effect Newton as a city of communities and as a whole – unlike the one put forward by the CC which was never discussed as to how it would function by the city council. If we end up with 24 so be it.
Just my two cents.
8 plus 9? As in 8 at large, 8 Ward and 1 representing Newton’s 14th village? Now that’s a plan I’m ready to endorse!
I have three wishes for next year (actually, I have more, but I’ll mention three here):
1. I wish that the City Council would take up the non-controversial changes from the charter proposal, discuss them using a proper process that allows for input from residents and adjustment as needed, and then move forward with a home-rule petition on those. These would be items that deal with the budgeting and reporting process and aligning the School Committee section with state laws.
2. I wish that the City Council would form a subcommittee to deal with the controversial charter proposal items–maybe this includes term limits? It would definitely review the charter commission info on size and structure of the city council with an open mind (not only 8&8, but other possibilities as well). And it DEFINITELY would use a proper process to allow extensive input from residents and incorporate that feedback. I think that, if done in a way where everyone feels heard, then it should progress forward in the home-rule petition manner.
3. I wish that we would all start un-labelling each other–the charter vote is over, and we need to find a way to move forward. Keeping the division alive is not going to be helpful, and I’m relying on our new Mayor to help address this. It’s not easy–I know I might need a little time away from blogs and local politics to recover. I’ve felt this way after other elections, but this one has been especially painful and exhausting. A focus on the holidays would be very refreshing, I think. Over the pie thread!
@Greg: But who would V14 select as its representative? Maybe worthy of its own post…
I nominate Fig.
I second the motion on Fignewtonvile
That being said, I’d also enjoy all the head scratching in the City Council chambers, if Councillor Harry Sanders was regularly dispensing his cryptic and inscrutable pronouncements there.
In fact, I endorse both candidates.
@Greg — seems like a great idea — as long as your are fine with 7/8ths of the vote for the position coming from NewtonForum.org
It’s outrageous that the charter commission did not spend a single public meeting deliberating the importance of Village 14 representation! They didn’t even research whether or not other cities and towns have looked into virtual representation.
And although I did not do any door knocking, I’m sure if if I did knock at Jerry Reilly’s door he would have told me that he was appalled too.
If nominated, I would not run. If elected, I would not serve. This city deserves better than a cookie themed blogger. I weep for our future.
A note back to Amy: You have me a bit confused.
—Your comment asks me to realize that democracy is messy, and that I need patience, but you were the one pushing a quick vote on 8 plus 8. Goes both ways, does it not?
–Your comment mentions that you had other priorities besides shrinking the counsel because you and Ted and Deb were busy pushing important issues, but you are being inconsistent, if that is the case, why not advocate to keep the Council at its current size?
–Your comment mentions that those of us who think the council is dysfunctional are incorrect, and that maybe we are trying to quiet the voices of those that disagree with us? But doesn’t reducing the council to 16 do the same thing? Or do you feel all of the at-large councilors are duplicative and make the same points?
Your entire argument is the one I’d make if I was trying to perserve the status quo, namely 24 members of the council. Doesn’t your plan to reduce the council directly contradict that post.
Shrinking the council for me was always a means to an end. I’m not trying to limit the voices in front of us, and frankly I’m rather offended by that statement. But it doesn’t mean that I think our city council does a good job in an efficient manner. Well meaning people all. But I watched Austin Street unfold over the past decade. I’ve watched the Cabot School rebuild unfold over the past 5 years. I watched Newton North unfold. And I’ve been watching closely the fits and starts of the Walnut redo for Newtonville. I’ve been able to witness the well meaning actions of smart people in our city government. And I’ve consistently watched that city government slowly grind folks down. You say Democracy isn’t efficient. In terms of Newton, I agree. Justice delayed is justice denied. Sometimes decisions delayed are decisions denied.
There needs to be a balance. I’ve consistency seen the City Council slow things down, put up roadblocks, be unable to make decisions, have limited coordination with the Mayor, with Parks and Rec, with Newton Historic. I’ve been to more meetings that I can count in front of you. I respect you and your fellow city councilors immensely for the time and dedication. But as someone who knows a bit about city governments in MA and elsewhere, there are better models out there. I’m not asking for the city council to side for affordable housing, or development, or better schools. I’m asking for a better process, with more decisions and less punting the can down the road, a streamlined process for once those decisions are made.
I was not part of the Charter Commission. I had no sign up in my yard for a reason. I advocated for an exact ratio reduction in the council and a large increase in salaries. Fewer positions and better paid positions I thought would invigorate the council, encourage not BETTER candidates but MORE candidates with new ideas. I’m blessed with 3 city councilors in my ward who are very active, even if I don’t agree with them. Many others in this city are not so blessed, and there is in my mind some dead weight on the city council, some folks who don’t respond to their consituants and aren’t there to advocate. I had hopes that a reduction would help clear out those folks as well. Not to limit voices. But to bring on more effective and dedicated voices.
So why am I against 8 plus 8? I’m not sure I am. Really. I just want the correct process, which for me would mean a reduction combined with a salary increase and a clearly delineation of duties of the council vs. city staff. None of that will happen with your quick vote in my view.
I’m going back to my pie postings now. Sorry for the wordy post. And for the record Amy I’m going to miss you on the council.
With all due respect to our city councilors… when I went by city hall this afternoon, on my way to Trader Joe’s to buy a turkey coincidentally, there was a large group of turkeys (a “rafter” of turkeys, according to Google) . Anyone want to guess how many there were? Exactly twenty four. Must be an omen.
Let’s think seriously about maintaining the status quo.
What could be better than 24 Councilors ?
16 Ward Councilors and 8 at large !
How more democratic could we get?
I think the entire Constitution of the United States + Bill of Rights was written, debated and ratified in less time than this singular issue of 16+8 or 8+8 city council has been with no resolution in site. Can we not – Mayor Warren and others – move forward with 8+8 as the people have indicated they want and allow a “more perfect” city council composition in the future if such is required and demanded?
@Jane H
It’s not about ‘more perfect’, it’s about making absolutely sure that what we end up with is fair to all residents, provides a proper amount of representation, accountability, and a more efficient council.
A new configuration also needs to be thoroughly vetted to make sure it is not susceptible to abuse and manipulation by any block of voters or special interests.
People have NOT indicated they want 8+8.
This is serious business and the consequences of making a mistake could be huge. We should keep 24 until a new system is vetted and there is a clear consensus.
@Blueprintbill – “24 Councilors.. How more democratic can we get?” Hell lets’s go to 48, we’ll be dripping with democracy.
@MikeC I really respect your POV. You are always a thoughtful voice here.
So when you write “People have NOT indicated they want 8+8.
This is serious business and the consequences of making a mistake could be huge. We should keep 24 until a new system is vetted and there is a clear consensus.” I agree completely except for the point of a consensus because votes are never about consensus.
But it seems to me that the Home Rule Petition would have a very rigorous process to go through before it would even be put to a vote by the citizens to determine if 8+8 is what they want. The fact that 8+8 has historically been supported by both citizens and some current members of CC suggests that it warrants this consideration. In the meanwhile the current configuration would remain in effect.
So I am struggling to understand where/if we are diverging
@fig, Amy is, to some extent, mischaracterizing my aims and motives in cosponsoring a proposal to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen to fit her own narrative. And, while it is true I have been concentrating on other matters, the reason I stopped pursuing it on the Board was because it had become clear that there was no consensus among its members concerning either the composition or necessity of a downsized board. At that point, I and many others concluded that the only way to achieve the goal of downsizing the Board was through a Charter Commission.
But, let me be clear about my intentions, past and present. My support for downsizing the Board was and is premised on my longstanding and continuing belief that the legislative body of the City of Newton should not also be its special permit granting authority (SPGA). Indeed, unless the City Council is willing to delegate the SPGA, a reduction in size results only in an increase in workload–a 50% increase if the Council is reduced from 24 to 16. And that would not serve the city or its residents well.
My belief is based on the inherent conflict of interest, which is particularly keen for councilors elected solely from within a ward, presented when a project may be unpopular with a critical mass from within a ward but is objectively beneficial to the city as a whole. To deny that it is at least possible that a ward councilor would be influenced to vote against a project because s/he is afraid of being voted out of office at the next election is disingenuous, at best. The SPGA is supposed to be a quasi-judicial process that requires that the representatives of the community who exercise it are unbiased, objective and, IMHO, free from inherent conflicts of interest. I firmly believe that an appointed rather than an elected body, such as the Planning Board of ZBA, should be making those decisions. For similar reasons, judges are appointed and not elected in Massachusetts, and criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be judged by a jury of their peers. Injustice is far more likely to occur where a judge must be concerned about being voted out of office for freeing an innocent criminal defendant charged with an especially heinous crime, who has already been convicted by the court of popular opinion.
Newton is somewhat unusual in that its legislative body is also the SPGA. Few municipalities allow the same body that writes the zoning and special permit laws to make land use decisions as well (think, judge, jury, and executioner). The City Council has the power to delegate that power to the ZBA or PB, as the vast majority of Massachusetts municipalities have done. But unless and until that happens, changing the composition of the City Council will only make the existing problem with the SPGA worse. I fully recognize that my opinion is decidedly in the minority. If the SPGA were delegated to another body, then I could support downsizing the Council and altering the composition to 8+8. But unless and until that happens, I shall remain unalterably opposed.
Finally, unlike many of my colleagues, who have in my opinion a rose-colored, nostalgic, rather romantic view of a city councilor as a “citizen legislator,” I supported the proposed Charter because it would move Newton in the direction of Cambridge and Boston, which have fewer councilors, who work full time, are compensated as such, and have staffs to assist them in doing the people’s business. I actually think that is a superior model to the “citizen legislators” who have families and full-time professions or careers that prevent them from being able to meet with staff or residents during the day, or can make it hard to get to evening meetings on time when child care (or care for elderly parents for those of us who are or have been in the sandwich generation) falls through. Reducing the number of councilors, whether ward or at large, would only exacerbate that problem and negatively affect the ability of the City Council to serve the city and its residents well. Again, I recognize that I am in a decided minority who share this view as well.
So Amy, and anyone else who wants to use me as their straw man in this debate, be honest when you do so and please be sure to note that my support for any reduction in the size of the city council is contingent upon delegating the SPGA to another public body. Because you know I will not let it lie if you do not.
For those that say we need more discussion, please define the alternate proposal. The only other alternative that seems to be on the table beyond status quo is dividing Newton into 4 districts, likely all with the “right” part of the city in their inner corners. As I’ve stated before, four districts for Newton is not “local” on a number of fronts (no city has only 4, no community has less local representation, and only Worcester and Boston would have more residents/local councilor). I chime in again now because I have it graphically laid out. Please have a look.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FWoLNzlfb0IIRXDxfrbvIh70op-dT1Tb/view?usp=sharing
Can we agree the two options shown are the ones on the table? The 24 individuals who contributed $45K to the YES campaign like less local representation and more expensive, less grass-roots elections as they are seen as more favorable to private development. They will now argue for the 8-4dd proposal, as it is just a slight retreat from 100% at-large.
8+4DD is just another extreme outlier proposal. On the other hand, the 8-8 proposal still leaves Newton with a relatively low percentage of local representation and relatively thinly spread ward-elected councilors compared with other communities.
@Claire, Thank you for your kind words. I think I have (for the moment) the advantage of having no affiliations and little insider/historical political knowledge – Although I have lived here for 15 years.
I think we are on the same page. When I used the word consensus I was playing off @Gail’s title of this thread … Back 101 comments ago.
What I meant is that whatever we finally arrive at, it should be well vetted, researched and generally accepted by voters as the correct decision by creating a fair playing field, clear representation and a low probability of manipulation.
I assumed (ha!) that a plan meeting such criteria would naturally win consensus … upon further examination of my words, I conclude that I have learned absolutely nothing these past few months.
@Jack Prior, excellent graphic!
Jack, I would like the City Council to have a robust discussion about delegating some of its responsibility, including the special permit granting authority, which will impose a heavier burden on fewer councilors if any downsizing proposal passes. In addition, as I said at the P&S meeting last week, I would like to hear a discussion about reducing the number of wards and keeping two at large and one ward councilor. My preference would be five, which would create an odd number of members on the council (someone from the NO campaign was pushing that as a reason not to reduce the number of councilors to 12, you in fact). It has the benefit of eliminating deadlocks (which is effectively a “no” vote) and being evenly divisible by 3, for those votes which require a 2/3 majority, such as zoning amendments or bonds.
@Ted-my-man
RE: “my longstanding and continuing belief that the legislative body of the City of Newton should not also be its special permit granting authority”
Hear, hear!
It seems to me that changing this would be the one single action that would make the biggest difference. So big that we may not need to change anything else. However every time in the past few months I’ve asked why council must grant all permits that I’ve received a blank stare.
Why has this not been discussed? What is the backstory?
@Mike, I have no idea why it has not been discussed. Because, IMHO, it is the elephant in the living room.
@ted, We’re going to need a zoo to house all the elephants hanging around here lately
@Ted: Moving SPGA to another body would be helpful on many fronts. It would allow us to shrink the city council while keeping it a part-time job. It would instantly improve what appear to be bitter relationships among Newton insiders, and present and former city councilors. It would allow us to consider the proper size and organization of our government without worrying that the other side is gaining an advantage. But the bitter fight would then move to the composition of that body. If the SPGA board were perceived as more anti-NIMBY or pro-NIMBY than the council, all hell would break loose.
How would you manage that issue?
“Moving SPGA to another body would be helpful on many fronts.” Where would it move?
@Claire, as I noted above, the City Council could delegate the SPGA to either the ZBA or the Planning Board, as most Massachusetts communities have done. The ZBA already handles comprehensive permits under Chapter 40B, and there is no reason in my mind it could not handle special permits under Chapter 40A, since that is how most municipalities handle it.
@John White, I would not manage the issue. The Mayor would appoint the members of the SPGA. So the voters would decide who to vote for for Mayor based, in part, on what kind of SPGA they want. Of course, the City Council could reject the appointees by a 3/4 vote, as happened recently. So, problem solved, confidence restored.
@Ted Hess-Mahan, would it require only a simple majority of the city council to grant SPGA to another body?
Ted, you and I aren’t in disagreement, I’m for making the city council more like a full time job (or at least paid like the time consuming part time job it ends up being). And I agree that SPGA should be with another body.
From my experience, this is done more commonly in MA.
How could Newton be broken into 4 districts ? Who would be making that call ?
Newton has 13 Villages and presumably almost as many post offices , village centers , identities etc.
Why homogenization ? Why not keep the variety of choice in where someone might want to live. Why not try to maintain ( or enhance ) that option?
Don’t we generally prefer a diverse community ? Rich, poor, black , white or whatever ? Why can’t or shouldn’t Nonamtum have an equal voice ( and local representation ), as Chestnut Hill. ? West Newton as Oak
Hill ? Waban as LowerFalls ?
4 Districts ?!!! That’s laughable !
@Mike: Elephants belong in the WILD… not in zoos.
“I’m for making the city council more like a full time job (or at least paid like the time consuming part time job it ends up being).”
Making it a full time job seems economically unfeasible unless the number was reduced considerably, but then we are dealing with less representation. Making it a part time position is equally questionable, because then those who have to work full time jobs to support their families would not be able to serve.
Exactly what problem are you looking to solve making a City Councilor a full time position?
Here is one additional graphic showing the outlier nature of the 8+4DD alternative proposal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eZAk8nTOiYvbsvv-1ko2cRymHHMPcHh7/view?usp=sharing
@Ted — The charter commission proposal did not address revised responsibilities when halving the size of the council and thus it is surreal to see this now raised by you and Commissioner Chris Steele for half as much of a reduction.
It seems like the special permit volume could to be reduced by zoning reform and other adaptions, but making them all the responsibility of the appointees of the 100% at-large-elected mayor puts us back into the same local representation debate.
While the council has to ultimately act in a quasi-judicial body on a final proposal, the process of getting it finalized makes projects better for the city.
re:odd/even
Besides leading to 17,000+ residents/ward councilor, the problem with 5 wards is it would make the school committee = 5+mayor = 6 = even. The number of decision making votes and the risk of ties there is likely much more problematic with the SC.
The charter commission received written assurance from their consultants that even numbered councils are fine (it wasn’t publicized, but its on their website). This question needed to be resolved for the HR route to be clear and henced why I pressed on it. My main problem with the move from 13 to 12 was that it was in some part due to the priority of special permit approval ease for the YES supporters that lobbied for the change.
@Emily Yes, Elephants do belong in the wild. Every last one. Did you know my family’s business is whale watching & advocacy?
Preserving the 8 ward councilors has to be a non negotiable item if we want to respect the will of our voters. I’ve heard the argument about efficiency over and over again, but it’s a slippery slope in terms of the ultimate consequences. Government shouldn’t be designed for efficiency but for fair and responsive representation where decision making institutions can adjust conflicting views and interests with a measure of fairness. This is always going to be a bit messy, but I feel the results will almost always be better in the long term scheme of things. The Charter Commission’s recommendation for a 12 member at-large city council would almost invariably have led to heavily financed slates of candidates and a higher degree of concentrated power. This is not healthy for the political vitality of this City, particularly when coupled with the strong mayor system we have here. The 4 district proposal is almost as bad and again circumvents the intent of a majority of voters. Concentrated power has blinders on and never ends well.
“…the reason I stopped pursuing it on the Board was because it had become clear that there was no consensus among its members concerning either the composition or necessity of a downsized board.” THM
Can someone explain in clear terms why the HRP can’t/shouldn’t be taken up in January, 2018?
@ what Bob Burke just said so precisely and well. Especially this: ” The Charter Commission’s recommendation for a 12 member at-large city council would almost invariably have led to heavily financed slates of candidates and a higher degree of concentrated power. “
Hi @Jack. Thanks for the shout out, but I don’t remember saying anything about workload.
Mike Ciolino – Nothing is absolutely fair all the time. But it is the best that it can be, under the circumstances. And there should be enough flexibility in the system to allow change, when it’s seen as necessary. And the Constitution changes too. It wasn’t absolutely fair at first, not at all. Read the Declaration of Independence. It has some things in there that would make us, today, shudder. The Founding Fathers were able to compromise. That was their greatness. Where are we???
At the same time, at least there’s finally some discussion about how you can take responsibility away from the CC and move it elsewhere. But in this crazy system of ours, as it stands, how many city councilors would be needed to agree to that for it to happen?
@Chris — I believe you said “Our systematic review over the course of the prior two years included in-depth discussions of how the size of the Council and the functions which it governs impacts the relationship with other elected arms of government, with professional staff, and how the Council defines its own role.”
But wasn’t the bottom line that the commission proposed just having the council sort out roles and responsibility changes after the election? That was with a proposal that cut the council in half. But now for a proposal that cuts it by a third that process has to be repeated?
Go visit the Seaport concrete jungle and then think long and hard about whether you want that for Newton. Because that is what happened to Boston when decisions about development were taken away from the elected City Council and placed in the hands of the all appointed Boston Redevelopment Authority, now called Boston Planning & Development Agency. Let’s put it this way – I am sure the developer community would be heavy donors to any campaign to take the Special Permit granting authority away from the elected officials – even more than they were to the “Yes” campaign.
Mike C: That is cool! Most zoos are horrible so I had to weigh in at that opportunity.
Hi @Jack. Ok, I understand your confusion. Yes, I noted that there was considerable discussion regarding the relationships between branches of government. That is the nature of a review of the City’s constitutional document. In a constitutional review, it is a necessary requirement to allow the entities resulting to determine their own rules once the structure is resolved. However, you are aguing an issue of workload, which seems to be be something different entirely, especially when the current docket item is limited to only one branch of government, and does not appear to be an enterprise-wide review.
@Chris — Its actually Ted that was arguing workload. Work or workload — it can be sorted out by the council, as this was the plan of the commission in the 1st place. Josh is well prepared on that front and several former members of the council have weighed in supporting the adaptability of council responsibilities to the the 8-8 model.
I did listen carefully to the charter commissioners, the YES campaign, and Tom Sheff, and they again and again and again argued that the city council has never voted to downsize itself in 100 years and will never do so in the next 50.
I’m data driven and I can’t argue with the historical lack of a successful council vote to downsize, so out of respect for your effort and theirs, I think its important that the city seize upon this unique moment with the current council — created by the efforts of the petition signature gatherers, the charter commission, and the YES/No campaigns — to let things proceed on the 8-8 proposal to a up/down 2019 ratification by residents.
One strange observation on the deliberation front — while the 14 docketers of this item got full blame for lack of downsizing in the past 20 years, they now get no credit for the extensive documented deliberations done on 8-8 in that period…
Jack Prior… Please run for City Council. I love your data driven approach and your common sense
@Jane – I couldn’t agree more.
I believe the structure of our council is probably the most critical anchor point that our city has to ensure that all residents are guaranteed an equitable stake in effecting the laws and decisions made that determine our quality of life and identity as a city.
I also believe that in a democracy, equity must be our most basic core value. Equity begets fairness. My interpretation of the NO vote is that ultimately voters value equity above all.
The backside of equity is that you may find that your neighbors don’t share the same values that you do. I think the trouble the CC and others attempted to manipulate and demote equity for other values such as progress, diversity, efficiency, density and such.
If we do value equity above all, (and I don’t assume that we all do), then the configuration of the council needs to be decided with equity as it’s core principle.
There are those of us in life who prefer checking things off their list and moving on – taking a leap of faith that it will all turn out ok, and others who prefer to get things done correctly, even if it takes more time and effort. I am of the latter – Which is why I don’t support 8-8 at this moment in time.
I don’t believe 20-year-old ballot questions are at all useful; I have no confidence in the work done by the Charter Commission we elected and don’t necessarily trust the motives of YES, NO, Current Council or Mayor/Council-elect.
It’s not that I don’t believe them personally, what I don’t trust is that they are coming from a place of equity being the primary goal.
@ Jack Prior,
In your two graphs, I’m curious about why you left off the 10 cities that have all at-large city councils? You truncated the x-axis so that they don’t show up, which distorts the conclusion.
I also count 6 cities with 4 ward / district representatives.
@Rhanna — I figured we had put all at-large to rest as something voters rejected, so didn’t include them initially in the first plots generated, but they were subsequently included in the more comprehensive review of local representation in MA (see last 2 at bottom):
http://newtonwatch.org/2017/11/12/district-representation-is-not-local-representation/
I am not aware of any cities with 4 ward representatives. Only the towns of Palmer, West Springfield, Watertown, and Randoph have 4 that I’m aware of.
The raw data is located here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qd9kJC4D5IZrH7JGkbaGdr24HJv2JXSQ29XulnjkC8w/edit?usp=sharing
@Fig: “And the 8 plus 8 option being brought up at the end was a sham, and now it is proven to BE a sham. Because many of us, me included, said the mayor wouldn’t support it, that it wouldn’t have the months of analysis and meetings and public events the charter commission held (I know, I know, predetermined, 100% groupthink, worthless, etc).
So here we are. Charter commission voted down. 8 plus 8 option never really an option.”
The 8 plus 8 was not and is not a sham. We are pushing very hard to pass it yet – the YES people are pushing hard against it.
We don’t need months of analysis and meetings and public events – to discuss. We have 40 years of history behind this. But perhaps you are making an argument why it is so important to take months of analysis and meetings and public events to get large development projects through the Council.
The 8 plus 8 not being an option is not because of any fault on the City Councilors who proposed it. If it doesn’t move forward, you just have to look at who is refusing to sign it – get it to the State legislature and get it to the voters. Is there some reason why folks are so afraid of getting it to the voters?
The 8 and 8 proposal can be introduced in January. a mere 4 weeks from now. It can then be studied, debated, with include public comment included, then voted upon. I have no problem whatsoever with 8/8 being voted as part of the new HRP after passing through the typical process that the council goes through when it deals with an issue of significant importance.
This is happening with two meetings left in 2017, not because it’s in the best interest of the city, but because it is politically expedient. A number of the major proponents of pushing this measure have publicly admitted as much.
You’ve been on the council for many years. How many times have you put forth a proposal to downsize the council over that period of time?
It’s not a matter of how many times I have put this proposal before the City Council. It’s about how many times this exact same model has been discussed over the course of 40 years. Ten different proposals including proposals brought forward by current city Councilors who have supported this exact same model. Now the votes are there to finally move forward and reduce the size of the Council and you want to stop it? Why? Because the 8 + 8 model doesn’t eliminate Ward representation – the driving force behind the rejection of the Charter Commission’s proposal? Let the voters decide.
@amysangiolo – What did I miss? I thought the mayor has already publicly said that he won’t sign it – i.e. the votes are not there.
Its important to understand the due process, lobby, and intentional dismissal by the executive office. The show of executive power play technique, attempting to discourage and dissuade from optional future override viability in attempts to muscle the ignorant ‘trust us we know what’s best for you’ is symbolic of Setti city syndrome.
For the endorsers of ‘YES’ post election to still claim the ‘NO’ folks are ignorant of the facts is not only insulting but disparaging to the future fiduciary responsibility.
The importance of delivering to Setti’s desk, an overwhelming 8/8 prepared for his signature, is not just a matter of his signature, but more in line of progressive positive change with gusto and momentum for the next mayor in uniting the classes for future override base.
Thinking beyond the ‘YES’ curve of meism is needed for municipal prosperity.
Mayors come and go; the charter remains..
@ Jane
RE: “This is happening with two meetings left in 2017, not because it’s in the best interest of the city, but because it is politically expedient.
Earlier in this thread, I had advocated against 8/8-NOW – Thinking that the current 24 should stand until due process – research, analysis and such – could take place – Even if that meant we would be ‘stuck’ with 24 for years to come.
What I realized over the Thanksgiving holiday, is that it is *extremely likely* that the new council and mayor will dilute or take away our representation duplicitously.
So, Fuck yea, 8/8-NOW is not only politically expedient, unfortunately, it IS also in the best interest of our city. If I’m wrong, have our new mayor and council go on record saying they won’t do it.
Amy:
I certainly give you points for trying. But just look at the Republican Congress pushing ACA repeal multiple times, and then not being able to repeal it when they actually had to vote for real. My point is that you knew it was likely the mayor would veto it. Not hard to take a stand when that is the case. Or when you are leaving the council for that matter. My point about it being a sham is that the impression given was that the 8 plus 8 proposal was another option for folks on the fence. Don’t vote Yes, because we can always have our cake and eat it too! I thought the No crowd underplayed the risks that 8 plus 8 was a mirage, with many hoops to jump through. I think time has proved me right, but hey, maybe that’s just me.
I will say I don’t think it mattered. This wasn’t why No won. It wasn’t that close. Clearly, the majority of the city didn’t support the Charter revisions and it is inaccurate to attribute it to one factor.
Unless there is a path forward this year, I’m going to quit posting on this, since it seems like a waste of time. If the mayor has very publicly said no, is your path forward to convince him (unlikely) or do you have a legislative solution (not from my read)?
Without a path forward, I look forward to talking about this next year. I’ll leave the rest of this thread to Harry and his merry ways.
Amy – I take that to mean that in 20 years on the city council, you’ve never proposed a downsizing of the council. When Councilor Lipof proposed the 8/8 council configuration, were you one of the councilors who supported it?
The process for an HRP is different from the typical ordinance – it requires a mayoral signature to move to the state legislature but a veto isn’t part of the process. I’m with Fig – I look forward to the city council engaging in a robust process about its size and composition in the coming year. At whatever point it votes to downsize, I’m confident the new mayor will study the proposal carefully and sign it if she believes it has been well vetted and in the best interest of the city.
@Jane: I actually am a co-docketer of an item to reduce the Council and retain Ward representation.
I thought I posted in another thread, the 40 year history of the Council looking at reducing its size.
@Fig: I am calling on all Newton residents and voters to contact the Mayor and urge him to honor the vote of the City Council, sign it and move it to our State legislators. I want this to go to the voters so voters can make the determination on what is best for them.
Taxpayers vis-à-vis the City of Newton just subsidized years of “robust study” as it relates to the Charter. Where’d that get us? If I were a City Councilor, I would call out Mayor Warren’s bluff for what it is.
Amy-I’m talking about previous proposals. Did you support proposals to downsize the council at any point in the last 20 years?
I don’t think you realize that we have an outgoing and incoming mayor who are not about to be pressured into doing what you want them to do. They both have more backbone and integrity than that. So I wouldn’t suggest that the council try these same shenanigans in January either because plain and simple, this isn’t good government.
Many people think this item should be taken up in 2018 and a significant number who don’t want the council to be downsized at all and don’t want it taken up at all. I understand you feel passionately about this, but just like with every issue facing the council, there’s a full range of opinion in the community. You and the others docketers need at the very least to acknowledge that many disagree with your actions during this election season and the manner in which you’ve pursued it since. I’d suggest that by pushing your agenda above all others, the credibility of the city council is at stake.
@Jane: Sorry. Yes. Previous proposals. I was looking to see where I posted the history of the 8 + 8. I guess I’ll just have to post it again.
1977 – Ethel Sheehan – 8+8
1988 – Ruth Balser – 8 +8
1989 – Ruth Balser – 8 + 8
1992 – Ken Parker – 4 at -large; 8 Ward
1995 – Ruth Balser – 8 + 8
1995 – Ken Parker – 5 at-large, 8 Ward
1999 – Ethel Sheehan – 8 + 8
2004 – Lipof,Hess-Mahan, Harney – 8 + 8
2006 – Lipof, Vance, Hess-Mahan,Lennon,Lappin, Schnipper,Harney, Weisbuch, Parker, Sangiolo – 8/9 at-large; 8 Ward
2006 – Ken Parker – 7 at-large; 8 Ward
I don’t expect either Mayor Warren or Mayor-elect Fuller to do what I want because it’s not about me. Like the LWVN in 1999 on the petition to reduce the size of the Board of Aldermen to 8 + 8, I “believe that responsible government should be responsive to the will of the people. This petition does not ask that you agree with us that a smaller board of aldermen would be effective and less duplicative in its committee work. It asks that you trust the collective wisdom and will of the voting citizens of Newton.” That they give their “constituents the chance to speak to this issue by allowing them to cast their vote on this question, in November” 2019.
@Fignewtonville. Wow. You lost me completely when you compared the 8 and 8 proponents to a feckless Republican Congress that cast multiple and meaningless votes to repeal the ACA. Amy Sangiolo and Paul Ryan or Mich McConnell in the same kind of strategy box. I don’t think so. The 8 and 8 proponents made it abundantly clear during the campaign that they would introduce this measure to the sitting Council if the Charter proposal failed. That’s what they intend to do.
I canvassed for the NO side and getting voters into the NO column was like picking low hanging fruit once the realization set in that their ward counselors would be sent packing. I don’t know how much canvassing the YES side did, but the NO side hit thousands of homes. There was more than anecdotal evidence that support for retaining the 8 ward councilors became stronger and deeper as the campaign progressed. The NO vote would have been even higher if there wasn’t such disparity in funding resources and institutional support.
Who would have thought a year ago this time that a raggle taggle collection of volunteers would prevail over the League of Women Voters, the Newton Needham Chamber of Commerce, real estate and development interests, and most of the City’s political heavy weights. It was the salience and common sense of the issue that tipped the scales. It’s abundantly clear to me from the evidence at hand that most Newton voters and residents want to preserve the 8 ward councilors. This should be respected. Putting all this to rest before the New Year would go a long way to healing any divisions this campaign created. I certainly would have respected the result if the vote had gone the other way and I suspect most of the other NO people would have done so, as well.
@Fig — I think the Republican comparison is more apt to point to the YES side. The charter commission and the YES campaign went on and on and on for 2 years that…
(1) the council is just too big and must be reduced,
(2) that the city council would never ever ever ever vote to downsize itself on its own, and
(3) that the 24-member body deliberates issues for years and years, and never gets anything done.
Now YES pressures the councilors, the mayor, and then mayor-elect to …
(1) keep a council 50% bigger than the 8-8 HR proposes,
(2) prevent the council from voting to downsize itself, and
(3) place our faith in the deliberative capabilities of the 2018 and beyond councils.
Early in the charter campaign I lost sleep worried I might be on the wrong side of this issue. Believe me I sleep fine now.
@Jane — What kind of “robust” process are you looking for? The charter commission based its deliberations on the Article 2 discussion guide and subsequent 3 hearings. http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/74391 According to its timestamp, this pdf file was created by Commissioner Kidwell on March 29th, 2016 at 12:48pm.
Less than 15 days later, after a 62 minute discussion, the commission voted 9-0 on April 13th, 2016 to eliminate ward-elected councilors and never looked back, except to ease SP approval by moving to an even-number board. Here is the audio of the commission deliberation in navigable format. http://newtonwatch.org/041316/ The composition introduction begins at 25:00, the discussion begins at 34:00 and the 9-0 vote is at 1:36:30 (62min of speeches). The three public hearings in the intervening days are all available in text and audio.
Do we need to reenact this? There is time. Get some popcorn and we can replay and reenact the 3 hearings and the deliberation many times over between now and December 4th. What specifically needs to be further debated?
Bob-It was hardly a rag tag group of volunteers that you had there. You had eight ward councilors, about five sitting at large councilors, four of whom spent the better part of a year campaigning against the charter (including a ward councilor who raised money in a manner that was not in compliance with OCPF regulations), 2 ward councilors who supplied 45% of the no campaign funding out of their own campaign funds, and the former head of the Newton Dems. It doesn’t sound rag tag to me.
A charter includes any number of items that might result in a no or yes vote. We have no idea why people voted as they did. If you really want to heal the serious divisions that now exist in the community, I’d expect that you would want to have conversations with people with whom you are disagree to find common ground.
Bob:
C’mon now. You mean they made it abundately clear starting in October they’d be bringing this up. Don’t pump the no side up as some paridigm of virtue and goodness on this issue. This was a last minute decision by any measure to bring this up as a possible solution to folks on the fence, who wanted to shrink the council but retain ward representation. But it wasn’t brave and it wasn’t longstanding. It was political and it was smartly political. Can’t you just admit the obvious? Even some of the city councilors did at the time.
Ragtag group of volunteers? Really? The charter was the biggest possible change to our city government in 50 years. It was subject to challenge on 10 different fronts. I give you tons of credit. But change is always hard. And I believe the charter commission overreached by not going to 4 by 8, opening a door to the local representation argument. Again, kudos for winning. But defense in politics is easier than offense, as the no side is about to find out I think…
Let’s not reinvent the past. The No side won. You can call it a huge victory by the rebel forces against the evil empire of real estate developers, both Mayor candidates, the current mayor, and the democratically elected charter commission. Fine. Define yourself as you will. To the victors go the right to define the imagery as they see fit I guess.
I’ll concentrate on the present. And in my view my metaphor stands. It is always easiest to take a difficult vote Bob if you know you won’t have to pay the price for it. And the city council members who voted for the 8 plus 8 measure this time around KNEW they wouldn’t ever have to pay a price for it. Setti was clearly not a supporter. He was the safety net. Amy is leaving the council. I’ve heard none of the other city councilors except for Emily pushing for the 8 plus 8 model. They’ve all suddenly disappeared. Quiet as mice. Why might that be? They took a safe vote in committee. Maybe it gets voted on by the entire council. They get to roar like paper tigers, just like they did on occasional nationwide issue votes they took last year. But they know the Mayor won’t pass it forward, just like the Republicans knew President Obama wouldn’t sign ACA repeal into law. So much talk. So little change.
Look, I’m not picking on you personally, so I hope you don’t take it as such. And I’m a fan of Amy. But I’m sick of this B.S. The Yes side liked the idea of a smaller council on its terms, and the no side likes the idea of a smaller council on its terms. We get it. The Ward councilors are sick of being outvoted on most major issues, and the at-large councilors are sick of the supermajority on some issues holding up items for years. But the no side lost the moral high ground in my view when they did the exact same thing that they accused the yes side of doing, namely trying to shrink the council to gain an edge in voting power in the city. Does anyone think Emily and Amy would be pushing this so hard otherwise? Suddenly NOW this is their issue?
What I find so silly about this is that neither group knows the future. So much of this is about the power of incumbents, not the ward system or the at-large system.
Until Mayor Warren decides to commit political suicide and reverse himself publicly on a major city issue as he runs for higher office, this is largely noise. I keep saying that. No one has come back with a satisfactory response, except (1) THE PAST VOTES FROM A DECADE AGO and (II) YES SIDE SAID THEY WANTED TO SHRINK THE COUNCIL AND NOW THEY DON’T. That and a quarter will get you stick of gum. I find chewing it helps with the frustration… 😉
(and trust me I know with some of these political votes going the way of the ragtag rebels these days (and the Trump stuff), I’m on a two pack of gum habit…)
I’ll respond to Jack and Amy separately (and more briefly)
Amy-From what I read, 8 and 8 failed ten times and you signed on to a proposal for this composition just one time close to 12 years ago.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t get what’s going on here. As I’ve mentioned, I have a preferred council composition, one that I fought for on the charter commission and lost, and one that many no voters have told me would have been a slam dunk win for a yes vote. But that means nothing now and the numbers from the election mean nothing now. We have no idea why anyone voted as they did.
In order to put this issue to rest, various parts of the community have to find common ground and that means talking with people with whom we disagree to come to some compromise. I’m willing to compromise and I simply don’t understand why that’s so hard to do. But coming to common ground takes time and it’s not going to happen in the next four weeks.
Why does it have to be “my way or the highway”?
Amy:
Thank you for making my point for me. If the last proposal to shrink the council was really in 2006, I find it incredible to think that a 10 year gap can be anything but a necessity to start the process in full again.
The Charter Commission had a very clear process. And even then folks like Jack protested it, argued it, debated it, and still debate it. By contrast you have had two committee meetings in 10 years. We’ve had over a dozen to repave Walnut Street!
I didn’t live here the last time this was debated. Half my neighbors didn’t live here 11 years ago. If you were taking the exact position the charter commission was taking on the size and composition of the city council I’d fully agree with you that the last 12 months of debate could substitute. But as you are proposing a different model, you need to do it the right way.
11 years is a long time. That is roughly the same amount of time it takes for a first grader to get to college.
I’m not saying the 8 plus 8 proposal isn’t the right way to go. But I dislike the process you are leading.
The person you should be talking to is Ruthanne in my opinion. Who is to say that will the proper public hearings she won’t sign it into law? Or are you just afraid that next years city council won’t vote to eliminate 8 of their jobs when it actually could affect them?
@Jane: Common ground? Sure – reduce the size of the council and retain Ward representation. 8+8.
Jack:
Far as I can tell, the process for 8 plus 8 is dead. The Mayor made it so. Convince the Mayor otherwise, and I’ll be happy to keep debating. Or we can debate it next year if Emily wants to put forth the Home Rule Petition again. I hope she does. Really. My objection is to process, not to the debate.
But I suspect that the city council won’t be so eager to vote when it might kill their jobs for real. Funny that.
As for enough time for debate between now and December 4, can we use that standard the next time you don’t like a development project and I do? Surely we have enough time if we just ignore the process that is inconvient for us on our individual issues we care deeply about. You won’t mind, right? Orr Block in 3 months? Washington Street redo is 4 months? Walnut Street in one month? I’m sure I can find a study from 10 years ago where we talked about making Washington Street a central corridor. Or there was the college student study on Newtonville a while back. That should work, right? We’ve surely discussed it enough. So many meetings.
I’ve been in your shoes and in my shoes before. I hate some of the projects in my village, and I thought the approval process was too fast (Storage Unit in residential neighborhood on Newtonville Ave, I’m looking at you!) and I’ve thought the 10 YEAR process for Austin Street was so slow it was an embarressment for our city, and I will gladly hoist a beer in whatever new restaurant opens up in that space and curse that I couldn’t do so 5 years earlier. But that’s life in the city.
Or to quote a friend of mine…sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you. That’s life.
I wish you good luck in trying to pass the 8 plus 8 option next year. Or in changing the Mayor’s mind somehow. If you do, I’ll debate you on the merits of your proposal at length and enjoy doing so. Cheers.
It’s the process that you’re missing, Amy. I have no idea if 8 and 8 is common ground and neither do you. I don’t know what the common ground is, but it’s worth the effort to try and find it.
Eleven years ago was the last time you thought this idea was important enough to propose and now you want everyone to jump on board in four weeks. It simply doesn’t add up.
Amy:
That isn’t common ground. Wouldn’t that give the ward councilors more power? You can admit that, right? More ability to block things they don’t like? You don’t like?
Wouldn’t that lessen my ability to vote for my representatives? That is common ground?
4 plus 8 was common ground.Or even 6 plus 12. Keeps the ratios the same. Shrinks the council.
But you want to play political games while claiming something else. So be it. But don’t claim compromise when you get everything you want.
Or convince me I’m wrong. Posting history from when I didn’t live in Newton or pithy comebacks do nothing for me. Convince me why 8 plus 8 is the right model. Convince me why I should ignore the roadblock that is currently the Mayor. Happy to listen.
@Jane: You’ve lived here longer than I have. Can you tell me how often you’ve gone to testify on any of the proposals to reduce the size of the Council?
@Fig: Why do you keep on ignoring the 2 years and at least $49K in Taxpayer money spent on the Charter Commission – a Commission that was supposed to “study” the structure of the government? I’ve given you 40 years – 40 years of City Council folks and League of Women Voters folks who were all in for the 8 + 8? Let the voters have a chance to weigh in. We know they decisively voted against getting rid of Ward representation. Let’s find out if the 40 years of on and off discourse about an 8 + 8 model is what they want. You and the YES on Charter folks will have 2 years to convince them why the 8 + 8 is the wrong way to go. Why thwart democracy? Let them vote.
But Amy, you want democracy on your terms, not the terms the community agreed upon. You should be figuring out how to convince the Mayor. Since you failed at that, you are stuck without a process. You can post as much as you want and sling as many arguments at the wall as you want (wait, the charter commission discussions that reached a different conclusion gives us the right to do this, no its the 40 year history (despite nothing in the last decade), no its also democracy), but the process is what it is.
Are you just trolling at this point? I mean, from watching you over the years I’ve always been impressed at your knowledge of the political process. What is your process here? Convince the public to rise up the during the holidays and convince the mayor? Make lots of speeches about Democracy?
This has never been your issue until the last few months. Suddenly you are trolling Jane about her lack of testifying when she devoted so much time to the charter commission? Last time I checked, you were the one with the power to make this an issue in front of the council.
And we can surely find out if that is what the people want. Next legislative year. When and if you convince a mayor to support you. Or change the law at the state house. Because that is DEMOCRACY. Not your definiton of it, which is simplistic. It isn’t just a simple matter of let them vote. We elected state officials, who created a statute for Home Rule petitions, which we are now following. The mayor has the power to hold up your process. He was the gatekeeper in a strong mayor system. Which we’ve all lived under for decades. And which you now wish to ignore when it suits your wishes.
Like I said to Jack. I’ll be happy to debate you on this Amy. Next year. When you follow the rules. Like the rules I have to follow when I want one of my issues to be approved by the councel. The slow march of city government is kinda brutal on this side of things. Frustratingly so.
I wonder if a smaller city council would speed things up? Maybe next year we’ll find out. Just convince the new Mayor, the majority of next year’s council, the state legislature, and then a majority of the city’s voters. Feel impossible? Yep, that is pretty much what some of us said a month ago. (that’s ME trolling now. Must be infectious)
ok, rant over.
In case I forget, thank you for your service to the council over the years. It is a thankless job and even when I disagree with you (like now), I’ve respected your dedication to the position. You’ll be missed. Happy holidays!
@Fig: 8+8 makes sense if you’re objective is to reduce the size of the City Council and retain Ward representation. If there is another objective you want to put forward that wasn’t rejected by the voters in this recent election – please advise.
@Fig: Wow – Sorry – I missed you’re last post. Trolling? Really?
Reducing the size of the Council did not become an issue for me until the Charter Commission decided to move forward with a proposal to eliminate local voice and for me that was and is a game changer. What are you afraid of? Letting voters determine what is in their best interest? If voters decide against reducing the council to the 8 + 8 – then we all will know that the 8 + 8 model is not what voters want.
Please advise? Ok…
I’d vote for 6 ward, 12 at large. or 4 ward, 8 at large. Those weren’t rejected. That’s the problem with trying to extrapolite data from a limited subset of information, we can both do that. All that we know is that the charter wasn’t approved. We don’t know why. Both of my proposals retain ward representation, but maintain the balance of power in the city council. And all of our proposal mean nothing without a significant raise to the council, but that’s a topic for another day.
But again, I’m arguing process, I don’t have to advise you of anything. Until you convince the mayor to support your petition, you are without a way forward. You can tell me what makes sense, you can say you are being objective, you can ask for my advice, and my words will be the same…. Show me the path forward. The Mayor has said no. What comes next?
You have two options:
1) Hope for a change of heart from the mayor based on a easy vote for the city council without repercussions (the cowardly lion vote)
2) Hope someone reintroduces this proposal next year, and fight as a civilian to get it passed. And hope Mayor Fuller wants to make waves so early in her term. (unlikely)
Frankly, I think when the charter commission failed to pass, we were stuck with a 24 member city council for the next 10 years or more. It is what it is.
Please advise when you have a path forward on process. I’ll wait until then to respond further.
Amy:
Yes, trolling. When you respond back to Jane who spent so much time on this issue as a charter commission member that she didn’t testify over the past decade on the issue of reducing the council, that’s trolling. You didn’t like her completely legitimate question to you, so you threw it back at her when as a ordinary citizen she was in a completely different position than you were to raise this as an issue. It rubbed me the wrong way. You don’t have to agree with her positions to respect the work she did as a charter commission member.
I’m afraid of nothing in this debate Amy. I’m just amazed you want to make your own rules when it suits you. Convince the mayor that he is thwarting democracy and I’ll be glad to have the debate with you. Or figure out a different read of the statute that says the mayor doesn’t need to give consent to the home rule petition. Otherwise, you can post as much as you want. But it won’t mean much.
What are YOU afraid of Amy? Why not just introduce this next year? Or work to convince the mayor? So many posts about Newton voting, but you ignore the process to get there…
To paraphase/quote Hamilton, cabinet battle #1: “You are gonna need mayoral approval and you don’t have the votes…such a blunder sometimes it makes me wonder why I even bring the thunder…”
Sorry. Can’t help a good Hamilton reference. Or a good wizard of oz reference in honor a certain former city councilor. (detailed oriented folks will pick up my lion, tiger and bear references in my other posts). Oh my.
@Fig: Thanks for your feedback. Path forward? We move forward with the 8 + 8 proposal. I knocked on doors and spoke to thousands of people. I’m not sure how many people you talked with but I know what I heard. Let the voters decide. Maybe the Mayor will veto it. So be it. That is his sword to fall on or his platform to rise on. Again, as the League stated in their letter to the Board of Aldermen in support of the 8 + 8 petition: I “believe that responsible government should be responsive to the will of the people. This petition does not ask that you agree with us that a smaller board of aldermen would be effective and less duplicative in its committee work. It asks that you trust the collective wisdom and will of the voting citizens of Newton.” That they give their “constituents the chance to speak to this issue by allowing them to cast their vote on this question, in November” 2019.
@Fig
If the council votes in favor of 8-8 and the Mayor deems to know better than the collective knowledge of at least half of the sitting council and refuses to sign it.. Surely that would have repercussions on his run for Governor? Surely this issue could damage his political base, and if he can’t get that squared away in Newton what chance would he have else where?
At the end of the day, the voters of Newton need to ratify the amendment, and he should not prevent that. If he doesn’t agree then by all means let him go out there campaigning against it, just like the NO vote did!
Wait, the league supports the 8 plus 8 petition as currently stated? Could you post the letter in full? I didn’t see that on their website, or hear about that from Harry, the typical complainer regarding their positions.
Or are you referring to the league from 10 years ago? If so, that is a really disingenuous way of posting, with the quotation mark in November, but not 2019.
I think that would certainly qualify as trolling Amy. Hoping you didn’t do that and the league actually supports your proposal.
As for knowing on thousands of doors, I’m sure you did. But folks in politics tend to have confirmation bias. It is well-studied. The city was split by just a few percentage points on the question in front of it. Namely, elimininating ward councilors and shrinking the council, along with all of the other changes. But did you tell them about YOUR proposal? Namely, increasing the power of the ward councilors? I didn’t knock on any doors, but I’m pretty sure you didn’t either with that exact question.
Regardless, it doesn’t matter Amy. You could knock on every door in Newton with your exact question, but unless you convince the mayor, you haven’t passed go. And for the mayor to go back on his position now would be a huge embarressment. And he has the obviously reason not to, namely, it isn’t fair to a new mayor to make such a big change in a lame duck period. That is reasonable for him to say. He doesn’t fall on his sword. He simply leaves a major issue for the next mayor to deal with, for better or worse.
Simon:
This isn’t the mayor’s issue. He is in power for just a few more weeks. There is about 100 folks who will care about this in the entire city if he declines to move it forward. There is no upswell of support except on this blog. There are no email chains, no major rallies. Hurt his base of support? I’m sorry, but this just isn’t a big issue for folks on the no side now that they’ve protected the ward councilors.
Like I said before, much harder to play offense than defense. The mayor has no political pressure to approve this, and a ton of reasons to let Mayor Fuller handle this. As much as Amy and others want this to occur, it will barely pass the city council, he made his plans apparent regarding it before the vote, and there are no surprises here. Feel free to organize pressure against the mayor. If you manage to convince him, I’ll look forward to continuing the discussion, and voting in 2019.
No way he reverses himself. No way. So much worse than just saying “lame duck” ask Mayor Fuller.
Or he can push through an barely veted 8 plus 8 proposal and take sides in a debate that has split the community. Man, that’s a no brainer.
Everyone always wishes that their issue du jour is everyone’s issue. Most of the time, that isn’t the case. But feel free to rally the no troops. Perhaps they will work a “yes” out the mayor.
@Fig: What are you afraid of? That the voters of Newton want to downsize the City Council and retain Ward representation? I don’t care what the Mayor does. That’s his decision. I docketed the item to reduce the size of the City Council to what my good friend and colleague has been advocating for years – reduce the size of the City Council to 16 – keeping the Ward representatives and having 8 at-large Councilors.
You want to paint my quotation of the League’s position in 1999 – which I clearly stated in my previous post was a position they took in 1999 on an 8 + 8 proposal as disingenous? Okay – here’s the letter in full: http://amysangiolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Letter-LWVN-DebCrossley-1.pdf
Is your main issue – Ward Councilors? The ability to allow the Ward residents to have the power to elect their own representatives? Do you just want to take that away from the Ward residents so that you can determine what is best for them? Let the voters decide.
@Fig
One thing I have observed at city hall. If you have the votes, move it forward, get it passed and accept you don’t get everything you wished for.
In this instance, the Mayor came out with his decision way before the council had even discussed the issue. Thats his prerogative. I personally feel he made a mistake.
As part of the NO campaign citizens were advised an alternative docket item would come forward. That it did, and I feel it is incumbent on the sitting council to act on it.
I personally prefer the 24 member model, but if the citizens on Newton truly believe the council should be reduced now is the time.
One thing that is not clear to me. If the council does vote to pass the item, but the Mayor vetoes it – what then? Is there anything preventing the council taking it up again next year? If not, whats all the fuss?
@Amy – Your side won the vote in the election. The charter was defeated. Enjoy the success.
If you do indeed feel passionate about shrinking the size of the board (i.e 8×8) then by all means work to get that done. It will be a long hard slog just as the charter proposal was. I think there are lots of other folks willing to work on it though. You’ll probably get the votes of me and lots of other folks who do think the current council is too big.
Unless or until you convince the mayor to change his position in the next few weeks, insisting that the council now take a purely symbolic vote isn’t “allowing the people to vote”, it just comes across as political posturing – to what end I’m not sure.
@Jerry
Doesn’t the Mayor approve AFTER the council votes? Why would you need to get the Mayor on board first?
Who says the Mayor really has strong convictions about this? Isn’t is plausible that his opposition is all about money, i.e. securing donations from developers? Perhaps a bill at his door makes him think differently.
Why are people so scared of letting the democratic process work?
As an advocate for people in need, I’m going to make a really important point that I hope all can appreciate irregardless of position on this issue. If the City Council allows Mayor Warren’s preemptive strike to silence its voice, irreparable damage will be done to its integrity as a representative body. If the current Mayor does ultimately refuse to sign a duly passed home rule petition, so be it. But under no circumstances should any City Councilor be afraid to do what she or he believes is the right thing to do because of such posturing.
@Tom Davis – what’s the connection between “people in need” and the size/composition of the City Council?
@Jerry,
This item is up for a vote by the city council very soon. Why would any of the councilors change their vote purely on the basis of the Mayors current stance?
@Simon – If the council wants to have a vote, they can have at it.
As long as we’re quoting, how about this one: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Let the councilors vote, all by itself with about a 100 people cheering them on, as 55,500 voters sit at home enjoying the holiday season, gather with family and friends, bustle in malls or simply go about the business of their lives. For what it’s worth, I’ve not had one conversation about the composition of the Newton city council since November 7th. I just don’t see the interest in the general population now that the election is over. In truth, 50% of the registered voters didn’t care enough before November 7th to go to the polls.
As for Amy’s question – I don’t know what to say. I’ve spent more hours than you can imagine talking with councilors and citizens about this issue. Thanks to Fig for pointing that out.
For me, the objection is about a deeply flawed process that the city council insists on pursuing. Not only am I not afraid of anything, I’m convinced that the council will address its downsizing and composition with a more deliberative, rational process in 2018.
@fig – Its getting old – your personally attacking Amy or Emily. Is it something about these women in power that upsets you?
Keep it civil – YES lost, despite support from almost every organization – Dems, LWV, mayoral candidates, mayor…. YES lost despite outspending NO. Amy, Emily and others were very vocal about 8+8 option. And if they were not vocal – the YES campaign certainly was. Remember – they put a press release out and gave it a good publicity. It was a factor for people – And honestly the NO vote won, so they deserve a shot at the proposal. Remember the Newton citizens still need to vote.
And BTW – please dont discount something because LWV and Deb Crossley supported it 20 years ago. A governance model, hopefully lasts longer than that and not a charter du jour.
As re: Mayor – Setti is a political animal. Lets get the 8+8 in front of him first and then see what his calculus shows him.
Neil:
I’m sorry, but I have kept it extremely civil. I did call Amy out on her very unfair statement regarding Jane, and I thought her responses overall were not very serious in response to my process arguments, hence my view that she was trolling. Trolling isn’t an insult, it is a descriptive term. Let me help you out, since you seem to be “concern trolling” with your accusation about my being upset about women in power (which came out of nowhere, and ignores basically my entire history of posting here honestly and respectfully. But hey…details)
“Trolling: make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.”
See. Not an insult. She fired back at Jane regarding why she didn’t testify to reduce the counsel, when Jane had every right to ask why Amy didn’t sponsor a reduction in the city council over the past 10 years. I thought her response was designed just to anger Jane. I thought that was unfair. And I called her out on it, and then moved on to my arguments in my post.
You were trolling too. But I’m not upset. Some of us have thicker skins than others I guess. Amy and Emily do too. I admire them for it.
Speaking of Emily, she is my ward councilor. Her issues have a direct effect on me and on my family. She’s been my ward councilor for most of my time in Newton. Should I post about a different ward to make you happy. Emily and I often disagree. Sometimes we agree. But calling someone out on their opinions isn’t being uncomfortable with them. In fact, the exact opposite. It is taking them seriously, taking the process seriously, and being a good citizen. When Emily does something I like, I compliment her. When she does something I don’t like, I’m honest and criticize. On Austin Street and Cabot school, I’ve disgreed strongly with Emily. So has Cabot’s PTO for that matter. (Are they uncomfortable with strong women Neil?) I agreed with her on Court Street and even the plastic bag ordinance, although I grumble in the rain alot when my bags break. And I give her absolute credit for terrific retail politics. Even my neighbors who don’t agree with her at all have met her, talked to her, and argued with her. She knows her ward, even if I think she sometimes forgets a lot of folks disagree with her in it.
I don’t think I’ve written much directly to Amy before. I felt her post to Jane wasn’t very respectful of the hard work Jane has put in over the last 18 months on the charter. I called it like I saw it. Amy is perfectly capable of responding, and I think you were the only one who didn’t find it civil.
I also find her quote regarding the League of Women Voters to be unfair and dishonest, since in that post she didn’t call out that the League wasn’t supporting her proposal, but that it supported a similar proposal 20 years ago. Quoting their statement 20 years later while requiring someone to refer back to a long thread of comments to learn that this wasn’t current support in my view was not the right tactic to take. I’ll let the League address that if they wish, I don’t believe they have come out to support Amy’s 8 plus 8 model, so if that is the case, quoting them from 20 years ago is disingenuous in my view. Just my opinion. The League is still around. If we want their opinion, shouldn’t we get the current one? Amy changed her mind on reducing the size of the council over time, couldn’t the league had done the same thing? Again, I’ll let the League take up that charge if they so wish. I hope they come out with a recommendation on the 8 plus 8 model soon so Amy can know their current thoughts clearly.
Again, Neil, calling someone out on their bull isn’t bulling. Or a personal attack. But your attack on me was personal, don’t you think? Let’s keep it clean and not make personal attacks or generalizations on my character. And I’ll do the same for you, all right. Great. That’s settled I hope.
Let’s get back to my argument, shall we? The Yes side and no side really don’t matter at this point. Let me just quote the Mayor, who I respect enough to take him at his word:
“I believe that the City needs additional time and engagement on this topic. We are just coming out of the recent election in which residents rejected the proposed changes to the size and composition of the City Council by voting “No” on the charter reform ballot question.
This conversation we are having about the City Council is critical and I believe this topic should be discussed thoroughly over the next several months with robust resident engagement.”
Seems pretty reasonable to me. What are you and Amy afraid of Neil? Too much robust resident engagement? Seemed like you were arguing for just that on lots of community projects over the last year. I’m not asking for this discussion to go away, just to be done the correct way, with public hearings, where I can say my piece about prefering a 4 by 8 model, or a 6 by 12 model. You know, keeping the balance of power the same, no power grab by either side, everybody gives up something, what I’ve been pushing for since the beginning. Why isn’t that also on the table being discussed?
The city council can certainly pass this and then present it to the Mayor. If he signs it and is a “political animal” as you describe him, I’ll be disappointed in his lack of backbone, and then gladly debate you on the merits of 8 plus 8. If he puts it in a drawer and pushes this off to Mayor Fuller and a new council, so be it as well. If you want this proposal so much, I’m sure it will be up for discussion next session of the council, and we’ll have a robust discussion then.
I’ll even let you insult me again Neil. Call me whatever you like. Eventually you’ll either ignore me or respond to my arguments. Folks who don’t like my arguments and don’t want to respond with facts tend to insult me. I’m good either way. I’ve been posting here for years. I stay for the arguments and the posters who argue fairly and directly (and Harry, who cracks me up but is not exactly direct), even if I disagree with them. And I’ve honestly tried my best to be fair and direct, with no B.S. to everyone. If I didn’t succeed in your book, come back tomorrow, I’m sure I’ll be posting a long annoying post again just for your reading pleasure. (You can always ignore me… 😉 )
Yours in wordy civility,
Fig
ps. for the record, it is either post here or watch bad telenovellas. I don’t have many options for entertainment.
Quick post to Tom:
I disagree that the Mayor’s actions do any harm. The council has a role. So does the Mayor. The Mayor has the right to veto here. I’m not sure what harm you are concerned with. If you don’t like the system we have with a Mayor and the Home Rule petition rules laid out by Ma legislative statute, you can certainly start a new charter commission process to try and change them…
That was a joke Tom. Please don’t do that. I’m not sure we can take a new charter commission.
The process is the process. The Mayor was upfront about his role and his decision. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it wrong, unless you think the process isn’t following the law.
I’m not really sure why the Home Rule Petition is so difficult with so many hoops, but that is the system we’ve got. I’d prefer something simplier to be honest. This all seems like a waste of time.
@fig
I’m curious, did you take the opportunity to say your piece in front of the Charter Commission? If so, what did you advocate fore?
I didn’t say my piece directly., instead I posted here regularly. I also talked informly to folks talking to several of the charter commissioners, and made sure my views were relayed. On most issues I also write letters. I did attend several charter events, but I came late and there were many speakers before me who made my points less verbosely than I would have…
But folks here can vouch for my consistently liking a 4 by 8 approach. 4 district councilors, 8 at large. My goal was not to reduce the balance of power between local and at-large. I also advocated to putting any cost savings into drasticly increasing the salaries of the City Council, since a smaller council only makes sense if it is less of a part time job, more of a full time job.
I would also accept a 6 by 12 option. I’m sympathetic that going to a district approach reduces local representation by some amount. I thought it was a mistake to eliminate it completely. Once the Commission picked it, I advocated for it, since I thought it was better than the status quo.
Shrinking the council isn’t my end goal though. I just want our local government to be less disfunctional. I really witnessed it firsthand in the Newton North debacle, then again with Austin Street, and again with the Cabot Elementary School process. There has to be a better way.
Btw, Simon, love your avatar. What is it holding up?
Ok, for the record I’m going to be offline for a bit, maybe a day or two. So no one call me a horrible person when I’m away, or insult Pecan Pie. Jerry, keep ’em honest on the pie thing.
Sorry for posting so much over the past 24 hours. It provided a needed personal distraction, but probably was too much for one poster. I’ll let others take the floor for a bit.
Cheers to all.
@Fig
The avatar comes from a years old advertising campaign for instant mashed potato. They had a couple of aliens mocking Brits for the time spent peeling and boiling potatoes to make said potatoes, when they could simply add some boiling water to the dehydrated potato.