There’s been a lot of discussion on this thread about ward representation and balance of power in the City Council. Personally, I’ve been a proponent of reducing the size of the City Council by cutting it in half while maintaining the balance of power. I’ve thought that eight at-large and four district-elected councilors does that. When I initially heard about the 8:8 proposal, I thought it was the worst of all possible scenarios discussed because it increases the weight of a vote from someone elected only by 1/8 of the electorate.
Maybe I’m wrong though. Maybe the 2:1 (at-large to ward) ratio isn’t vital to running our city government. Some councilors say that at-large and ward councilors do the same work. Would a shift in balance change that? And, how might it affect council votes?
In launching this conversation, I’m hoping to avoid discussions about what the voters meant by rejecting the proposed charter, Rather, I’d like to see if we can discuss the pros and cons of the current 2:1 vs. the proposed 1:1 ratio. What would a change mean in the operation of the city?
Is there anything sacred about 8 wards? If we rebalanced to 6 wards, we could have a 12-member council with 6+6 representation. (As long as we’re changing the charter…)
Typed too fast. Meant 6+6+4. Gets to 16, with a mix of ward-direct, ward-at-large, and totally-at-large seats.
I understand the benefit of having a ward representative who is accountable to you. But by default that means you also have seven (or three, or whatever the number is) who are not accountable to you and I’ve never understood why folks are so gung-ho about that.
That’s why I favor a system that empowers voters by having exclusively an at-large elected council.
A a compromise, I am comfortable with the 8/4 (four district) council proposal.
Eight and eight does not appeal to me at all for the reason I’ve just expressed above.
I’m comfortable with 7 being not accountable to me for two reasons. First, that’s how every other level of government works — I have one representative in each chamber of the state house. I don’t get a voice in selecting 98 of the US Senators nor 434 of the US Representatives.
Second, and more to the point, if everyone gets to vote on every seat, then a slim majority can shut out the minority from any representation at all. Fortunately we don’t have parties in the City Council, but imagine if the city were divided between Big-Enders and Little-Enders. If the Big-Enders got 52% of the turnout on election day, even if (say) three wards were predominantly Little-Enders, then the Big-End coalition would be able to pass any laws they want, without having to negotiate compromises with the members from the Little-End wards, and without worrying about being turned out at the next election.
Politics is compromise. Our wards are a mediocre proxy for the various populations that make up Newton, but I’m hard-pressed to find a better one.
I am willing to give up my right to choose 7 councilors in exchange for 7/8 of Newton not having the right to choose mine for me.
Our current form of local government–a Mayor exercising only executive functions and a unicameral legislative body–was established with a 2:1 at-large vs. ward representation in the Board of Aldermen/City Council. When Newton first became a city in 1874, it had six wards, with a seventh being added two years later. An eighth ward was not added until 1958, but since 1897, the legislative body has maintained this 2 to 1 proportion.
Prior to the election, the NO campaign had repeatedly argued that state law requires an odd number of members of each of its public bodies (a position apparently now abandoned in the interest of political expedience in trying to reapportion representation, a position that the NO campaign previously argued against).
If the sponsors of the 8+8 want to do this right, and they should, the City Council should carefully study whether reducing the number of wards but maintaining the status quo on proportionate representation, i.e., 2 to 1 at-large vs. ward, would be an effective way to govern. I believe that it could. Five wards would mean 15 members of the City Council, which would avoid deadlocks and is evenly divisible by 3, for purposes of voting on items that require a 2/3 majority such as bond issues and special permits.
The rush to pass 8+8 by a lame duck council is an obvious–and odious–power grab that would make it much harder if not impossible to approve zoning reform and special permits for dense mixed use projects that include affordable housing, and would promote the kind of parochialism that is already dividing this city. For those who missed it, we had a presentation on the Fair Housing laws in Zoning and Planning that pointed out, for example, that denying a special permit that includes affordable housing because families might move in and add children to the public schools, or exclusionary zoning that does not permit multi-family housing, could be fair housing law violations. Along with other fair housing advocates, I will be watching this vote and the next City Council closely to see whether these and other concerns about exclusionary zoning and land use policies come to fruition.
One of my favorite New Yorker cartoons illustrates what the 8+8 sponsors are trying to do here. The cartoon has two dogs at a bar dressed in three-piece suits and ties. One dog says to the other “It is not enough that we succeed. Cats must also fail.” The 8+8 sponsors have shown their true colors. It is not enough that they succeeded in defeating the charter proposal, which was fair game and followed a comprehensive, deliberative process under the state charter amendment laws. Now, they seek to grab power by dramatically readjusting the balance of local versus citywide representation on the City Council in favor of parochial interests and against zoning reform and affordable housing in a lame duck session.
There are other ways to reduce the size of the council, and reducing the number of wards and keeping the current balance of power is just one of them. We should explore that option first before rushing the 8+8 through a lame duck session of the City Council. And we could also include term limits to avoid entrenchment of power if there is consensus to do that.
Best of luck keeping this thread civil! I believe that the size of the council should be reduced by about half, and that the wards should be twice as large (~22,000 citizens, meaning 4-6000 voters in a municipal election). These steps would produce more contested races, wards that could more clearly reflect the villages and neighborhoods, and a voting base for each ward that is less prone to be focused on some particular local resentment. I am less certain of the ideal balance of ward-only and at-large councilors. My formula would easily admit 8 at-large and 4 ward-only councilors, but 6:6 or 4:4 would at least make the ward-only councilors accountable to a more meaningful number of voters.
Here is a basic question: Do people believe that councilors should be held accountable for their performance in that role?
I am not sure how Newton ever arrived at this 2:1 at-large to ward rep ratio, but it is a very flawed model. In this model, the *only* councilor who can be held directly accountable is the ward councilor. The at-large councilor is mostly immune to being voted out because a challenger runs against two incumbent opponents, rather than one. This issue would have been exacerbated by the Charter proposal, which would have made it virtually impossible to vote out *any* particular councilor. At best, you knock off the least favorite councilor, with whom you may be perfectly satisfied. And if you can’t vote out a specific councilor, then you do not have accountability. If you do not have accountability, then you do not have democratic representation. There is a reason that House and Legislative reps run every two years, and only the voters in their district can vote for them. Accountability.
Ergo, the rational model would be a 1:1 ratio. Unless you don’t want democratic representation.
p.s. Preview isn’t working.
@Ted: Docket No. 431-04 Alds. Lipof, Hess-Mahan and Harney recommending the reduction of the size of the Board of Aldermen from 24 members to 16 members: 8 Ward Aldermen and 8 at-large Aldermen. Were you “seeking to grab power by dramatically readjusting the balance of local versus citywide representation on the City Council in favor of parochial interests ” when you co-docketed the item?
This has been on my mind for past two weeks. With recognition
– that the following may be slight case of apples and oranges
– my awareness that this instance below was political and largely dems vs repubs
Still…
I didn’t care for the handling of the Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination in which the argument was raised that ‘we can’t possibly consider the nomination from a LAME DUCK president.’
Many people felt that the government at the time was the one in place at that time and should move forward on it.
Not being snarky here: What’s all this constant lame duck talk at every level of governance? If we claim lame duck status and say nothing can possibly be considered or voted on, then why not just disband the City Council on the Wednesday after an election and let them go home to their families for 7 weeks?
@amysangiolo, I was seeking to get the discussion started on downsizing the board. Separately, we made several attempts at downsizing and I was willing to join Rick and Jay on that docket item. Having seen how the ward councilor dynamics have played out over the years, however, I wouldn’t do it again. And we weren’t in the middle of an election season where the reduction in the size of the board was on the ballot.
The Commission’s own benchmark research showed that the average governing body had 6 at-large and 5 ward-only seats. 1:1 ratio is most consistent with those benchmarks.
We’d all be best served looking outside our little community to learn what others have done. This is far from a novel issue, and there is little reason to reinvent the wheel when so many other communities have already done the hard work. There are no issues that are particularly unique to Newton.
Best practices, benchmarks, political science research. That should be the foundation of our decision-making. Not arguing about what Newton was doing in 1897. THAT is parochial thinking.
@Ted: “Having seen how the ward councilor dynamics have played out over the years, however, I wouldn’t do it again. ” Can you point to instances of this?
@Paul, isn’t that what the Charter Commission was supposed to do?
@Claire
Yup. And they didn’t do a great job in my opinion. No exploration of the ample political science research literature, no benchmarks outside of Massachusetts (as far as I know).
As I wrote earlier, the benchmarking that they did do is most consistent with a 1:1 ratio of at-large and ward-only representation.
I would prefer to have only ward councilors. Newton is the only place I’ve ever lived with a strange hybrid council. Everywhere else, the municipal legislature has been entirely composed of representatives elected by geographic districts, or, in the case of extremely small towns, entirely composed of at-large representatives. I would much prefer to vote for 1 or 2 ward councilors of whom I’m very knowledgeable than try to make meaningful choices and vote for 17 (or 12, or 10). I do find it difficult to be informed about so many different candidates and I’m sure that I’m not alone in this. I also suspect that the large number of races that people are expected to vote in leads to an even more pronounced than usual pro-incumbent bias (as long as the incumbents aren’t notorious). Presumably, it is also less resource-intensive for people to mount campaigns when running at the ward level than when running at large.
I think having 8 Ward Councilors and 4 Councilors elected at large is the right mix and will get City-wide support. It was most unfortunate that the Charter Commission didn’t maintain the Ward Councilors because if they had the proposal would have been approved by Newton voters. Voters want the Council size reduced and have previously voted so.
I’m seeing inconsistencies in the descriptions of the 8 + 4 model, and I’m unclear on what proponents of 8 + 4 are suggesting. I’ve been assuming that the 4 district seats would be elected only by the district they represent, meaning today’s ward councilors would directly represent twice as many people. If people are talking about 4 residency-required district seats that are elected at-large, I understand the objections about losing local representation. I think trying to pass this model would be akin to ignoring the voters.
My question for the No on Charter people: Do you think that district councilors who are elected by the equivalent of two wards can be effective local representatives?
@Paul the Charter Commission reviewed the model city charter research as a way of looking at the academic research on best practices and what is happening across the country.
More information on this can be found at:
https://www.nationalcivicleague.org/resources/model-city-charter-8th-edition/
I recall quite vividly that the league of Women Voters championed the 8 and 8 formula on the two previous occasions it sponsored a citywide vote to reduce the then Board of Aldermen. These two votes took place rather recently and were approved by the voters on both occasions by handsome margins. I
It’s instructive to note that these two votes succeeded while the recent vote for an all at-large City Council did not. On both occasions, the League analyzed and debated the ins and outs, the positives and the negatives of the 8 and 8 formula and came to the conclusion that it was a good fit for Newton. I’m puzzled as to why something that was seen by the League as a positive remedy less than 20 years ago is somehow now viewed as deficient.
The only problem from the League’s perspective was that it couldn’t get two thirds of the Aldermen to go along with the change.
@Ted. New to the conversation. It looks like affordable housing is being equated with the need for special permits and zoning exceptions. Has the city council explored other ways to tackle affordable housing other than building large scale projects that potentially change the character of our existing neighborhoods? Sounds like affordable housing under this model is a win for developers vs. current residents/taxpayers.
@Gail – “My question for the No on Charter people: Do you think that district councilors who are elected by the equivalent of two wards can be effective local representatives?”
No
Dividing any city into 4 is not local, particular one of Newton’s size. No city has only 4 locally elected reps. No city has less local proportion on council. Only Worcester and Boston (with professional pols) would have a higher resident/ward-elected councilor ratio in MA
http://newtonwatch.org/2017/11/12/district-representation-is-not-local-representation/
@Jerry — I️ didn’t touch my cookies. All anyone needs to do is use the incognito mode of their browsers (which has same effect on cookies) and they can like/dislike a comment til the cows come one. There has been massive “dislike sock puppeting” happening on V14 for months and it creates false impressions for those that don’t realize it. It’s an irresponsible feature to have on the site in my opinion. Leave the likes if you must, but drop the dislikes.
@Jack Prior – thanks for the heads up.
@Jen, welcome to the conversation.
Here is the city’s housing strategy, which includes 10 recommendations for increasing the diversity and affordability of housing stock in Newton, including high density mixed use projects and zoning amendments to the inclusionary zoning and accessory apartments ordinances. So far, the City Council has approved mixed use developments at Austin Street and Washington Place, and has made it possible to create accessory apartments citywide. The economics drive costs higher for smaller projects, so larger denser projects are the only way to get more affordable housing without substantial public subsidies which are becoming increasingly scarce. There is a lot of work to do, but inevitably special permits, Chapter 40B comprehensive permits (approved by the ZBA), and zoning reform will be needed to promote the creation of affordable housing in Newton.
I’m not sure what you mean by “large scale projects that potentially change the character of our existing neighborhoods” but the most recent projects approved are mixed use residential and commercial developments in village centers or smaller infill projects in residential neighborhoods.
I’m not naive, but it bothers me when discussion of the question of housing intrudes on a conversation about the form of our government. Sometimes — often, in fact — over the last year I’ve felt that many people are answering “how should we elect our representatives” based only on “which governmental structure will result in a victory for the side I favor on the question of housing and development?”
It appears to me that the thrust to downsize the city council is chiefly designed to rid the council of people who object to highly controversial housing development. The issue is not the size of the council but rather who gets to power through significant changes to our city. Who’s city is it anyways? Does it belong to those who live here or those who may in the future? For me the solution is to work out some compromise about new, dense development. One that a broad spectrum of residents can accept. Setti Warren has restructured the Planning Dept. to ensure housing development gets passed and built in Newtonville. Thank goodness some ward councilors have worked to reflect the needs of our community. Keep the ward elected representatives. They are looking out for homeowners in Newton.
@Alicia
There isn’t a lot of value to rehash the Charter Commission, but as you highlighted the Model City Charter as a resource used by them, it merits pointing out:
1. The Model City Charter is one piece of data, and there is substantial research that disagrees with its preferred at-large approach. Its also worth noting that the Model City Charter notes that larger cities may need to add local representation, and has several alternatives provided as such. In the end, it didn’t give instructive ideas about when local representation should be added, and given the controversy of this question in Newton, this resource was hardly sufficient in helping us determine the approach structure. And Massachusetts benchmarks strongly pointed in the direction of local representation.
2. The Commission completely ignored one of the central tenets of the Model City Charter altogether. It looks more like the Commission chose the elements it liked (at-large), and ignored the ones they didn’t (no mayor), even if the latter was more strongly endorsed.
The first paragraph of the introduction states, “The eighth edition of the Model City Charter strongly endorses the council-manager structure of municipal government that was first proposed in 1915 as the National Civic League’s (then the National Municipal League’s) model form. In the years since, the Model has been refined to reflect the evolution of the council-manager plan, the most widely used governmental structure in American cities with a population over 10,000. The fundamental principle of the model, that all powers of the city be vested in a popularly elected council that appoints a professional manager who is continuously responsible to and removable by the council, has endured ever since.”
Overall, I’m sure there were arguments why we should keep the Mayor’s role, based on our collective experience in Newton. But that isn’t based on best practices, but preferences of a few. You’d be hard pressed to show that the Commission used a data-driven, benchmark-oriented approach. They ignored a lot of the data they had in front of them.
Andrew Greene said: “if everyone gets to vote on every seat, then a slim majority can shut out the minority from any representation at all.”
I just wanted to highlight that point. It’s been in the back of my mind, not yet with words, but Andrew put it in words, clearly and succinctly. It’s a key point in this debate.
The best way to ensure minority representation and majority rule on a legislative body is through voting by proportional representation, which is an electoral system that has been used by Cambridge since 1941. All of the city councilors in Cambridge are elected at large. The Mayor is a councilor elected by the members of the council and the city’s operations are administered by a city manager appointed by the City Council. I advocated for this model during the Charter Commission’s hearings but to no avail. But I still think it would be provide the best balance of power on the City Council and that a professional city manager appointed by the City Council would be the best form of government.
Respectfully @Ted
In addition to writing/illustrating editorial cartoons for the Newton Tab, for three years I did the same for a sister publication, The Cambridge Chronicle, before leaving voluntarily. In my 3 years experience with watching their city government at work, in my humble opinion, it didn’t. Especially troublesome was the council appointing the Mayor. It was a breeding ground for cronyism. They just rotated themselves around (‘okay, it’s your turn to be Mayor next’) and it was next-to-impossible to get new people involved. It was brutal.
Every week seemed to be a new scandal including billing the city for lunches with people who didn’t exist.
Bruce – In fact, all minority councilors, SC members, and mayor have been elected at-large. The city has never elected a ward councilor who was a minority. The city’s population is now 30% nonwhite from many backgrounds and in January, we will have a city council that is 100% white. Geography is just one means to judge representation.
This just came in over the transom by email:
Setti has a gubernatorial campaign that needs money. The big pockets are scared of local representation.
Let’s watch to see how much Korff donates to Sett’s campaign.
Disappointing. Not surprising.
Of course Setti opposes the item. He wants to see Newton transformed into a Mecca for dense high rise housing. The 8/8 would undermine the recent gains of the Larner contingent which eliminated Yates and Blazar and thus strengthened his pro development ward councilors.
@Paul I am not the one who keeps rehashing the Charter Commission. You threw out the idea that they didn’t look beyond Mass and other ideas. I just wanted to set the record straight. As for local representation for large cities, I think they decided that Newton does not qualify as a large city.
@Alicia
You did set the record straight. They cherry-picked a few ideas from one other source, while ignoring its central recommendation.
Thanks for clarifying.
Jane, I was not thinking in terms of racial minorities. I was thinking in terms of minority viewpoints in general, of all kinds.
Amy wins the internet today!
Ted, how do you feel about your older self saying such mean things about your younger self?
@Emily, it’s a moot point. Mayor Warren will pocket veto the 8+8 if the City Council approves it this term. Without his signature, it’s dead as a doornail.
As for me, my younger self had total contempt for his elders. My older self thinks youth is wasted on all the wrong people. So, I’m good.
Umm NO, it is NOT dead at all, in fact with 16 votes it doesn’t even need his signature. And Charlie Baker will get even more votes out of Newton than he did last time.
I’m glad you’re comfortable with the complete about-face you’ve made — I personally would have been embarrassed to say such nasty things about your colleagues and members of the public for holding a position that you yourself so recently had held. But I guess that’s just one of many differences between us!
@Emily, there are other differences. I can read the applicable law and I confirmed how the process works with someone who works at the State House who consulted counsel for the legislature. The Mayor has to sign the home rule petition to amend the charter.
In addition to a Charter Commission, the City Charter can be amended to reduce the size of the City Council by way of a home rule petition to the General Court filed by the Mayor and City Council pursuant to the Home Rule Amendment, Article 2, Section 8, of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Councilor Lisle Baker, relying on previous opinions of the Law Department (I have copies if you are interested), circulated a memo to the members of the City Council this afternoon which confirms that the following steps are required to reduce the size of the City Council by way of a home rule petition. His memo states in relevant part:
Now, there are two possibilities. The Law Department, Councilor Baker, counsel for the legislature and I are all wrong. Or, you are. My money is on you being wrong. But we shall see what we shall see.
@Ted: I stand corrected! And I had the opportunity to read Councilor Baker’s memo tonight too.
I find it really interesting politics that our mayor would fall on his sword to be the anti-democracy candidate, but I’ve never run for Governor before so what do I know?
One other difference. You are playing checkers while the rest of us are playing 3D Chess.
@Jane: “The city has never elected a ward councilor who was a minority”
How many have run?
Right? I’m such a clod, just trying to keep up with you whiz kids. The way you maneuvered to lose the charter campaign 53-47 was brilliant!! You had us all fooled. I’ll just keep watching and learning.
@THM – Emily (and majority of Newton) may be playing checkers, but at least we are ethically honest. We shoot straight and are open about it. We did not try to change the charter to squash opposition to our unsaid agenda.
I thought you were a straight shooter as well. I disagreed w you over many things, but never doubted your integrity or intent. Your posts above and your earlier record makes me question it.
I strongly encourage you to consider your long legacy as u say things, during the tail end of your tenure. Again – just my unsolicited $0.02.