Village 14 citizen Andrew Greene poses the following question (I paraphrase): Even if a home rule petition were approved by the council and the mayor to downsize the council this fall — to 8/8 or any other configuration — the soonest a referendum could be held is 2019, with the rule taking effect in 2021! That’s a long time. Is there anything the council could do in the meantime to operate more efficiently?
We’ve already seen the 311 system (with all its warts) help our city service requests that used to have to go through an Alderman to get done, such as fixing a street light or a pothole. Constituent service used to be a more significant part of the job responsibilities of our 24 elected officials and a justification for such a large board. Sometimes it still is, but as we say in software development, that’s a bug, not a feature.
One of the motivations behind downsizing is the perception of redundancy — the tendency, historically, of the council to control as many decisions as possible, often forcing review through as many as three sequential committees, going through the same long processes of discovery and exploration, before coming to a vote before the entire board. This can apply to mundane tasks such as a utility digging a trench or placing a utility pole, even when the policies governing them are not at issue. A smaller council, I think the logic goes, would apply pressure for (but not dictate) a more streamlined process with fewer, less-politicized committees made up of non-elected domain experts. On the other hand, there’s nothing to stop the council from operating that way today, without a change in the number of elected officials, if that’s the will of the people.
Discuss.
As a soon-to-be-former Councilor, this might be a good issue for our new mayor to suggest her colleagues work on. Perhaps the other councilor-turned-mayoral candidates could contribute suggestions as they all have extensive experience in the system but will now be on the outside looking in, as well as other former councilors.
It’s often hard to reform a system when you’re in the midst of it, and it can be hard to receive advice/suggestions from complete outsiders who don’t understand the culture and intricacies. We have an opportunity having several former councilors who know the system well, are intelligent and analytic.
Adam I don’t think it’s accurate to say pre-311 requests had to go through an alderman. You could always go through City Hall, there just wasn’t an automated way to track the requests and make sure they were fulfilled. And the system is still not perfect – I get calls when people have tried 311 and have not gotten a problem resolved.
Thanks, Adam, for capturing our lunchtime conversation so well. I’d just add a little context. This is partly about trying to identify ways to get the “efficiency” that keeps being discussed, without waiting four years for it; but it’s also a thought experiment to assess how a smaller council would work.
What struck me at Wednesday’s meeting was how often the idea came up that if we decrease the size of the council without decreasing the demands on the council, we’re going to exclude “citizen legislators.” Having walked in supporting 8+8, I walked out worried about what a smaller council would actually mean for our city, and doubting for the first time the wisdom of whether we should pursue this at all.
As Adam records above, many people (myself included) have viewed shrinking the council as a “forcing function” that would squeeze out the inefficiencies in the system. But what if the law of unintended consequences foils that?
What if, instead of fewer person-hours meaning that work gets done more efficiently, it means that we expect each councilor to work more hours? What if overburdened councilors become unable to fulfill all the functions of their office well? What if we not only lose a third of the voices on the council because there are fewer councilors, we also lose the variety of voices made possible by people holding a variety of daytime commitments being able to make room in their evenings and weekends to serve our communities?
Well, the good news is that we don’t have to ask “what if” as a hypothetical. We — well, the next Council — can experiment and see what happens.
Cut your person-hours by 1/3. Shrink committees to 5 people. On a rotating basis, agree that 1/3 of the Councilors won’t speak at meetings when it’s a committee of the whole. Eliminate 1/3 of the time you spend walking the ward, holding open houses, and constituent services. (I won’t go so far as to suggest that 1/3 of the councilors abstain on any given vote.)
This experiment will allow us to understand the impact of shrinking the size of the council before we commit to it. If it works well, then we’ll get the “efficiency” benefit four years sooner. If it blows up, we’ll have avoided a hard-to-undo mistake in changing our form of government.
What if a smaller council comprised of thoughtful and competent administrative types worked with a similarly minded mayor to create an efficient system that encouraged folks with limited time but substantial expertise to actually want to contribute either as a volunteer or elected official in Newton’s civil life?
Currently it is painfully obvious that (with only a few exceptions) Newton’s best and brightest remain disengaged resulting in the mediocrity that appears to define the processes and outcomes that are Newton.
It was my observation that the current council could benefit from more self-discipline. I’d say about 85% of the discussion was useful, if not always focused on the question of whether the 8+8 proposal was a good idea. But about 15% was people liking to hear themselves talk.
I’m a Quaker, and our business meetings, especially in larger meetings, require that one have the self-discipline to discern whether X needs to be said now, and if I need to the be the one to say it. It requires some trust in one’s fellow councilors and the process.
The issue that these changes need to be self imposed without any charter change. Which legislator is going to give up a seat in a committee? Many sit in on meetings for committees they don’t belong to, in addition to their own. Who will choose not to speak (which they could easily have done already)?
You saw on Wednesday that many speakers weren’t from the p&s committee. They would all argue that their input was valuable and added diversity of opinion to the conversation. Whether you agree with this or not, this is the way things have gone on for a very long time—and I’m not sure who would be willing to go first. Hence the attempt at charter change from the outside.
Perhaps many councilors have evolved to a truly more ‘we’ role, recognizing for the benefit of the city’s future, willing and ready to fall on their sword, give up their seat willingly, able to recognize that their self-worth might be a stumbling point for better governance?
@Andrew
You raise an interesting question about reducing committees to 5.
Right now 4 members need to be present to form a Quorum. Efficiencies in size might lead to a lot of meetings being cancelled due to lack of a Quorum!
Not sure where the requirement for 4 comes from, but any less seems a little hazardous
@Sue Flicop with 14 CC people advancing 8+8 aren’t they doing just that…accepting that some of them will be eliminated?
@Emily, I stand by my statement. Fact is, it was a squeaky-wheel system which was reinforced by the Aldermen doing constituent service, so going to your Alderman was the way to get things done. We could go off on a tangent about how 311 tickets should be reopened when there’s a problem so we could have more transparency and improve how it works, but do you agree with me that instead of patting themselves on the back for helping constituents, councilors should be pushing for improvements in the system?
It feels like there’s plenty of other low-hanging fruit that would make city hall more efficient, including the council. I don’t question how hard councilors work, but does it have to be that way? And could improvements help inform us how to cut the board?
I agree that there is a problem with the referral of items to multiple committees and the secondary committees never getting around to the items or taking forever to get to them.
I think this could be remedied by a rewording of the rules specifying where items are supposed to be referrred and a presumption that one Committee referral should be the norm.
Changing the number of Committees without a careful analysis of the jurisdictions could lead to more confusion and delay not less. The fact that each committee should have members from each ward is rooted in the belief that members should be more knowledgeable about the issues in their individual wards so that they can advise their colleagues. This seems to be a reasonable expectation.
@Claire: I’m assuming all the City Councilors want to be there. I doubt any Councilor would name another specific Councilor to go, and if they wanted to go themselves, they didn’t have to run in the recent election. So we’re back to voluntary de-participation…
I agree with Brian that the current system is really set up for 24 people–i.e. each committee has a representative of 1 person per ward–and Simon, who mentioned quorums (or is it quora?) With fewer people, there would need to be a new system. Until we know what that new structure will be, however, it’s difficult to determine the best way (or even a good way.)
I cannot believe people are complaining about councilors showing up at committee meetings for committees they don’t serve on. You do understand that the whole purpose of that is to get more educated on the issues being discussed right? And to share one’s own perspective if one wants? It’s not like we have literally no other options on a Monday night than to attend a Zoning & Planning meeting. Maybe we just really feel strongly about food trucks or rooming houses, and so want to be there for the discussion… and what is WRONG with that? Shouldn’t you be happy your legislators are actually out there, you know, legislating? Because that IS a large part of the job… attending meetings, learning, discussing the issues with our colleagues. Because of Open Meeting Law we are quite limited in terms of being able to have these discussions without being in public meetings. ISN’T THAT A GOOD THING?!
I spend a lot of time on Beacon Hill, promoting clean energy and other legislation at the State House. Our state legislature has exempted themselves from the Open Meeting Law. I am strongly of the opinion that the public is better served when there is ample discussion and deliberation, in the public eye.
In the words of Joni Mitchell,
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone
Emily, I’m not happy when I see councilors hear an issue again, and again, and again in committee, especially when some of those issues don’t belong in front of elected officials at all. I’d much rather see them get the night off and have a little personal time.