The Newton City Council voted 17 in favor, six opposed and one absent (Lennon) to reduce the council to eight at large and eight ward councilors. Voting no were councilors Albright, Crossley, Fuller, Gentile, Hess-Mahan and Leary.
However Mayor Warren has said he will not support this home rule petition, which will kill the proposal for 2017.
There’s a surprise. If Mayor elect Fuller voted against it as a councilor, it doesn’t look good for her to support it as the Mayor. And the beat goes on…..
Wow! First – congratulations to all the Councillors who voted YES. It takes courage to be open minded. Also a word of congratulations to all Councillors who worked tirelessly in face of a NO from the mayor.
@Mr. Mayor – i think this is the time to be open minded and let the people of Newton vote … in 2 years. I think you should end your term as Mayor YES.
Good point Tom, this was Fuller’s first big chance to step up as the new mayor and show her ability to serve the broader interest of the city. She failed miserably by her vote. If she is to become a successful leader she must separate herself from campaign mode and govern with an even hand. Newton needs someone to represent the broader interests of the electorate. This power grab by the YES people is simply an attempt to pour an indiscriminate amount of the city budget into the schools. Their spending proclivities can not be sustained. Newton residents pocket books will be hit for a big loss if the federal tax reforms become law. This will hurt the school committees plans for future overrides.
I was enheartened to see that 17 council members understand what is at stake here. The city faces a big set back by losing Councilor Yates and Blazar. Their sound judgment can not be replaced by the 2 women replacing them.
Sorry this post is so long, but it reflects a lot of thoughts that have been going through my head about the recent charter vote.
This is a plea to every current and soon to be public official in this City. Take no action that will eliminate or dilute the integrity of the current 8 ward councilors. The proposal to substitute 4 district councilors for the current 8 arrangement will be unacceptable to most Newton voters once they realize that the 4 councilors from these yet to be defined districts will be no match for the 8 at large councilors who will almost certainly be elected by well financed slates.
The YES campaign adherents are arguing that we need more time to study whether this 8 ward councilor arrangement serves the best long term interests of the City. This flies in the face of what became abundantly clear to this NO proponent in the closing days of the campaign.
1. The YES adherents must have known that public sentiment was shifting dramatically to the NO side and that it was shifting because most voters don’t want to lose their ward councilor. The YES adherents sensed this shift when they tried to muddy the waters by distributing that horribly misleading handout which claimed that a YES vote was key to preserving local representation when it was anything but that.
2. The $10,000 contribution to the YES campaign from a contributor who doesn’t even live in Newton, was the gift that kept giving to the NO side. Big bucks in political campaigns are already a national disgrace at all levels of government, but it really rubbed me and many others the wrong way when we found out that wealthy and powerful folk from outside Newton were trying to influence the character and composition of the government we have to live under. I’m not suggesting that big donations like this had bad intent. Only that it was another indication that average folks like me are gradually losing the ability to influence what our government does. It’s bad enough when it is happening in Washington. I just never thought it would happen here.
3. I hope that my friends on the YES side don’t continue to beat a dead horse. They were already outspending the NO side by a 2-1 margin before the $10,000 check surfaced in the State’s campaign reporting system. It had everything going for it in terms of where power and influence is thought to reside in this City. And sorry Fig, but it was a “raggle taggle” grass roots coalition that turned back the steamroller. (Any thing I’m involved in has to have a touch of “raggle taggle) in it). The problem for the YES side, was that it’s formula for a 12 member at-large City Council was never going to cut it with the voters once they were clued into what the total effects would be. I just hope all sides will recognize that most voters want to retain the 8 ward elected councilors.
Why is the city council wasting time voting on a proposal that was dead even before they voted and that Mayor-elect Fuller clearly (and smartly) rejects as well? Why not simply cut the council in half? Eight at large councilors, one from each ward. Four local district councilors elected solely from 2 paired wards — 1 & 2, 3 & 4, 5 & 6, 7 & 8. This compromise suggestion, originally proposed by the late Dan Fahey, deserves consideration. Otherwise let’s just continue along as we are, which would certainly be preferable to wasting more time on this 8/8 nonsense.
“Why not simply cut the council in half? Eight at large councilors, one from each ward. Four local district councilors elected solely from 2 paired wards — 1 & 2, 3 & 4, 5 & 6, 7 & 8.”
There is no indication that is what the public wants. There are many indications that the public wants to maintain their individual ward representation. Not sure why there is resistance to putting it to a vote.
Is that how Setti will govern as Governor??? Weak.
@NewtonCares, I don’t think we’ll ever get the chance to see how Setti would govern as Governor. But, I bet if he changed his stance, and let Newton voters actually weigh in on the 8/8 proposal, he would make news, call attention to his stagnant campaign, and just maybe earn more votes than he’d lose. I know he’d then earn mine.
If 8+8 is re-docketed (as Rick Lipof pledged last night), is debated at committee meetings and several public hearings over the course of many months and then approved by the 2018-19 City Council I strongly doubt Mayor Fuller would oppose it. She made it clear last night she is mostly concerned with the process.
@Andy Levin thanks for the insight. I was wondering the rationale that Fuller gave.
If the council is serious about reducing its size and a proposed new composition is docketed in 2018, it should include discussion of all combinations, not just 8 + 8. With a proper process the composition can receive more vetting by not only the council but the voters as well.
This vote was not courageous, it’s easy to vote for 8 + 8 knowing it is already dead regardless of the vote. That is truly “showboating.”
Hopefully, our new Mayor will show the political courage to let the voters decide on this proposal, The people of Newton have spoken previously that they want a smaller Council. Maybe even Mayor Warren will re-think his position before he leaves office.
Andy Levin- Thanks for your insight. But, if Rick re-dockets without a new process, what would change??
Maybe they should have a new Mayor appointed committee to take a closer look at the issue….if that could be done, with someone like Rick on it as a liaison between the committee and the Board.
I don’t know if it would change things or not, but it might resolve the process issue and maybe the committee can come up with a compromise that works for the majority (including the charter commission).
@Tom
It would be a mistake to have a mayor-appointed committee, IMHO. Too similar to what we just went through with the Charter Commission. Let the City Council reconsider 8+8, initially in P&S but with more study, debate and public hearings. I’m sure there will be calls for the 8 at-large, 4 by “district” model that was at one point considered by the Charter Commission. I think that plan would be only slightly more appealing to voters than the 12-0 plan that was soundly rejected. Enough to be approved at the ballot? I doubt it. The 8+8 model is far from perfect, but it’s probably the only plan that could win ballot approval.
I’m mostly concerned about process too. Happy to consider multiple options next council session.
As for Mayor Warren, I think folks on this blog have over-estimated the importance of this decision for everyone except the folks on this blog. Mayor Warren won’t get headlines either way. The entire charter commission process only generated a few news articles in the Globe. The Mayor basically doing exactly what he said he’d do won’t even do that. The Mayor changing his mind might generate one article.
We aren’t the hub of the universe folks, and this issue isn’t even the hub of Newton politics at the moment. How many letters/emails did they get on this vote? I’d bet less than 100.
I look forward to discussing it with folks next session. It will be interesting to see if it has legs once the vote actually matters, and what the final proposal looks like.
And I miss Dan Fahey. May he rest in peace. Truly the best of us.
This was clearly an historic vote in Newton as for the 1st time the City Council voted overwhelmingly to change the size of the Council, while retaining its highly effective distribution.
We operate in very compact 2 year term, and we cannot allocate time to once again study a topic that has been studied and voted on 3 times in the past 40 years.
Councilor Sangiolo has done extensive research on the Council, and can present a nice historical package of data to whomever would like to review past votes and background studies.
The “Yes” advocates worked to take away peoples representation and lost, and now given this historic vote, should the Mayor not sign the petition, once again the “Yes” advocates are seeking to take away the residents right to vote this proposal up or down.
I urge the Mayor, as the war veteran he is, having served to protect our vote and way of life, to separate from the “Yes” crowd, and place the size of the Council into the qualified voting hands of the residents.
Andy, your probably right. A Mayor appointed committee to redo the process would be tainted.
The charter commission proposal is now history. Can we stop beating a dead horse? The only proposal put forth right now is the 8+8 and to me it makes no sense to try to ram something through under a lame duck mayor and council. Personally, I’d rather stick with 24 than this 8 +8 proposal. Why? Because 8+8 means I don’t get to have any say in who earns seven of those spots, almost half of the council. Seven Ward Councilors who have the same vote on City wide issues as the at-large but can get their jobs with just 800-1000 votes. At least with 24 people there are only slightly less than 1/3 that I don’t get to vote for.
Just in case anybody is wondering if Mayor Warren might change his position, Andy Levin posted this on Wicked Local Newton today..
“Just in case anybody is wondering if Mayor Warren might change his position, Andy Levin posted this on Wicked Local Newton today..
“I am not changing my position,” the mayor said Tuesday morning.”
I’m not changing my position either! Not voting for Setti Warren
I dunno, @fig. A fire can be started with just a spark and a good marketing effort. From my perspective, right now Setti Warren has neither. I don’t expect him to change his position on 8/8, but boy it would be fun to work with it if he did.
Technical question: Is refusing to sign off on the councils vote equivalent to a veto?Is there a percentage of councilor “yeahs” that could over ride Setti’s veto? If not, for the future, this might be something for the council to take up for consideration. We have it on the Federal and I assume the State levels, we should have it too in the most local of governments. Our Mayor is not a Czar, and I believe we just learned via the charter vote, people want their voices “heard”.
I appreciate the mayor’s leadership on this. He is doing exactly what Mayor-elect Fuller asked for last night: A more considered process, which is entirely appropriate given that it can’t go on the ballot before 2019 anyway. And don’t forget, whatever goes on the ballot that year couldn’t be implemented until 2022. So let’s work towards building consensus now.
@Jon, the co-docketers of this item chose to proceed under the Home Rule Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution. This means that the City Council must approve the measure and send it to the Mayor for his/her signature. If the Mayor signs the measure it can be filed with the General Court as Special Legislation. If the legislature passes it, it goes to the Governor’s desk for his/her signature. Then, it goes on the ballot (in November 2019). If the Mayor does not sign the measure, however, it cannot be filed as special legislation with the General Court. (See Section 8)
Greg, this sounds like the nimble accelerated process the Yes campaign was all for… 5 more years to implement something the citizens of this city have supported for the past couple decades after several additional years of the intense and transparent charter commission review. Oh the irony.
@Leopold: But the charter commission reviewed it for two years and came to a different conclusion than 8&8. You can either believe that charter review was important (in which case don’t jump to a different configuration without understanding their thinking) or don’t consider it legit and stop citing it as due diligence.
The point of process is for people to be heard. On the issue of Newton’s charter, people have been heard for literally decades. If we go through yet more “process,” the very same small group of people who pay attention to this type of thing are going to put forward the fundamentally same arguments. We’re going to see “yes” and “no” all over again, and “no” will win. In voting to eliminate a sizable percentage of its membership, the Newton City Council did what so few city councils before it have ever done. Not allowing this to move to the people – some of the most informed and educated people in the world, mind you – just doesn’t make sense. It’s time to move on and more effectively focus our resources and energy on making Newton work better for its residents.
Thank you Ted H-M !
Ted H-M , I seem to recall that before the election you were arguing that all of the outgoing city council people should refrain from voting on any issues during the lame duck session. I guess that was just chatter.
Not sure what all of the hubbub is. Outgoing Mayor Warren said he wouldn’t sign it at the outset, and reiterated that stance today. Profile in courage? No. But he is/was consistent. The fact that 17 councilors supported it would seem to be a strong impetus to next year’s council and incoming Mayor Fuller to move forward on this.
The Mayor has been out of the office so much for his entire term(s), that all you really need to do is wait until he’s out again, and the “acting Mayor” can sign it.
@Greg: “But the charter commission reviewed it for two years and came to a different conclusion than 8&8. You can either believe that charter review was important (in which case don’t jump to a different configuration without understanding their thinking) or don’t consider it legit and stop citing it as due diligence.”
Huh? They spent two years looking at all sorts of variations – but never strayed from their main theme – eliminating Ward Councilors. The 8 + 8 is an option to save Ward Councilors and has been considered by the City Council and supported by previous LWVN Presidents and members on and off for the past 40 years. Why not let the voters finally vote on it?
We have one last bite at this apple. I for one, don’t mind taking an extra 6-12 months to view and make sure that 8 and 8 is the best option for the city.
The question is who does the research…do we allow the councilors do the research that they have voted against for the past 40 years (yes, I know different councilors over the years) or should someone else pick up the slack.
Is everything else off the table, ie term limits?
@Greg – to say the Charter Commission spent 2 years looking into it is disingenuous for the reason Amy stated. In addition, I do not understand this love for the meshuga hybrid “lives in the ward but everyone votes for them” model – it it’s so great, why are there only 2 places in MA that use it? And if the CC looked at best practices so diligently, how did they end up staying with it – if it were “best practices”, I’m sure more localities would use it.
This is a moot point folks. Mayor Warren isn’t signing it. That’s his right. That’s the system. Don’t like it, blame the Home Rule statute.
I view this vote as a useful straw vote. Not one that had any meaning though. Not very risky to vote when you know the mayor won’t sign it. But straw votes will be meaningful if it is reintroduced next year.
Folks are of course welcome to vent. Or to engage in “by gorry by jingo by gee by gosh by gum” arguments about people and voting and oh so many years of discussion of something similar but not for years and before many of us moved to town.
But for the record, Charter commission had a process. No side won. This has a process too. This isn’t tyranny or repression or wrong. The folks supporting 8+8 had every right to ask the council to vote. And the mayor had every right not to sign it, and he gave you full warning he wouldn’t.
Happily, our system has a step forward. Propose it again. Vote again. Do it the right way. You say we had enough hearings? I disagree, many folks on this blog disagree, the law disagrees, and the mayor disagrees. So do it the right way. I think it might even pass.
I don’t understand why not both approaches (8-8 & 8 and 4 districts) can be put before the residents! It looks like many would like the council to be smaller, but nobody is going to know what the majority prefers until both models are put on the ballot.