Four Newton City Councilors — two who supported the proposed city charter that was defeated by voters last November and two who opposed it — have been appointed to sit on a subcommittee to revisit the various Charter Commission recommendations.
The subcommittee members who opposed the ballot question are Lisle Baker (who will chair the effort and David Kalis. Those who were in favor are Susan Albright and (former Charter Commission chair) Josh Krintzman.
Programs and Services Committee chair John Rice outlined the subcommittee’s mission and timeline in this memo.
So– the Council is re-opening Charter changes that were already voted down in the last election?
I agree, it’s not that simple- perhaps there are smaller issues (rather than the larger structural ones which took up most of the debate) that can be addressed this way, and, as I understand the memo, still subject to a public vote. I hope this isn’t simply being done as a way to try to address Ward representation so soon after November’s vote.
Am I the only one who finds this memo confusing?
In part B-1-c under recommendations, it says the subcommittee will come up with non-structural recommendations before the summer recess and (in B-1-d) defer the structural parts (i.e. board size, term limits) until that’s done and then (in B-1-d) it says in the second half of 2018.
BUT then in part B-1-f it says the subcommittee would “target vote by the full Council, including time for Charter objections and reconsideration, if any, no later than the end of March, 2018, so as to avoid running into budget deliberations beginning in April, 2018 as well as provide time for the General Court, the Governor, and the 2019 Newton election process to respond.”
March 2018 is in two weeks! How is that in any way possible for a committee that hasn’t met yet? And how is that not a contradiction to the three parts before it?
Same here. That said, there were many changes in the revision other than the composition of the City Council, and some of them were non-controversial. I could certainly get behind having the CC vote on the ones that are needed to bring the charter up to date with current state law and regulations.
There are two
typos – The memo should say March and April 2019. This is my error in not catching it sooner. Thanks – LB
Ah. That makes more sense.
There are many real issues facing Newton that actually impact residents. Streets and sidewalks still need to be fixed. Revenue needs to be identified to pay for 17 new union labor contracts. Zoning issues still haven’t been addressed. Not to mention development, housing, school building maintenance, implementation of the new marijuana law, etc. Regarding the charter, the voters have already spoken loudly and clearly that the status quo is the way to go. So with all of these other pressing issues facing our part time councilors, shouldn’t charter revision be put on the back burner? Come on councilors, listen to the voters, leave the government structure the way it is and deal with what’s important. In other words, as Bill Belichick may say if he lived here, do you jobs!
@Gerry: There were some changes to the charter — referred to in the memo as “non-structural” (i.e. not board size and not term limits) — that the Charter Commission recommended that should be considered by the council. As far as we know, these changes are not controversial, or at least no one cited them last year as a reason to vote no.
It’s smart that Chairman Rice and President Laredo have asked this committee to tackle these non-structural changes first.
On the other hand, it’s disappointing that the chair and president appointed the “no” campaign’s largest financial donor to chair this sub-committee. But as the saying goes, elections have consequences. It seems the consequences of the charter vote is one of the leading opponents has been put in charge.
I agree with Gerry Chervinsky 100%. Give it a rest. There is plenty on CC’s plate so why take any of this up right now?
Gerry and Claire, while I tend to agree with you, Counselor Lipof has docketed a change in the composition of the city council to the 8-8 passed but not signed by Mayor Warren at the end of 2017.
“#114-18 Amendment to City Charter to change composition of City Council COUNCILOR LIPOF requesting that the City Council seek Home Rule Legislation to amend the City Charter to change the composition of the City Council from 16 Councilors-at-Large and 8 Ward Councilors, to 8 Councilors-at-Large and 8 Ward Councilors.”
While I wonder if it could be voted no action necessary, evidently it’s being considered.
Is this memo a draft or the finished product? The typos, redundancies and words left out or used incorrectly throughout the memo render it confusing and open to controversy. For example:
In A-5 the reduction of the size of the city council should read by one Councilor-at-large “per ward.”
In B-1-c the first sentence is redundant and the second should include the verb “will” or if the first is meant as a header, then it should read “Non-structural issues considered first.” “As to them” is confusing and unnecessary. Reported by the “2018” summer recess, I think is what it means. What Council matters does this apply to: recognizing that consideration of some Council matters would need to be suspended, for example, during the Budget deliberations. Does this apply to the charter review?
B-1-d is confusing. If structural issues are implicated by non-structural issues, are those particular non-structural issues deferred until the committee and the council has disposed of the other non-structural issues or are ALL of the non-structural issues disposed of before and only the implicated structural issues deferred? The first way makes more sense but it’s hard to tell which is meant.
The council should not be voting on or passing non-structural issues that predicate a certain council structure.
In B-1-e, if what process is successful? Both types of issues have been discussed in the previous instructions. If referring to the disposal of all non-structural issues, when would the full committee have referred the structural issues to the subcommittee for further study?
If the study of the structural issues start after the 2018 recess, isn’t it rushing it to have any recommendations presented by the fall of 2018 and subsequently acted upon by the full committee, the full council by March 2019, signed by the mayor, considered and passed by the General Court, signed by the Governor in time for a 2019 municipal vote?
Greg, I have no problem with addressing non-structural aspects, just the divisive distraction of another charter campaign when there are far more pressing issues at hand. And let’s be honest, 8/8 has been around forever & always failed, because there is significant opposition to increasing ward council representatives from 33% to 50%. No reason to think the voters will embrace it now.