Lost in the hubbub about the marijuana ballot questions before the city council on Monday, was a scheduled vote on a pilot program designed to provide more parking in our village centers without creating new spaces. Under the city’s shared parking proposal, a business or nonprofit that has excess parking would be allowed to rent parking through an app or private arrangement. So, for example, a church would be allowed to rent spaces on weekdays to area employees or a bank to rent spaces to a restaurant for use in the evening when the bank is closed.
The parking proposal had previously passed Zoning and Planning 7-0. (And in what I believe was a first, both the Newton Villages Alliance and Newton-Needham Chamber testified in favor of the pilot program at a public hearing.)
But City Councilor Lisle Baker made a motion on Monday to postpone the parking vote until the council’s next meeting and noted that a copy of the language of proposed item had not been distributed to the council that evening. Several of Baker’s colleagues, including Councilors Auchincloss and Danberg, spoke in support of the pilot and wanted to vote that evening.
Sensing perhaps that he did not have the votes to pass his motion to postpone, Baker exercised his “charter” option which stopped all deliberations.
The shared parking proposal will now go before the full council for a vote on Aug. 13.
I wonder if this plan will allow long term parking over the winter.
Residents who have extra space can rent their driveway or garage to residents who have no parking over the winter
Sounds like he is being a bit obstructionist. I wonder why
@Bugek: I believe you can rent out your private driveway or garage legally right now. This proposal is for business and institutional (think Church, Synagogue, etc.) lots. But remember, your private driveway rented out might pose an insurance coverage charge for you, unless you would want to take that liability on yourself!
@Claire: Councilor Baker is a legislator who is thorough and careful and mindful of language that might be misinterpreted in an ordinance. I am certain that he simply wants to read the final language of what he would have voted on very closely and carefully! We are fortunate to have such a Councilor/Law Professor working for us!
Good to know Sallee. It’s too bad he couldn’t get the info he needed before this weeks meeting, but hopefully it will be vote on and pass at the next meeting
Sallee…that is the charitable way to put this. If he comes back with changes that make sense, happy to repost, but this seems like either an attempt to get something in return on other legislation, or a bit of a tantrum by Councilor Baker. It’s going to pass regardless.
I bet he adds nothing to the matter at hand. This is a prime example of why our system moves so slowly. Not a huge deal of course. Just silly.
Actually @Fig. It is a least a medium-sized deal. The shared parking program would bring much needed parking to our villages without building any new parking spaces. Councilor Baker’s actions effectively prevents this good idea from rolling out until after the busy fall and holiday seasons; months that are critical to every merchant’s bottom line.
So any single councilor can “charter” a vote by him/herself? Or does Baker have some special connection to this vote that gave him “charter power”?
@Tricia – Any Councilor can charter an item, and it’s been used in interesting ways in the past. The language is in section 2-9(c)of the current City Charter:
“(c) Charter Objection—On the first occasion that the question on adoption of a measure is put to the city council, if a single member objects to the taking of the vote, the vote shall be postponed until the next meeting of the city council whether regular or special. If 3 or more other members shall join the member in such objection, such postponement shall be until the next regular meeting; provided, however, that for an emergency measure, at least 5 members in all must object. This procedure shall not be used more than once for any matter bearing a single docket number notwithstanding any amendments to the original matter.”
Let’s give Lisle the benefit of the doubt that he has noble intentions. However, this is yet another example of how ‘too many cooks in the kitchen spoil the broth’. Ironically, Lisle was one of the staunchest opponents of the proposed City Charter that attempted to reduce the City Council size with the goal of preventing this sort of analysis-paralysis on every vote. @Lisle, please be expeditious and demonstrate that your anti-Charter stance does not deter good governance.
As I read the text of the City Charter quoted by Chris Steele, it seems that this postponement of the vote could have been prevented simply by having one more Councilor exercise a Charter Objection. Then there would be two Councilors objecting, but the Charter text clearly calls for postponement only “if a single member objects” OR “if 3 or more other members shall join the member in such objection.” There’s no provision for postponement if exactly two Councilors object!
Here is some background on my action last Monday night
1. The item was presented without the usual accompanying ordinance language approved as to legal form and character so we could understand and amend it if wise to do so.
2. The item has some substantive issues worth sorting out with the full Council. For example, the parking permits will be available to anyone, not just employees or customers. Also anticipated is a complementary program to allow employee permit parking on residential streets. Should employees and customers be given priority for shared parking in commercial and institutional lots as part of the pilot, especially since MBTA commuter lot prices are being increased?
3. The Inspectional Services Department is supposed to administer the program. Will it need additional staff or funding to do it? If so, will the App owners through whom drivers would buy a space pay something to Newton for the privilege to cover these costs?
4. The Council was beginning deliberations on this item well after 11 p.m. and a lengthy discussion of marijuana ballot questions, not the time we do our best work.
5. As a result, I exercised the Charter objection which allows any Councilor to postpone an item to the next Council meeting on the night the item is first before the Council.
6. I plan to meet with the Newton Planning Department and Mr. Reibman before the August 13 Council meeting to talk over these and other issues.
7. Anyone with questions or concerns is welcome to call me at 617-566-3848.
Thank you, Councilor Lisle Baker
@Bruce – A Councilor cannot object to a Charter Objection. Interesting idea though!
As a long-time observer of the charter objection*, Councilor Baker used the Charter Objection exactly as it was designed: to postpone a vote to allow for further consideration. He was well within his rights.
Lots of interesting issues arise:
1. To put to bed the 1 or 3 debate, the wording is very careful. You need 3 councilors to object if you want to delay until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If only one councilor objects, the delay lasts only until the next meeting, regularly scheduled or specially scheduled. In this instance, the President of the Council could schedule another, special meeting with the appropriate notice. (Though it doesn’t appear President Laredo will.)
2. The Charter Objection is not often used, but it is a pernicious device with so large a council. When you only need 5% of the council membership to delay an item, that’s a powerful tool for delay.
3. That a Councilor is within the rules to make a charter objection, doesn’t insulate them from political consequence. Councilor Baker acted within the rules. But, he did so to delay a) a pilot program and b) a pilot program that a full committee of his peers felt was sufficiently well-drawn to pass out of committee unanimously. I’m glad Councilor Baker came here to explain his action. Kudos. And, he’s got some reasonable-sounding justifications. But, Councilor Baker used a pretty powerful council rule to delay long overdue experiment to change the status quo. Should someone choose to run against him in 2019, this is a fair topic.
*Using “charter” as a verb continues to drive me nuts. It’s a charter objection. It’s one piece of the larger charter. Spending the extra key-strokes to say “used a charter objection” helps clarify what the councilor or councilors did.
On a historical note, ten years ago, Aldercritters Hess-Mahan, Coletti, Albright, and Schnipper used the charter objection to delay a vote on the budget. Because there were at least three of them objecting, the delay was until the next scheduled board meeting, which was after the date by which the budget as submitted by the mayor became law without affirmative board action. If one or two of them had used the charter objection, then President Baker* could have scheduled another meeting before the deadline. Since at least three of them objected, the vote had to wait until the next regularly scheduled meeting, by which time the budget was already enacted by law.
*I think it was the Baker era. It may have been Scott Lennon.
Another quick note: the charter objection is not the only mechanism available to a councilor to postpone a vote. In this case, the council could have voted to put the item over until the next meeting. The charter objection is the last resort when a councilor cannot convince their peers to delay a vote as a group.
@Susan: I was not talking about a Councilor objecting to a Charter objection. I was saying that a second Councilor could join the first Councilor in the Charter objection, which would make two. There’s no provision in the Charter for postponement if two members exercise the Charter objection. Nor is there any provision for postponement if three members do so!
@Sean: I don’t think the Charter is carefully worded on this point. It describes only the cases of “a single member” objecting or four or more members objecting (“if 3 or more other members shall join the member in such objection”).
1 member objecting => Charter says postponement until next meeting, whether regular or special.
2 or 3 members objecting => the Charter is silent on this, so no postponement.
4 members objecting (i.e., 3 or more joining the first) => Charter says postponement until next regular meeting.
Bruce,
This is a straightforward bit of statutory interpretation. Two or three objecting includes a single member, so the objection would operate.
@Sean, in your interpretation (“two or three includes a single member”), there would be no need for the word “single” in the Charter text. It could simply say “if a member objects…” . But it specifically says “single.” If, as you say, the Charter wording is very careful, then “single” is there for a reason, and I would think it must be related to the meaning of “single.” Merriam-Webster: “unaccompanied by others,” “consisting of one as opposed to or in contrast with many,” “of, relating to, or involving only one person.”
Bruce,
Statutory interpretation is kind to redundancy. That single doesn’t add much would not be a hurdle. The intention is pretty clear: 1-3, delay until the next meeting, regardless of how scheduled. 4 or more, delay until the next regularly scheduled meeting.
That said, the next time they run one of those charter revision exercises, you should recommend that they excise “single.” For my part, I will again focus on how four councilors can use the charter objection to force a legal outcome, as the four charterteers did in 2018.
The Shared Parking Concept is a great idea that takes advantage of the large numbers of houses of Worship that are in village centers and near generators of parking during the week when the houses of worhip are generally not in use. It should be put into use as expeditiously as possible. However this does not mean that it should be adopted without proper review by the entire Council. The details of legislation can screw up even the best ideas. Councilor Baker is doing his duty by allowing for review by the full Council. He and the other councilors should use the extra time properly as the framers of the Charter intended.