One year from this week, all 24 seats on the Newton City Council and all eight seats on the school committee will be open for election.
Are you planning to run? Are there particular councilors or school committee members that you are especially interested in seeing in a competitive contest? Share your announcements or thoughts in the comments section.
Certainly by then the city council will have been reduced in size to 18 or 12 seats, as promised by those on the council who opposed the charter changes, right?
Doug L. – I agree, how long must we wait before the current Council puts forth the 8-8 proposal as promised.
Some posts ago, I bet a dollar that the 2018 vote won’t be the last we’ll hear of Opt Out Newton.
The organization on its site now states among its goals, it aims to assist those “seeking to represent Newton in a more responsible way.” Pretty easy to read what that means.
I’m all for more candidates and competitive races, so that nobody gets too comfortable in an unopposed seat. But I also hope prospective candidates realize that sponsorship as an anti-pot candidate is going to paint them into a corner.
@Dulles, in a 3-way race, which most at-large seats would be if contested, 45% of the electorate would be decisive. Add to that the people who are disgusted with the way the ballot was structured, and you have a formidable group of voters.
I think the pot “issue” will go away once the first store opens its doors.
More than anything I’d like to see Scott Lennon return to the City Council, ideally in place of Jay Ciccone. The Council has sorely missed Lennon’s leadership, and even if he doesn’t immediately regain the presidency, just having his voice of reason back in action would be a strong improvement. Run Scott run!
Hi Sarah,
A candidate who fully embraces Opt Out Newton runs the risk of turning the run into a reprise referendum on the pot issue, now a losing issue in vote after vote. It strongly risks drowning out the candidate’s other positions like taxes & budget, roads, schools, public safety, community services…
It can win at the polls if pot shop openings wreak havoc on the community; not if shops start opening and life goes on as usual.
The safe middle ground is to appeal to Opt Out with a general message of concern, but keep an arm’s length and avoid that formal endorsement.
The Opt Out campaign’s energy and organization was impressive, as was the recent anticharter push. I characterize both as populist movements that were pitted largely against the political establishment.
Going forward will movements like this continue? I think so and I hope so. In the last 20+ years we have seen news coverage of local politics disintegrate and blind voting based on emails from incumbents pushing incumbents. This creates a disconnect between the community and the politicians. I predict the aforementioned movements will inspire those who feel ignored. If I am correct it will be great for V14.
@Doug L — The councilors that opposed the charter (and then some) voted 17-6 in December 2017 to submit the 8-8 composition that voters had endorsed twice previously in non-binding questions as a home rule petition to be ratified by the voters. Only 6 councilors voted against it (Albright, Crossley, Fuller, Gentile, Hess-Mahan and Leary). The proposal was vetoed by the outgoing mayor with the strong support of the charter commission, the yes campaign, and the incoming mayor.
Unfortunately, of the 4 of the 17 voting for this in 2017 have left the council (Harney, Blazar, Sangiolo, Yates) and Baker was not strongly in favor, so there likely isn’t a majority for 8-8 or another configuration, regardless of the “process” that is followed.
Jack: Circumstances notwithstanding, It’s fair to say that the no campaign misled voters into thinking 8/8 would happen. It was part of your campaign’s closing argument.
@Greg — I don’t think anyone anticipated that the outgoing mayor would deny the voters the chance to vote 8-8 up or down, or that the Yes campaign would not want their effort to at least lead to a council 50% smaller than it is today. In most circumstances 17 votes is sufficient to override a veto, but a home rule petition requires the support of the mayor.
The Yes argument was that the council would not follow through with their vote if the charter was defeated. The council did follow through, and then Yes turned out to stop it.
So, no I don’t think that is fair.
Come on Jack, anyone who was paying close attention knew that 8/8 did not have the political support it needed to get to Beacon Hill. Nevertheless, you used it as part of your campaign’s closing argument. That’s cool you prevailed by fooling a sufficient number of voters. You won. But why deny it?
@Jeffrey -the anti charter campaign was not a populist movement. It was started and led by a sitting Ward councilor.
The two original non-binding referenda called for the downsizing of the board of aldermen, but as I recall, did not establish a number or composition.
The then Mayor Warren did not veto the 8/8 configuration. He did not sign it That’s a different procedure than a veto, as you well know. In addition, before they voted on it, he told the city council that he wasn’t going to sign it. It was a total waste of city council time.
@Jane — I believe the referenda specified 16 members
Not signing = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto
He could have, and should have, changed his mind on signing it. The city could have voted on it last week. Lack of that opportunity rests with him and those that pressed him for that action, not the councilors that voted for it.
Andrea. The anti-charter movement was spearheaded by a populist ward councilor. By definition, ward councilors are more likely to tend populist than at-large councilors.
Jack – Your opinion is not a fact, just like my opinion isn’t a fact. We all have opinions, but that doesn’t make them facts.
You’re not going to believe this, but I actually know what a pocket veto is without reading about it in Wikipedia. It’s an expression used to describe of a response to a bill/ordinance that the legislative branch sends to the executive branch within 10 days of adjournment. Call me cynical, but the city council knew exactly what they were doing when they sent that legislation to the mayor within 10 days of adjournment. It wasn’t their finest hour.
At one point, Rick Lipof tried to get a home rule petition passed through the BOA that downsized the board to 16; the referenda merely asked if the electorate wanted the Board downsized . That’s all I have to say about this. It’s another issue that’s over. Just move on, Jack.
Greg — The Yes side of the charter debate stated it wanted a smaller council and that their proposal retained ward representation. I was surprised they didn’t support 8-8 once their proposal was defeated. They never attacked it on its merits that I recall, but please point me to something on that front prior to the election. Did the Mayor say he’d block it? Did the Yes group say they’d fight it? Please provide links to back your framing and use of “fooled” and “misled”.
17 votes from council was a lot of political support including 2 Yes supporters. This is what you said in September: “. As Jane. Tom and Mike have already said, we can’t depend on our city councilors to vote to reduce their jobs. I don’t blame them. It’s human nature”
@Jane — The city council could have sent the proposal to the Mayor early in the fall but they were also blocked at that point. Yes claimed the council would never vote 8-8 if they got past the election. The Mayor’s statement prior to the election was: ““The voters have a chance to make Newton’s government more effective by reducing the size of the city council while retaining ward representation”
From the Yes flyer:
“Newton residents have been calling to reduce the size of the city council for the last 50 years.”
“Newton current city council has 24 members — its just too big. The state’s average council size is 10.”
“With 24 city councilors, Newton’s council can take years to accomplish its goals”
Here is one of your comments in September. It doesn’t mention that the Mayor was going to block it or that Yes was going to block it. Just that the council would never vote for it. https://village14.com/2017/09/21/is-home-rule-a-better-solution-to-charter-reform/#comment-80466
I’m happy to move on, but am going to respond to incorrect statements when they occur, and I doubt we are done with that.
@Jack: No need to be defensive. Campaigns make promises they had no chance of delivering all the time.
Jack, the opposition to the charter was led by sitting Councilors and you know that. You also know that it was sitting Councilors who originated the lie that Charter Council members were bought by developers. That was and is an unmitigated lie, just like you promoted the racist idea that the proposed charter would deny minorities equal representation.
@Howard –I did a fair amount of leading and opposing as did many other residents.
The campaign never said the commission was bought by developers. The campaign pointed out that the YES campaign was predominantly funded by those associated with development.
The campaign never said the charter would deny racial minorities in Newton equal representation. It pointed out that all-at-large city councils very often do in other parts of the country (backed by contemporary news articles), and that we shouldn’t adopt a flawed model (just like we shouldn’t adopt other policies like ID requirements, or use it or lose it, etc) that have potential to be discriminatory.
And Jack – 16 was still too big, which is why a lot of us did not support it. I, though, have moved on.
I’m sorry, Jack, but it’s hard to understand why you’d spend time going back into the history of a local blog to find a comment that I made 14 months ago about a settled issue. This isn’t intended to be mean, but you need to find something better to do with your time.
@Greg — not being defensive — just asking you to back up your statements as our recollections apparently differ. The campaign delivered on its promise, which was the first vote by the city council to reduce itself in the city’s history, and it did so after the election. Once the vote was complete, it was in the mayor’s hands to advance to the voters for the voters to decide on.
@Jane — This comment thread starts with a statement that I felt should be corrected. The council promised to deliver a HR proposal to the mayor, and they did. Google finds things quite quickly. I am just trying to stick to facts around the issue rather than opinions, of which the statements by the campaigns and their representatives are an important part. While the ballot question was settled, it inevitably will come up over the course of the year as the council takes up components of the proposal that the subcommittee has finished reviewing and around topics related to the city council election.
@Jack: Your “recollections” are Orwellian. The no charter campaign didn’t present 8 and 8 as a promise for a symbolic vote but an alternative plan.
Like I said, it was a brilliant campaign strategy.
I can think of a few incumbent councilors who should now be worried about their seats because of their stated of implied support of OON.
@Greg – Orwellian would be a situation where a government official edits history (or V14 comments).
It WAS an alternative plan that was delivered to the extent the council could advance it.
There are 94 comments in that thread, and only one makes a passing reference to possibility to the mayor not signing what in other circumstances would be a veto-proof proposal from the city council to the voters. Looking back on my notes at the time the campaign was under the assumption through early December that a mayoral veto could be overridden, at which point it was clarified that HR proposal vetos (or non signings) couldn’t be overridden.
Your criticism of the proposal at that time was that other charter provisions would be lost (they are being addressed by a subcommittee) and that you felt it wouldn’t be advanced to the mayor in the term when those docketing were still there (it was).
This thread demonstrates the machinations, prevarications, denials, naïveté and license with the facts that people who want to use government to (1) get what they want from it easier or (2) make it easier for them to use government to change what they don’t like about the way people live their daily lives.
Beware when the developers, the lawyers, and the Progressives fund campaigns telling that YOU should change the rules to…make it easier for THEM to change the rules.
It should be difficult for the city government, any government, to do things to the people.
There are several councilors I hope to see lose re-election. Not going into names here but some of you know who they are.
With all of this rehashing of the charter fight, it’s good to remember that both sides put forth arguments that were self-serving, depending on their perspective. Both sides wanted to win but had disparate members who wanted to win for different reasons.
In my opinion, the charter proposal lost because it eliminated Ward elected counselors. It was that simple.
The city council did go on to vote on 8+8 like promised and the mayor refused to sign it as promised. Someome brought it up this year but it didn’t go anywhere. So that question can be dropped.
Reducing the number of councilors seems to be a popular idea but getting there would mean residents, the city council and the mayor would have to agree, or come close, on the best way to do it. Critical decisions everyone needs to understand about how the 24 member council divides its workload now, what each committee handles, what could be better and more quickly done by another group, etc. were left hanging in the charter proposal to be decided by the new council. Things like that are stress inducing.
All of the above would need to know more about how things would work with a smaller council. I don’t think getting rid of Ward councilors would ever work. I don’t think 16 is too big, not when we’ve had 24 for all these years. Nor do I think the 8+8 recommendation is the right ratio of Ward elected to at large.
This decision is more complicated than a group saying what is best and just going with it. It needs more people studying, without a deadline, what the council does now, explaining how things could be changed with residents weighing in on what’s important to them. No one should feel left out or taken advantage of – it needs to bring all ideas out into the open and then a final decision made using all input. Not everyone will be happy but no one will feel their ideas weren’t taken into account either.
@Greg: Stop trying to rewrite history. The Councilors put forth the 8+8 proposal as promised and we had 17 votes in favor of it. Setti Warren refused to sign it and I believe our current Mayor said she wouldn’t support it as well so stop trying to make up your own facts. 17 Councilors voted to reduce the size of the council to 16 – 8 Ward and 8 at-large.
Marti — Thanks for the thoughtful summary.
Our there any members of the City Council willing to put forth the 8-8 proposal for a vote? I agree with Greg that there was a clear commitment by the No campaign to advance the 8-8 proposal if the Charter Commission proposal went down.
Actually Peter I believe the No campaign employed 8/8 as a successful campaign strategy but nothing more. It never had a chance of actually happening and still doesn’t
In the next election, I would support the councilors who would propose and vote for the 8-8 structure.
Why not Greg? The barrier cited a 100 times on this blog was that the council never had and never would vote to downsize itself, which it did. Is the problem that you don’t think we’d elect a mayor or state legislators that would support advancing an 8-8 model?
Here is a story of a similarly sized city outside Seattle (who also recently went to a district model) where voters just approve moving to district representation from an all at large model after a successful LOWV effort there.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/everett-voters-say-yes-to-city-council-districts/?fbclid=IwAR2_K2cezJyc6dU7ZqK8pXWrGQZhBxF6s6TsA590XbSrCLn1YKbQwsPjblo
Jack: For starters you had a sitting mayor and two mayoral candidates who supported the thoughtfully considered charter proposal instead and never endorsed 8/8. That in of itself was a substantial barrier that would have given any city councilor who was willing to put their name on it (but didn’t really want it to actually happen because they preferred 24) the comfort knowing it would not advance.
And I don’t know this for a fact but I suspect that our state house delegation would never have been persuaded to support it either.
But again Jack, no need to be defensive, it worked perfectly for the no campaign. 8/8 was a bad idea but a great campaign tactic.
Thanks Greg — Just looking for where it was stated by you, the mayor, or the YES campaign that the previous Mayor would not sign it prior to December 2018. Couldn’t that have put the whole “strategy” to bed immediately in September?
While some councilors supported the charter and subsequently supported 8-8 on the basis of size reduction, it became clear after the election that YES supported 12 at-large or the current 24 over a smaller 8-8 due to a preference to minimize local representation and voice, particularly as it might be speculated to impact development decisions.
In any case, there is some solace in one particular quote from the Everett news article as it relates to a label used in an earlier comment in this thread.
@Greg: Good thing this is not a “news” blog because you continue to make up your own facts. As promised, 17 Councilors voted to reduce the size of the council to 8 at-large and 8 ward and that passed the Council. The sitting Mayor was the one who refused to sign it and the current Mayor also said she opposed it. The Councilors kept their promise.
Let’s be honest about the 8/8. A halfhearted, lame duck attempt to reduce the size of the council; at a time when it was known that it had no chance of becoming law; after a hard fought, divisive campaign about a complicated issue, made more so by numerous competing visions; brought up when most people were probably tired of it all; when we don’t really know what people want besides (perhaps) their ward councilor; and its conspicuous disappearance since last fall; taken altogether, it wasn’t much of a promise.
From the Committee Report: Councilor Baker clarified that should this item be advanced, it would be requesting that the item go on the next municipal election ballot in 2019. The state election in 2018 allows early voting for the state ballot, but would not allow it for the required separate municipal ballot. This could cause some confusion and/or result in a lower voter turnout if voters need to go to the polls twice. The Committee agreed to include language in the Home Rule Legislation for the 2019 ballot. They also agreed to include language that would not allow the state legislature to change any language to the Home Rule Petition.
Had the 8-8 proposal been signed by the Mayor, it would have gone to the Legislature and then to the voters for this past state election.
Apparently, no issue about early voting and the municipal ballot for the marijuana questions – but only a potential problem if the question is to reduce the size of the Council with the 8-8 model.
@Amy: You are missing my point (although “Ted” gets it). It’s not that 17 councilors didn’t keep their promise to support it, it’s that 8/8 stood no chance of advancing beyond the council. That made it easy for any councilor to be on the record as supportive without fear of 8/8 ever becoming a reality.
Oops – correction – “Had the 808 proposal been signed by the Mayor, it would have gone to the Legislature and then to the voters for the next municipal – not state – election.”
I’m waiting for Emily Norton to docket the 8-8 proposal which she committed to during the Charter Commission campaign.
The voters of Newton have made their views known many times that they want a smaller City Council. We need some leadership on this issue also known as political courage.
Peter, According to the Patch in August, 2018, Councilor Norton planned to conduct a poll asking residents if they are interested in reducing the size of the city council.
“I really just kind of wanted to see how many people support what. It’s not a scientific poll,” she said.
Depending on the outcome on the poll —and interest — Norton said she would consider trying to bring it back to the city council and vote on it again.
“I’m not going to waste my time. But if there’s enough citizens support then I would definitely try to do it,” she said.
But as Jack pointed out, the current city council is unlikely to vote for the 8+8 composition.
What Greg and Ted said. Not the council’s finest hour.
@Greg — Again — when were Newton residents informed by the mayor and the YES campaign that he would stop it? That would have been a very simple way to stop this “strategy” in its tracks in September.
I personally naively thought that a mayor and YES campaign that promised that a smaller all at-large council that “retained local representation” (talk about Orwellian) was better than current 24 and 50% bigger than 8-8, would see 8-8 as a partial win. The mayor had an approved proposal in his hands in December and could have advanced it with the council having no way to take it back. Send me a check for $1000. I assure you I probably won’t cash it.
@Peter — the composition of the council has changed. I don’t think that a majority of this council is willing to give the 8-8 choice to Newton residents.
Jack, in early November, 2017.
From Mayor Warren, Nov, 2017
Dear City Councilors,
I am writing to share my thoughts on docket item #313-17 that will be taken up at Programs and Services this evening.
I believe that the City needs additional time and engagement on this topic. We are just coming out of the recent election in which residents rejected the proposed changes to the size and composition of the City Council by voting “No” on the charter reform ballot question.
This conversation we are having about the City Council is critical and I believe this topic should be discussed thoroughly over the next several months with robust resident engagement.
Therefore, I cannot support this docket item. If the item is voted out affirmatively by the City Council, I will not give it my affirmation.
I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you,
Mayor Setti Warren
@marti Bowen – thanks for digging that out.
Jack and Marti – I will not support any member of the current Council for re-election in 2019 without a firm commitment to the 8-8 proposal. I believe this will emerge as a major campaign issue next year.
@Marti — Thanks — Yes November 16th: http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20171116/warren-pledges-to-not-sign-8amp8-city-council-plan-despite-committee-approval
After the election and after it was clear council was going to follow through on its commitment and pass it. Basically, the voters can’t be trusted to make the right choice on this…
Jack and Amy,
While you’re frantically digging up old articles and threads, please dig up some documentation of when the No campaign, or any city councilor who voted in favor of the October Surprise, attempted to *make sure voters understood* that the City Council didn’t have the power to file the home rule petition without the mayor’s approval.
Telling the voters that they had a third option, rather than telling them that they *might* have a third option if the mayor signed on (and that no one had conferred with the mayor!), was dishonest and absolutely swung the election.
You insist that “the councilors kept their promise”. The promise was to file a home rule petition for a 16-member council. It was a false promise because the Council didn’t have the power to deliver it, and they lied (by omission) to voters about that. Of course you had a major assist…Andy Levin, both in front page reporting and in editorial, failed to mention that the “third option” was not guaranteed. A dark chapter in Newton’s history.
@Rhaana — The No campaign was quite clear on the process (see below) from the very beginning, right here on V14 on 9/25/2018:
https://village14.com/2017/09/25/majority-of-city-councilors-co-sponsor-a-plan-for-downsizing-the-council/#axzz5Wyxq14ar
“The Home Rule proposal is co-sponsored by Councilors Brousal-Glaser, Blazar, Ciccone, Cote, Danberg, Harney, Kalis, Lappin, Laredo, Lipof, Norton, Rice, Sangiolo, and Schwartz. As noted in the TAB, the proposal is expected to be heard by the City Council’s Programs and Services Committee early next month. The next step would be approval by the entire City Council, which seems likely because the legislation is co-sponsored by a majority of the Council. If approved by the Council, it then goes to the Mayor, the state legislature, and finally to Newton voters for approval at each step.”
I recall quite clearly the moment when it occurred to me that the Mayor might not pass on a proposal from a supermajority of the council to the voters after the charter was defeated. It was well after the election. Even then, it wasn’t clear it couldn’t be overridden until that was clarified.
Thank you, Jack. You make my point perfectly. You say you didn’t understand the home rule petition legislation until *after* the election. Yet you and the No campaign told voters to choose No on the ballot question so Newton could have the “third option”, which was actually not a viable option.
Whether you misled voters intentionally or out of ignorance doesn’t matter. Neither is acceptable. (The home rule petition language is actually very clear, and I know that at least some of the city councilors who supported the petition understood.)
Writing “it then goes to the mayor” in a blog thread is not evidence that your campaign actively informed voters that the 16-member-council petition was not guaranteed. The Yes campaign knocked thousands of doors. I can assure you that voters did not understand.
Perhaps I owe Jack an apology since it seems he naively did not know how hard it would be to get the home rule petition out the door. But Rhanna is right; Surely there were city councilors who understood; including the no campaign’s committee chair. And yes, my friend Andy Levin should have done a better job explaining this to TAB readers and he could have asked then-Mayor Warren to go on the record on whether he would sign the home rule petition.
Well stated, Greg.
While we’re on the subject…@Peter Karg, please spend some time to understand how bad the “8-8” proposal would be for Newton.
16 is still WAY too big. It’s 60% bigger than the average of cities our size in MA, so it won’t solve the some of the biggest problems with our current council. And in Newton, ward councilors have always made up only 1/3 of the council. Shifting to a council with 50% ward councilors would be a drastic change with potential for very negative consequences.
There’s a reason why state law allows 18 months for a commission to revise a charter. City council structure is a wonky subject and it takes time to study the significant tradeoffs of various alternatives. The last thing you want is a city council proposal pulled out of the air.
Newton’s current structure is awful—it defies best practices in many ways—so to use that is a starting point is a recipe for disaster. Become educated and then start from scratch…design a council of functional size and healthy composition.
Rhanna, again with the preaching to residents what is best for Newton. This attitude was a major detriment to the charter commission’s presentation of why the city council should be the size and makeup chosen. The charter commission is over and now you are just presenting your opinions as a citizen.
18 months to study the entire charter of Newton wasn’t enough time when it came to changing the composition of the city. council. 16 members is “WAY to big” in your opinion – to many residents it’s a big reduction from 24.
Without residents understanding exactly what the council’s duties are now, including in committees, and how those duties would be handled differently in a smaller council, a stressful complication arose. Voters cannot make decisions without knowledge. Newton voters will not make decisions just because some commission says it has the knowledge so voters don’t need it to vote.
Residents need to take part in the process – more so than just speaking at commission meetings. They need to understand how the council functions not just as a legislative body, what requires a special permit, how small, specific , special permits are handled, how parking ticket appeals are handled and more. Then they need to understand and take part in deciding how the city council will function when smaller.
Ward- elected councilors are here to stay. That was the biggest takeaway from that discussion and vote.
The councilors did follow through on their promise to vote for 8+8 but after they knew in writing that the mayor would not sign on so their was no hope of a home rule petition moving forward to the legislature.
@Rhanna & @Greg — We understood the process, just not that the mayor’s last act as an elected official would to act to deny Newton residents the opportunity to vote 8-8 up or down. That decision rests entirely with the mayor and those that supported his decision. Not the councilors and not the NO campaign.
As for 8-8 stats, going back to earlier summary from September 2017 on the blog:
1. Reduces council size from 24 to 16 and election ballots from 17 to 9 races (vs. charter’s 12)
2. Maintains accountable ward-elected representatives (vs. charter’s none)
3. Maintains geographical balance with 2 resident councilors in each ward. (vs. charter’s 5:1 geographic imbalance potential)
4. Allows non-incumbents to meet nearly all their constituients for half of seats (vs. cost and impersonal nature of 100% citywide)
5. Ensures head to head match ups and reduces uncontested elections (vs. charter’s 1/3 slate)
6. Compatible with existing committee structures (vs. charter likely move to more paid staff and higher council pay )
7. Matches local representation practices of state and national legislatures (vs. charter’s none)
8. Matches local representation practices of 341 of 351 Mass communities (vs. charter’s none)
38 of the 56 City Councils in MA (68%) have MAJORITY local representation compared with 1:1 in this legislation. In contrast, the charter proposal puts us in a tie for last with no local representation.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qd9kJC4D5IZrH7JGkbaGdr24HJv2JXSQ29XulnjkC8w/edit#gid=1975493858
@Rhanna Kidwell – The present composition of the Council is broken. Having 16 Councilors instead of 24 would still be an improvement. The problem was the Charter Commission substantially overreached and was tone deaf to preserving Ward representation. As a result, the entire proposal went down to defeat and we got nothing! I agree with the opinion offered by Marti. So 8-8 now would be a fair compromise.
US Representative Niki Tsongas out last week with others promoting the [insert labels here] idea that all at-large city councils deny minorities equal representation:
http://www.lowellsun.com/opinion/ci_32295131/lowells-voting-rights-challenge-is-opportunity-positive-change