It’s become more evident that our local government is not as transparent as it thinks it is. Think about NewCAL or the discussions on salary increases for elected officials. Present and former City Councilors have their own newsletters and organizations highlight certain issues for their members, but these cannot substitute for official information from and about our elected officials.
What suggestions do you have to increase transparency?
I have made transparency and campaign finance reform a key issue in my campaign for City Council. Here are a few of the suggestions I have been talking about:
– Municipal lobbying – we have a municipal lobbying ordinance without any penalties. Nobody has ever registered. We have a right to know who’s being paid to lobby the council. That’s why I’m voluntarily refusing donations from people I consider municipal lobbyists or developers.
– Votes of Councilors and School Committee – it is painstakingly difficult to find out how your elected officials are voting. Ordinances should be numbered and easily tracked on the website. You have a right to know how your officials vote without combing through hours and hours of audio tapes.
– public comment – I have for years advocated for better public comment policies. We should require all public bodies to hold public comment at least once a year, and each public body should have a public comment policy posted with their meeting notices. You have a right to know at what time and under what conditions you will be allowed to speak. Waiting 2 hours to speak when you have kids at home isn’t right. We can do better.
Well certainly not the Mayor’s newsletter or her weekly “From the Mayor’s Office” submittal in the Tab which I view more as PR than factual based news.
The best vehicle would be if the city posts timely and regular minutes from all city meetings including any working groups that may not be required to do so.
1. The city could learn from the federal government on their rule-making processes. Public comments to federal agencies about new rules are collated and summarized, and the government has to respond to these concerns and either accept or reject with their reasoning before making new rules. The same could be done with new ordinances in Newton.
2. Written comments should have the same weight as public comments at meetings. Bryan is right that attending interminable public meetings just to state your position is a huge burden. City Councilors complain, correctly, that is it often a loud minority that show up to make comments when the majority may feel differently. This could change if making comments that were actually listened to was less onerous.
3. It should be easier to get access to deliberations of public officials. Elected officials are required to communicate through their municipal email, but getting access to this is difficult. I was once quoted over $1000 to get a search of elected officials about one issue over a limited period of time. If you can’t reasonably access city correspondence, then the idea of open public records is a sham.
Here is may way, as example, to endeavor to insure transparency on NewCAL — the most recent of a number of email exchanges between the City (Mayor and City Solicitor) and me (hope Village 14 will indulge to allow me to copy them here for the purposes of information and transparency):
* * * * * *
August 21, 2019
Alissa O. Giuliani
Newton City Solicitor
Dear Ms. Giuliani,
Thank you for getting back and continuing the occasion of using our e-exchanges in order to keep City Council up to date. Thank you also for following up on the Mayor’s August 13th Albemarle NewCAL Notice. The Mayor does state in her notice, “In the coming weeks and months, the City will work with many stakeholders to CONFIRM [Albemarle] is the right site and to develop the site plan with the help of the architectural team. … While the Albemarle site will be discussed at length, the City will continue to consider non-city-owned sites UNTIL A FINAL PROPOSAL IS SENT to the City Council.” (emphasis added)
It appears then, at this stage, the City Administration is addressing the question of NewCAL siting essentially as being Albemarle Park versus a yet unidentified non-city-owned site. This generates a number of questions for which I know many Newton residents would like response, either from your office or the Mayor:
1. Why are city-owned non-park sites (or combination of sites) being excluded from consideration? I’m aware that there have been a number of suggestions from the public.
2. As to non-city-owned sites being considered, will the public be informed along the way as to which sites those are or may be? Again, I’m aware that there have been a number of suggestions from the public.
3. How can sites currently be assessed since the scope of NewCAL has yet to be determined and/or confirmed, which has great bearing as to a site or combination of sites? For instance, the Albemarle proposal is NOT really a Senior Center; it IS a major athletic complex with apparently a few side rooms reserved for senior use and activities which may take priority when there is conflict with non-senior use, which leads to a fourth question.
4. Will alternative scopes for the proposed project be considered and reviewed, and if so, will a process be established in order that the public be informed and involved for input along the way in reaching a final decision as to scope, so that a repeat of the current “Save Newton’s Parks [from NewCAL]” petition will not be necessary, already garnering well over 5,000 signatures (and growing), https://www.change.org/p/mayor-ruthanne-fuller-save-newton-s-parks
The earliest attention to these questions by either your office or the Mayor I know will be greatly appreciated by many throughout Newton. This can be conveyed through email to me, or by some public announcement by the Mayor.
Thank you,
Jim Epstein
cc:
Mayor Fuller
Newton City Council
* * * * * *
Dear Mr. Epstein:
Thank you for your email. I assure you that the City’s analysis of the law as it will apply to the NewCAL project will be thorough and complete. At this preliminary stage, the NewCAL Working Group has announced a recommendation that the Mayor consider the Albemarle-Gath Pool as the most adequate city-owned site for the NewCAL project. The “Mayor’s Update” dated August 13th outlined the Working Group’s analysis for site selection and noted that she will consider this site along with other non-city-owned sites until she sends a final proposal to the City Council.
The Law Department is aware of the statutes, regulations and law that apply to projects of this nature and will advise the City accordingly as the details of the project come to light.
Thanks again for your email and bringing your concerns to my attention.
Alissa O. Giuliani
Two thoughts:
An expanded version of David Olsen’s weekly bulletin would be helpful (not to give David more work!)
A more objective source for disseminated information. The Globe’s expanded coverage of local news has great potential if it doesn’t overfocus on the development issue. While that’s very important, no other issues have been thoroughly covered for several years.
The senior center is the perfect example of what happens when one issue dominates the community discourse. It was given an acronym that gave no indication as to the expanded scope of the facility, and there wasn’t an objective news source to explain/cover it. As a result, people who otherwise would have paid attention, attended meetings, or provided input had no idea it was happening. Imagine if one of Gail’s students had been assigned to follow that story from the beginning.
The same thing happens with the city council. I receive newsletters from a number of councilors and like and appreciate all of them. However, each councilor has a different approach, which is also great, but the council and the school committee need an objective source to report what’s happening.
Once again, I am quite confident that we’re going in the right direction with the new connection with the Globe. I’ve been an off and on subscriber, was about to cancel again, but this initiative gives me reason to keep my subscription.
Jane, with all due respect, if the Globe extends the manner of its current ‘reporting’ on national issues, to Newton’s local issues, one could hardly expect objectivity. Its leftward tilt (‘news’ not merely editorials) is more than well recognized.
The city needs to find a way to prevent or at least disclose in advance the amount of money that corporate interests spend on local elections. The two cannabis companies that have received licenses for stores disclosed AFTER the election that they spent over $328,000 to influence the vote on the 2018 marijuana ballot questions. There is no telling how much they spent lobbying elected officials prior to that since disclosure on lobbying is not required.
Regardless of how you feel about the outcome of that election, nobody should be proud of that lack of transparency or the convoluted structure of the questions that our elected officials came up with after all of that lobbying.
Jim, I understand your concern about the Globe, which is very much caught up in the hysteria of the times. It has always been a paper of the left, but I agree the Globe (in sync with the NYT, Washington Post and most other major papers) has really amped up the partisan rhetoric during the Trump years.
That said, I still subscribe and read stories in the Globe several times a day. The Sports section is still a very good (though no longer great) source, the majority of the Op-ed pages not so much.
But that’s life in Massachusetts, in Boston, in Newton. It’s tough to be a conservative here. (Some would say it is tough to be a “liberal.)
Where I disagree with you is regarding the Globe’s expanded Newton coverage. I think the Globe does a decent job (especially considering its staff size) covering state/regional news.
Local issues don’t break down along national Red/Blue, left-right lines. That’s what I always found fascinating during my time in the newsroom.
For example: What is the “conservative” position on development in Newton? The answer is not so clear. Overrides? Also debatable.
Local news is just different that way. Any eyes and ears we can get on local government here has to be viewed as a good thing, even if these reporters are fledglings. And knowing Gail, they will be focusing on City Hall and the schools, which is where our money is spent, our quality of life determined.
I think we have to wish Gail and the Globe great success with this.
I’m glad Sarah [above] raised the the issue of transparency as it pertains to cannabis reform. She suggests some nefarious intent on the part of the pro cannabis side because most of the spending was reported “AFTER the election.” Just to be clear, that timeline was dictated by law, not any individual, group or company. All pro legalization parties complied with election laws…
BUT, the elected officials in city government did deliberately cover-up their efforts to reverse the outcome of the November 2016 ballot initiative…
Setti Warren quietly appointed a special commission to block implementation of the voter approved law. The commission was chaired by City Councilor Greg Schwartz. When Mayor Fuller took office in January 2018, she kept the commission intact. They worked in secret, with no members of the public or press in attendance. They refused repeated request to release their minutes and notes. Their work provided the foundation for the short-lived moratorium that the City Council passed without a single dissenting vote…
We cannot allow secret commissions in Newton government. Once again, I’m calling on Mayor Fuller to release all the minutes, notes and documents from the secret commission she used to block cannabis reform. There is no transparency when government operates behind locked doors.
Andy, you make some good points, but in at least two of perhaps the most topical/controversial local concerns, in my experience there remains a largely left-right breakdown (at least over the last few years):
1. Generally liberals favor the introduction of building more massive affordable housing (employing 8(a) and other avenues), often to the perceived detriment of the surrounding existing local community in terms of traditional Newton quality of life and aesthetics, density, traffic, etc., while conservatives are generally opposed.
2. Generally liberals favor the introduction of Islamic history, culture and teaching in the Newton Public Schools casting Israel in an unfavorable light, while conservatives are generally opposed.
There may be more but I’ll stop there.
…and Andy, I will add that on Overrides there is most definitely a left-right breakdown, liberals for and conservatives against.
Jim:
Wouldn’t the conservative take be that the free market should dictate development? If you are opposed to governmental regulations on the Federal level and state level, why are you not opposed to zoning regulations that make it harder for property owners to sell property? Wouldn’t the consistent position be to let the free market in each case exist with marginal supervision and top down imposed regulation? For the record, I wouldn’t want that at all, but I’ve often been struck by the disconnect.
As for the Globe, what is your preference Jim? That there be no newspaper at all? You’ve posted on multiple threads that you feel the Globe is too left leaning, but you don’t really deal with the reality of the situation. If not the Globe, then who? At least the Globe is a way of getting the word out on major issues.
“Generally liberals favor the introduction of building more massive affordable housing (employing 8(a) and other avenues), often to the perceived detriment of the surrounding existing local community”
Not this liberal, nor for example Councilor Norton.
I think your points are off mark by quite a bit.
Fig,
1. Who said I was a conservative or liberal when it comes to “development”?
2. Who said I was “opposed to government regulations” (or all governmental regulations)?
3. Who said zoning regulations “make it harder for property owners to sell property”? (Seems the opposite is the case for residential property, protected by zoning, in Newton.)
4. Who says I am or must be, or one must be, consistent, or always consistent? (“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”.)
5. Who says the above is or must be, or I am, in disconnect (apparently for a lack of “consistency” as you see it)?
6. What posting on “multiple threads” re the Globe, only posted on the thread introducing the Globe Newton’s expansion and this thread where someone else raised the Globe?
7. The Globe “getting the word out” (when/if with half truths, misleading statements, omission of selected facts, and bias) is not what many, or I, would call “getting the word out on major issues.”
8. Who said that I was in favor of no newspaper at all? If the Globe would accurately label what it calls ‘news’ but which actually is laced with liberal bias, as “opinion” or “editorial opinion” that would be fine.
Hmmm, 8 false statements or assumptions attributed to me, in one short post. Good show Fig.
Rick, I said “generally”, not always, so you certainly (at least by your post) have not shown either that my “points are off mark” or “off mark by quite a bit”.
An easy way to find City Council votes (and how each Councilor present voted) is to look at the “Council Actions” the day after a full Council meeting. This can be found on the City Council website under City Council Meetings. The actions list the votes of every item. Hope that’s helpful.
Jim, I would also argue that a “conservative” opinion would be in favor of development and growth, including housing of all types. And restrictive zoning could be seen as anti-growth.
You definitely have a point about overrides, but I believe sometimes they are needed. Thankfully, Newton has been pretty “conservative” about seeking them, unlike, say, Brookline, which relies on them.
I thought the Globe did a pretty fair job covering the whole NPS history curriculum issue. I’m sure both sides were displeased, which is often a sign of balanced coverage.
@Karyn – That does work for some votes. But it is in PDFs that aren’t searchable with google or on the website. So unless you look through each individual one and know the exact dates the item you’re looking for was voted on, it is a needle in a haystack.
Andy, re development, the interesting thing is that in recent years (especially in Newton) regulations, statutes, policy directives, state incentives, etc. (let’s say “liberal” things) are actually requiring or encouraging certain denser housing and quota number 8(a) housing developments, and if things were let alone to the market and resident preference, the existing housing stock and pattern of preferred in most cases, residential character, would prevail and be conserved.
And as a keen observer of the NPS situation, the pro-Israel (and by that I don’t mean ADL and such organizations really providing the opposite of pro-Israel support in the schools) has essentially been dismissed in the Globe and local news sources as a small number of reactionary extremists and crazies.
Woops, in the above comment I should have said 40(b) housing, not 8(a) housing.
@all: It’s important to note that Councilor Norton and myself docketed an item, in this term, on having Lobbyist register with the City. Upon this item reaching the committee for action it was discovered that the City had an existing ordinance that addressed the item, but under different terminology. The State does not require Municipal registration, unless its a statewide matter, though the Marijuana industry flagrantly lobbied for a favorable vote in the 2018 election and did not register. My belief is the Lobby docket item was not popular given the Councils stated goal to keep the Marijuana question off the 2018 ballot. @Bryan is correct this is an ordinance with no teeth, and this is not forgotten, we are just awaiting revisions that will satisfy the entire Council.
On the Municpal elected official compensation: The actions against this compensation by the LWV escapes me as all I can understand by their comments is that their membership has not read the ordinance, and didn’t read the Law departments rulings on what comp could be changed. What the LWV is promoting is not legal under City ordinances. In previous V14 threads on this item it was apparent that this action has been totally transparent and follows the law, and that the LWV discovered communications channels that were available to them, but ones they hadn’t researched.
Since fair compensation would attract City Council candidates, a goal of the LWV, one would think they would be advocates and assist the process.
LWV you can disupte this comment but please read the ordinance first.
Jim:
I appreciate your posting dedication (you post a lot!), but I gotta disagree with you on my last post. Nothing in my post above was a false statement, and I’m not assuming anything about you, I’m asking questions to start a conversation. Instead of answering them, you got defensive and spent a bunch of time attacking my post that tried to start a discussion, trying to turn it into something it was not. I don’t think that was productive.
Let me say post it again:
Wouldn’t the conservative take be that the free market should dictate development? If you are opposed to governmental regulations on the Federal level and state level, why are you not opposed to zoning regulations that make it harder for property owners to sell property? Wouldn’t the consistent position be to let the free market in each case exist with marginal supervision and top down imposed regulation? For the record, I wouldn’t want that at all, but I’ve often been struck by the disconnect.
As for the Globe, what is your preference Jim? That there be no newspaper at all? You’ve posted on multiple threads that you feel the Globe is too left leaning, but you don’t really deal with the reality of the situation. If not the Globe, then who? At least the Globe is a way of getting the word out on major issues.”
I don’t think any of the above is a false statement, especially since almost all of it was questions (which you didn’t actually answer.) You complained in another thread that folks/liberals don’t want to engage with you in a debate of ideas, but then when I start this discussion, you spend your time cataloging injuries and responding to questions with questions. Perhaps no one wants to engage with you on a discussion of ideas because you aren’t actually interested in discussing ideas? Half of these things don’t have right/wrong answers anyway.
I’m happy to talk local issues with anyone. But I’d prefer a real discussion, and I’ve certainly had them with folks I disagree with on this blog. I have them with Mike/Amy/Rick and others all the time. Let’s both try again instead of sniping back and forth.
How about we start with just one question (and I’ll give you my answer, you then give me yours and if it works well we can reverse): What issue would you like the new Globe Newton to cover, that the local media or the Globe has not covered enough to date in your view? (mine would be why Newton’s special education system challenges so many requests for IEPs and 504 plans, forcing parents to spend thousands to justify additional services to try and keep special education costs down, and why such challenges I’ve been told are fewer on the South Side).
For the record, I think search for topics would make a great new post and might give the new Globe students some ideas. Gail, any objections?
ps. Anything more than one is a multitude. That’s just science. 😉
pps. Jim, I agree with on the compensation question. We should be paying you more.
That last one was for Jim Cote, not Jim Epstein.
About the salary issue, LWVN isn’t taking a position on the merits of a salary increase. It is saying that the process has not been transparent enough and that there is a rush to approve it by September 30 without a chance for the public to weigh in on a final proposal. (What is the final proposal?)
LWVN is also not ‘promoting’ anything illegal. The Blue Ribbon Commission felt that there was more room to explore the structure it proposed than the City lawyers did and so went with its proposal anyway. Maybe it’s worth more of a look—or at least a question to the Chairs about why they decided to stick with it. Again, it’s an issue of transparency—and taking the time to be thorough.
It would be great if every councilor newsletter put in whatever the current salary proposal is or will be and ask for feedback. Or even to let constituents know this is being discussed.
FYI, the City Council newsletter did not list that there had been a public hearing in July or that the comments by the public and the discussion by the councilors were available. If you knew when it was, you could go to the notes, but if you perused the email, it wasn’t listed with the other docket items. Just saying…
Fig, your ‘questions’ were based on presumptions and assumptions and were leading or suggesting, such that each question/sentence started with “wouldn’t? “, “why are you not?”, “”wouldn’t?” again, and then asking an unfounded and/or presuming “preference” (albeit perhaps rhetorical), and then saying I don’t “deal with the reality of the situation” in my “feeling” that, e.g., the Globe has a leftward bias, and then asking a question re “if not the Globe, then who?”, and then concluding with either a misleading or unfounded statement and/or assumption, again begging the question.
And after all that, you continue with the very same tact in your follow up posting, asking questions, “wouldn’t?”, “why am I not?”, “wouldn’t?”, “what is my preference?”, and again with “I don’t deal with the reality of the situation”, and again with “if not the Globe then who?”, but at least then you admit that what you post is “almost all questions” and on and on, and then more questions.
THAT is not discussion, it is a way precisely to avoid discussion. Rather than ask question after question, simply state your substantive positions in response to my substantive positions — and we can go from there, presumably not on these threads since this must seem quite tedious to other readers.
BTW, no defensiveness here, perhaps that is projection.
jim, after rereading our exchange it feels like we are going in circles. I think I’ll just let you have the last word and move on to a different conversation.
Be well and have a nice night.
concur
@Fig: Sorry Fig, I wasn’t responding to your post when I wrote my post on the Lobby Piece and the Elected official Comp.
Your analysis’ are usually right on, I was responding to the overall theme of the post on transparency and elected officials.
@Sue: The ordinance dictates the timing, please check it out, and the meetings have been as open as could possibly be. As far as end stipend numbers, nothing is fact, nor has been discussed beyond what you’ve heard in the publics meetings (plural).
Sue – I followed the Blue Ribbon Commission deliberations throughout the process and knew about the public hearing. In addition, at the beginning of the process, Councilor Laredo announced the name and mission of the Commission and it was put on Village 14 as I recall. I’d describe this Commission as one of the more transparent.
I’m on a lot of lists and it’s hard to keep track of /remember who sends out what. I applaud the people who make an effort to keep people informed, but we clearly need one objective source to disseminate information about what’s going on.
@Mike Striar, sorry you got the impression from my post that the marijuana companies were using “nefarious” means to influence the ballot question results. Unfortunately, everything they did, from spending over $328,000 on campaigning, to undisclosed lobbying of elected officials was perfectly legal. That’s exactly the problem. Newton should not be allowing that level of corporate influence in our government or elections regardless of what industry the companies are in.
I can’t comment on the transparency of the city council marijuana commission since I really wasn’t following it at that time. However your frequent characterization that there should not have been such a commission is not accurate since the law clearly gave some leeway to towns and cities to decide how they were going to implement marijuana retail, if at all.
@Sarah– The 2016 cannabis law gave towns the ability to “opt out” in a transparent way. It did not give public officials the right to form secret commissions that met behind closed doors and kept their notes hidden from the press and public.
Sarah-The complete dismissal of the efforts of RFSN in the effort to prevent a ban has become tiresome. Respect The Vote canvassed. RFSN made connections to thousands of people, canvassed, presented to many groups, and made the case publicly to the community through the use of MA regulations that the ban was not in Newton’s best interest.
Let’s be honest-it was Opt Out that lobbied the city council endlessly for months, didn’t realize that canvassing and connecting with the grassroots of the community was an essential part of a well run campaign, and that lawn signs don’t vote.
OON was the only group that began the campaign with a list of 6000 voters. Stop blaming other people for the failure of your campaign.
Jim Cote:
We are all good. I was only referring to the pps above. I was agreeing with you on the pay issue.
Sorry for the confusion!
Figgy
Sadly, I believe all levels of Newton government lack transparency. You are a very active group here, and would you guess that you represent 1-5% of Newton voters? I know fewer than that frequent this blog, but I’d guess you are the voices of the small percentage of people who are paying attention. Most Newton voters are busy living their lives, hoping that the local government is taking care of itself honorably. Spoiler Alert: It’s not. It’s shocking to see the bias, the secrecy and the agendas of our council members; school committee members included. The rules of comments and question and answer in a school committee meeting are nonsensical and that’s why citizens stop showing up. Watch one on TV sometime and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Whereas the majority of Newton believes that we have civic minded do-gooders in office, the reality is that once you start paying attention you wish you could close your eyes again. Go back to living in the matrix. Newton local government is as political as what we see in Washington. These people are political animals but on a smaller scale. Agendas, lobbying, manipulation of ballot questions, stacking committees – it’s all here. Too bad most of Newton isn’t paying attention and the rest are shouting into echo chambers.
@Casey, I agree that the public comment procedure is awkward. Not being able to respond is bizarre especially if you are part of the group being addressed. However, it’s actually because of transparency that we follow the guidelines. Open meeting laws are often seemingly annoying or cumbersome, but they are set up to ensure that nothing is hidden. In fact, our policy in Newton is less strict than other neighboring towns… Some of which only allow 15 minutes for public comment (we allow 30)
Fortunately you have a school committee that believes communication is just as important as transparency. Two years ago we started a newsletter which summarizes each meeting. We also pioneered Virtual Office Hours allowing for regular conversations with constituents.
Its more intriguing to think we run off behind closed doors for dirty dealings. But the truth is much more boring. We work our asses off, leave families at home and miss dinners because we really are just civic minded do-gooders. Except Krintzman….that one’s shifty.
Casey posts, “Newton local government is as political as what we see in Washington. These people are political animals but on a smaller scale. ”
WELL SAID!
The ‘NewCAL’ odyssey began and continues as a microcosm of that.