Jack Prior has written an insightful piece describing why the 2017 Charter battle is relevant today.
Why the Charter Battle in 2017 is relevant today
by Amy Sangiolo | Mar 3, 2021 | Newton | 49 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Jack and I have had multiple back and forths about this in 2017, and I think we’ve somewhat exhausted this conversation, but just for the record, one of Jack’s claims about violating the voter’s right act is the follows:
“They claimed their proposal was to reduce the size of the City Council, yet after its defeat, they successfully lobbied then-Mayor Setti Warren to veto a follow-up proposal, approved overwhelmingly by the City Council, to shrink the Council by a third. ”
Except what Jack doesn’t mention is that the proposal he is referring to did not just reduce the Council by a third, it reduced it that way by eliminated 8 at-large positions. The current system is 1/3 ward councilor, 2/3 at-large councilors. The ward councilors and Jack were very much opposed to eliminated the ward councilor positions, and that position clearly won the day. But the proposal to shrink the city council (but keep the ward councilors in full) that was later vetoed didn’t keep the same percentage of at-large vs ward councilor, and thereby increased the power of the ward councilors to a 50/50 split. You can argue the merits of that, but it certainly wasn’t non-political. The fact that it was vetoed might have had a little something to do with that. The folks advocating to shrink the council via that proposal were doing the same thing they accused the charter proponents of doing, basically politics by other means.
So we are where we are. Same super large council. Bryan and Tarik running. Same political arguments. Feels like deja vu all over again.
@Fignewtonville — An 8-8 council would have still been atypically unbalanced to at-large
membership. Most MA cities are majority ward-elected with most having 4 or fewer at-large seats and 6 or more ward seats.
The typical premise is that a few truly at-large (not ward restricted) seats are needed to allow for cases where multiple highly qualified individuals might hail from the same ward.
The 8-8 proposal was moving toward that norm both in size and composition. And the proposal was to put it in front of voters via home rule. Bryan did not want that to happen.
Jack, if you say so, but material change for Newton. And the rules are the rules. It was vetoed. The charter didn’t pass. The current council has no interest in putting it forward, and the current mayor has no interest in signing it.
I think your post is well-written (as always!) but I also think that for most voters this is an issue that doesn’t resonate anymore. The “no” on the charter campaign won. The ward councilors are saved. Bryan is running for an at-large position. What am I missing? I mean, I could go on and argue with you on your post, but really, didn’t we discuss this dozens of time in 2017?
Maybe I’m just getting lazy in my old age.
The Charter battle is why I will not vote for Barash. He campaigned hard to get rid of Ward Councilors which is a profoundly undemocratic move that benefitted developers who also happen to want to get rid of single family zoning. He then proceeded to run for an office that he believed should not exist. This strikes me as somewhere between hypocritical and lacking in integrity.
@Fig — I tried to spell out why it is relevant to revisit on numerous fronts given the race between Tarik and Bryan, so won’t repeat here. People can read for themselves. You are correct that we’ve certainly discussed a dozen times, but this does have updated information what is happening in the state.
As a side note, I happened upon the council meeting this week during the discussion of the use of CPA funds for the church tower. It was striking and refreshing how unpredictable the positions of the councilors were, and that the votes & discussion didn’t fall upon typical “party lines”.
I supported Jake for Congress because I found that he was thoughtful and sometimes unpredictable in his positions regardless of whether I agreed with him. This is what we need more of from the council, and I think Tarik’s election will promote that. I know of at least one issue where he comes down differently than I might, but I respect his rationale and thought process.
Jack, Fair enough on all points. It may just be that you and I have gone round and round too much, but others haven’t.
On your side note, I’m behind the times. Which church and how much?
Hi Amy,
As you know, I’ve been both a supporter of yours and a vocal opponent of the charter change proposal (Newton’s problem is not at-Large vs Ward councilors, it’s the fact that we have too many badly-configured wards). But there’s no insight here. It’s just a rehash and lengthy campaign ad. Of course if Jack wants to support Tarik for this reason and post on V14, more power to him, but don’t sell it as something it’s not.
Honestly, I can’t support anyone that wants a larger council and voted against the charter proposals. The 16 council proposal was arbitrary and was just a number thrown out there…16, really?? I was hoping for 11 or 13. I guess we should rethink the Mayors role, since he/she has the entire city…but I guess the city isn’t represented because he/she has the entire city as opposed to a ward (just making a point). And if you feel underrepresented go out and run for office or get involved in someone’s campaign. Don’t blame others, do something about it…or you can sit at home, write letters to the editor and complain (sounds familiar to me) been there done that, it doesnt work. Bottomline: If you feel underrepresented….Get involved.
Honestly, I have been involved for the past 4 or 5 years. My family participated in the Washington Street vision plan process. We have attended so many City Council meetings at City Hall and we have spoken at them. We have attended Community meetings. You get the point. It is for that very reason that I am voting for Tarik Lucas and John Oliver. I have never been involved in politics on a local level before. I have done zoom calls in the past month with several members of the City Council. The bottom line is that these issues affect my life and my family’s life. I want to have City Councilors on the council that represent the voices in my neighborhood and my community, so I don’t have to pay so much attention to what is going on. Thank you.
@Jack Prior “As a side note, I happened upon the council meeting this week during the discussion of the use of CPA funds for the church tower. It was striking and refreshing how unpredictable the positions of the councilors were, and that the votes & discussion didn’t fall upon typical “party lines”.
I was struck by the same thing
It’s difficult to grasp everything Jack is saying with just a single read. I reviewed it three times and found something new and revealing with each reading. It’s a brilliant synopsis of just how determined most members of the Charter Commission were to eliminate ward councilors. I can’t say for certain whether or not this position was decided before the review process even began, but this direction was certainly apparent after I had attended just a few of their regular open meetings. What irked me most was their false but determined effort to propagandize a 12 member at-large city council as being a boon to far greater inclusiveness in government when current and past history proves rather conclusively that at-large city councils have tended to encourage lavishly funded slate voting by the most powerful, well financed, interconnected and otherwise influential parts of the community. That’s essentially what happened here.
Jack is absolutely correct when he states that many of the same powerful forces aligning against Tarik Lucas in this current campaign are many of the same powerful forces that promoted what I consider to be an ill advised campaign to make radical, unwarranted changes to the way we elect our city councilors.
The Charter Commission overplayed its hand, the public sensed as much and went on to reject their proposal by a decisive margin. The tireless efforts of Tarik Lucas and the honest and positive way he relates to people did a lot to galvanize the opposition. That’s how I got to know and work with Tarik and that’s why I’m solidly with him now. Thank you again, Jack.
@Ralph: I don’t get it. You are upset with me for posting this? With all of the other stuff that’s been posted recently about the upcoming election? Jack is making a very interesting point, that the Charter vote is relevant in the Ward 2 race. And how cool is it, that Civil Rights Activist, Hubie Jones, is supporting Tarik because he believes Tarik will bring real diversity to the Council. Wow.
Bob, you are one of my favorite people in the city, but I’m curious who those powerful forces are you speak of? There are hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on these elections, but the vast majority of that is small donations, for all of the candidates. All 4 of these candidates seem to be running people powered campaigns, and all 4 don’t seem to be lacking in campaign funds (I don’t count David, since he isn’t running a typical campaign).
Your support of Tarik means a lot and speaks well of him. I just don’t think the charter commission means much now to folks. And a lot of the “powerful forces” you speak of are just normal folks who happen to disagree with you. I think you ceased to have your candidate be the underdog when a PAC that supports him raises $20,000 in a few hours. And slate voting is now a thing for both sides. It is just that the slate you don’t support got more votes the last time. That’s a powerful force (called democracy).
I do agree that Tarik is an excellent candidate, and that he relates to people in an honest and positive way. I genuinely like the guy, even if I’m not planning on voting for him.
@jack @bob You’ve both restored my faith in people.
The arrogance, injustice and blatant deception of that charter commission and specificly Bryan Barash is what woke me up to politics in Newton.
For me it’s never been about the issues It’s about honesty and fairness.
Amy:
So you are saying you are voting for Tarik then? Still making up your mind? LOL.
It was a good post. Maybe a little click-bait check out why my candidate is awesome, but that’s par for the course during election season.
@fig
“I just don’t think the charter commission means much now to folks.”
You don’t think a backhanded ploy to remove ward representation doesn’t matter much now to folks?
Are you kidding? What do you I think has fueled the negativity around everything Bryan has touched since then?
@Fig: I’m a full-fledged supporter of Tarik and welcome diversity on the Council.
Mike, I get that you are passionate about this issue, and it is certainly a frequent discussion on this forum. But if you approach 10 voters outside the polls and ask them to name their top 5 issues facing Newton, ward representation wouldn’t broach the top 20. Because you WON. Ward representation was saved! Huzzah!
You may not like the results but the charter commission was made up of a bunch of folks, not just Bryan. He almost beat an incumbent in Emily Norton in Ward 2 (52-48 is close in my book). I certainly understand that folks who backed the “No” campaign on the charter were upset with Bryan, and even more upset when he ran for the seat against Emily Norton. But it was 3 years ago! And he is running for an open at-large seat now. I just don’t think this issue moves the needle for most voters.
Could be completely wrong. Certainly not hearing that from my neighbors and friends in Newton, most of them are talking Covid, schools, the benches in Newtonville, best take-out spots, etc. Maybe folks are as passionate as you and will vote based on the charter commission. So not kidding.. but it is a special election so who knows?
Amy, I know. So is Bob. And Mike. And Jack. Tarik doesn’t lack for supporters. Some of my favorite folks that post here are Tarik supporters, including folks who can start threads like yourself.
@Fig the Charter Commission backers are definitely lobbying hard for Bryan. Is it due to the divide that was created from that effort or is it just that those who worked on that effort got to know Bryan I’m not sure. I got more emails than I can count from people who were involved telling me who I should vote for Bryan.
I gotta agree with @fignewtonville. This is a non-issue for a majority of voters. Of course that is an anecdotal conclusion- i.e. in all of my Byran/Tarik discussions the issue of the charter commission has never been raised. We ( Newton residents ) have a hard path in front of us to get the city back to some pre-covid state. I don’t believe the rehashing the “Charter Battle” is relevant to that task.
I am thinking that the charter comm bloc is the same as the pro-development (RA Fuller, Mark Dev et al) one. Has it evolved or was it always that way?
Whatever it is, there does seem to be a lack of independence in thought and voting among this group of city councilors and a concerted effort to increase their numbers. I wonder how much coaching and financial support Maddie and Bryan are getting from these councilors and the Green Newton folks.
It is similar to the tactics that we see in Congress to keep their party folks in line.
I was against the charter reform; I found the elimination of Ward representation to be a non-starter, not to mention bucking the trend of other municipalities across the state. So, I take Bryan Barash’s support of the “reform” seriously. On the other hand, I see it as a dead issue, not something that will be on the table with Barash on the Council.
On the other hand, I have never been able to bring myself to embrace Right Size Newton. Nothing the organization has done publicly has convinced me that it is more than an organized NIMBY group, rather than a group holding developers to account in the interest of the entire community (rather than some). I know there are arguments both ways, but that’s the conundrum I face: supporting someone who stood for a now-dead (I think) issue I oppose, or supporting someone who might take holding developers accountable beyond the responsible (which I support) into the reactionary (which I find anti-progressive and counter-productive).
Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of “Newton overwelmingly supported (voted for) Northland” posts float back up to to the top. You know who didn’t? Ward 5, Precinct 1! We voted against Northland. We also voted in support of Rena Getz for the Ward Councilor seat. And while she did not win, local voices matter!
Let’s call it what it is… the Charter Battle was an attempt to make it easier for the majority to reach super majority status. More of “us” and less of “them”. If their positions and endorsments were reversed, I would be voting Bryan and Maddie. But that is not the case. Marc, Emily, Chris and others lead a valiant effort to return our high schoolers to in-person. They showed leadership and political courage in their open letter to Mayor Fuller and the School Committee. They support Tarik and John. Also noticably absent on that open letter, were some of the majority Coucilors that have endorsed Tarik and John’s opponents. That has not gone unnoticed by Newton Parents.
The Charter Battle was about local, ward level representation, not the region or state. Does that mean we should ignore our role in regional, state or national issues? Of course not. But we have other levels of government for that. A vote for Tarik and John is a vote to put Newton on the forefront of our municipal priorities. And that my friends, is what was voted for by defeating the attempt to remove ward councilors.
Lately, I’ve been seeing a lot of “Newton overwelmingly supported (voted for) Northland” posts float back up to to the top. You know who didn’t? Ward 5, Precinct 1! We voted against Northland. We also voted in support of Rena Getz for the Ward Councilor seat. And while she did not win, local voices matter!
Let’s call it what it is… the Charter Battle was an attempt to make it easier for the majority to reach super majority status. More of “us” and less of “them”. If their positions and endorsments were reversed, I would be voting Bryan and Maddie. But that is not the case. Marc, Emily, Chris and others lead a valiant effort to return our high schoolers to in-person. They showed leadership and political courage in their open letter to Mayor Fuller and the School Committee. They support Tarik and John. Also noticably absent on that open letter, were some of the majority Coucilors that have endorsed Tarik and John’s opponents. That has not gone unnoticed by Newton Parents.
The Charter Battle was about local, ward level representation, not the region or state. Does that mean we should ignore our role in regional, state or national issues? Of course not. But we have other levels of government for that. A vote for Tarik and John is a vote to put Newton on the forefront of our municipal priorities. And that my friends, is what was voted for by defeating the attempt to remove ward councilors.
@doug – sticks and stones, my dude…. sticks and stones.
@jerry – FYI… didn’t meant to post twoice. The CAPTCHA is working sporadically. I noticed Bob did the same a few days ago as well. Do we really need the CAPTCHA? Cheers!
Rose,
I think a more fair question is:
To what extent have developers been bankrolling candidates, PACs, the mayor & other progressive organizations ?
Sounds like a boogeyman theory, but has it been disproven?
This guy claims northland spent 320k to try to convince residents to vote in their favor. Not illegal, but that’s a LOT of $$ to go up against.
https://blogs.harvard.edu/lamont/2020/02/29/as-sole-donor-of-the-yes-campaign-northlands-deep-pockets-try-to-steamroll-newtons-democracy/
Hi Matt- I caught that; the reason both got through is you added a line in the rewrite, rather than it being a true duplicate
(you’ll note I kept that version, and I’m happy to see Right Size prove me wrong, but I haven’t seen it over the last 3 years)
@Matt Lai – I’m not seeing how support for getting kids back in school has any connection to the charter reform or ward representation … particularly because the chair of the Charter Commission (Josh Krintzman) was one of the Councilors who signed the letter about the schools.
There are definitely policy differences between the candidates on some issues and they’re worth exploring and thinking about before we vote. I think trying to cast all decisions on all issues as a function of two fixed opposing teams is a real dead end. The anti-charter team doesn’t have a position on the plastic bag ban. The pro-charter team doesn’t have a position on building charging stations at Newton North.
We’ve seen how that has played out in national politics. The if-you’re-for-it-I-must-be-against-it mindset leads to gridlock – not just on the issues with big disagreements, but on all issues large and small.
Let’s take our issues one at a time unless they are clearly linked together.
Jerry, you hit on a point that brought me to the post– I have seen a lot of people equate the No on the charter crowd with Right Size, and the Yes crowd as “pro developer” (speaking of sticks and stones). It’s not that simple, and I’m certainly not that way.
That’s why I think, to the original point of this post, that the relevancy of the Charter reform push to this election is limited at best.
95% of the population doesn’t know who their councilors are. Out of the 5% that do, 90% wont be able to tell you who is a ward councilor or at large councilor or the difference between the two. At large councilors are there for the entire city, including their ward. If they arent helping out their ward, they should be voted out of office. Also, if a ward councilor isnt helping out with city wide issues he/she should be voted out. It’s all semantics. We are having 3 people doing what 1 person can do….this is so redundant. The Mayor handles the entire city and we need 24 councilors to do what they do….whatever….not my problem any longer.
@Amy — I’m just disappointed that you misrepresented it as insightful. I opened it expecting to learn something new, and there was nothing. It was just an advertisement.
@Ralph — I wrote this because the Tab inquired if I could support a statement in my Letter to the Editor regarding the pervasiveness of court challenges of all-at-large councils under the Voting Rights Act.
I was able to support it with a single link to the Department of Justice to their satisfaction, but I realized there was more detail to provide on how things are playing out locally. My V14 comment above links to at least 10 sources/news that are more recent than the charter defeat.
I don’t want to relitigate the charter debate, but it’s important to note that two opponents in the current race were key people on opposite sides of that debate, and it makes a lot of sense for voters now to take into consideration the roles those candidates played in it.
I think it’s also noteworthy that one candidate doesn’t want to be transparent about his role in it. How many candidates for elected office remove from their website any sign of their previous elected office?
In particular this one: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/01/26/metro/how-underrepresented-candidates-mass-communities-can-be-squelched-by-electoral-systems/
I think it’s important for both sides…I will never support anyone that voted and worked against cutting the size. Probably will never have an opportunity like that in our life times….I wont forget. Very short sighted.
Tom — The last opportunity for reducing the size of the council was the 8-8 home rule petition just over 3 years ago.
It was overwhelmingly supported by a normally veto-proof 17-6 majority of the city council, as well as by Tarik, and nearly all his supporters.
Unfortunately, it was successfully opposed by Bryan, and nearly all his supporters.
As a result, the council is 50% larger today than it otherwise might have been. So you be the judge of who lost the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
@doug I’m 100% with you on everything you say in this thread.
@fig Agreed that ward representation is no longer relevant. (Although @Jack Prior makes some great points to be considered)
The motivation behind my posting these past few weeks was not specifically about that issue, but about how Bryan conducted himself in that campaign.
I get a sense that Bryan his supporters think a new campaign should be a fresh new slate – That this should be a positive campaign focused on the issues – And that the issue of his character is negative campaigning.
In a community, you develop a reputation based on how you conduct yourself. It’s cumulative.
I believe Bryan has an aggressive,
progressive agenda that includes social engineering of many of our neighborhoods as quickly as possible.
I don’t believe he has any tolerance for moderation or interest in listening to residents with opposing views, both of which I think are critical traits for a city councilor.
I believe this because he is so quick to label anyone with a more moderate view as anti-housing.
I believe this because he was surprised that residents were so concerned about ward representation.
Bryan campaigns vigorously to shift power and influence away from Newton’s residents and toward city council so they can move faster on change.
When this special campaign began, I made a point to visit both campaign’s websites and noticed a stark difference between Bryan’s fight for progressive values and
Tarik’s Interest in hearing all sides of an issue.
Jack, the 8-8 configuration seemed to be put together haphazardly. The only goal was to save the ward councilors, you’re campaign was run by ward councilors who had something to gain/or lose in the race…while the charter commission many members were ex-elected officials who just wanted to improve the current system. The tag you guys put on them as pro-development, etc is insulting to them and laughable.
After the election, I was nervous that the commission wouldn’t make the necessary changes, like cut the size of the Board which was the main goal of the signature drive…instead they may have made too many changes. BUT, many of them had experience within the government and had nothing to gain or lose by making these changes, they did what these “experienced” people felt were best for the city government as neutral onlookers. This was a travesty.
Jack, the 8-8 configuration seemed to be put together haphazardly. The only goal was to save the ward councilors, you’re campaign was run by ward councilors who had something to gain/or lose in the race…while the charter commission many members were ex-elected officials who just wanted to improve the current system. The tag you guys put on them as pro-development, etc is insulting to them and laughable.
After the commission-election, I was nervous that the commission wouldn’t make the necessary changes, like cut the size of the Board which was the main goal of the signature drive…instead they may have made too many changes. BUT, many councilors had experience within the government and had nothing to gain or lose by making these changes, they did what these “experienced/neutral” people felt were best for the city government as neutral onlookers. This was a travesty.
@Tom,
What was a “travesty “? That the proposed charter was resoundingly rejected by voters? That Newton overwhelmingly preferred and maintained local representation via ward counselors elected by ward voters? That subsequent proposals to reduce the size of the council were rejected by the mayor? Honestly have an issue understanding your post here.
@Tom — The 8-8 proposal was anything but haphazard. It had been docketed and researched by Rick Lipof several years earlier in multiple memos. The concept of downsizing to a 16-member board had also been approved by voters in a non-binding referendum.
Jack, it wasn’t haphazard, but it was inherently political. Your reduction would have greatly increased the power of the ward councilors. And I don’t believe the non-binding referendum got into that level of detail.
I’ll also note that the city councilors were fully aware of the veto threat when they voted. It was a classic “hold me back friends” moment. They didn’t have to worry about eliminating their own jobs, since they knew it was going to pass. Hence no harm in voting for it.
I note that it never again saw the light of day. That means something too.
I doubt I’ll see the city council shrunk anytime soon.
Jack, it wasn’t haphazard, but it was inherently political. Your reduction would have greatly increased the power of the ward councilors. And I don’t believe the non-binding referendum got into that level of detail.
I’ll also note that the city councilors were fully aware of the veto threat when they voted. It was a classic “hold me back friends” moment. They didn’t have to worry about eliminating their own jobs, since they knew it wasn’t going to pass. Hence no harm in voting for it.
I note that it never again saw the light of day. That means something too.
I doubt I’ll see the city council shrunk anytime soon.
Fig, I dont know how old you are, but the reduction wont happen in my lifetime.
Lisa, I guess I’ll have to rehash the past 40 years for you for you to understand the “travesty” of the campaign. In the beginning (lolol)….over the past 40 years we have had several votes put in front of the public to cut the size of the Council. It won overwhelmingly (70-30). It won so badly it prompted a bunch of citizens to take a 3-4 year endeavor to collect signatures. It took the efforts of a dozen people along with the help of the LWV to put the question on the ballot. Not only did having a charter commission pass with flying colors the people actually voted on the commission. The commission had retired experienced people within the government long with outsiders, no one had an agenda. A movement totally by the people for the people. One of the goals was to cut the size of the Board and make city government more efficient. The other side comes in and wrongfully labels them pro-development and for local representation. All of a sudden the city will turn into Boston overnight…..whatever.
We live in 2021, not 1950. We dont need to live next door to a councilor to have local representation. We can live 5 miles away and still have local representation. As far as pro development…that one always got me. Yes making Newton government more efficient would cut down times on getting projects approved, which I’m sure developers would approve. BUT it also helps citizens who want to make repairs on their own property, it helps making things more efficient when fixing sidewalks, road repairs, etc. etc. etc. But did you mention that in your pitch to keep newton in 1950?? Of course not. You didnt tell people what they lost out on by voting against this version. The travesty was the misleading campaigning. The people on the commission gave up their time, had more experience in city government than you and me and came up with this version. As far as the 8/8 version, if it was proposed before the commission was formed, I am sure it was considered and the commission decided to go with this configuration.
So basically, you worked real hard to dismiss the “will of the people”, mislead the movement and ultimately set the city back (or atleast keep it from going forward) for the next 30-40 years. (in my opinion).
We will never see the day that the Council will vote to cut the size on its own, that is why this movement was critical. I will never support anyone so short sighted as to be for this movement, no matter how nice he/she is.
@Fig — There were several retirements in that cycle, so only six of the 16 incumbent at-large councilors would have to face their counterpart in a downsized council, and 5 of the 6 supported it despite that. It was a rare opportunity and was squandered. And Newton’s lead developer was quite happy with that decision if you check the Dec 2017 ocpf records.
The council balance shifted to Yes in that election, so don’t expect this council to propose anything that retains ward-elected councilors, particularly if the balance shifts two seats further in this election (Auchincloss and Ciccone supported 8-8 in Dec 2017).
Our ward-elected councilors are a diverse bunch with diverse views and experiences. But diversity isn’t the priority when your only focus is supermajority margin for special permits.
Tom — you seem to be fishing for an attack on the charter commission members. You are not going to get it from me. They spent a lot of nights at city hall for a year and went above and beyond compiling with open meeting law. Josh did a good job chairing and Karen transcribed meticulously. And then Josh went back at it with a sub-committee the following summer to review for any changes that could be used.
Unfortunately, having been selected and elected as a slate quietly promoted by strong interest groups in the city, the like-minded group was 100% in agreement on ward-elected councilor elimination on day 1 and spent just a brief 90 minutes or so deliberating on the choice of council composition despite its controversy. 8-8 was never considered.
Had the election of the commission been head to head, as we have in ward races and these races today, more clarity likely would have surfaced ahead of the election.
Still, they were all doing what that thought was best for Newton, as are all the candidates in these hotly contested races. The commission felt eliminated the neighborhood-scale elections of ward councilors was “best”. The residents didn’t.
I do think Bryan Barash should be accountable in his one (now undisclosed) elected office for the choices he made, and his participation in the transparency with which the change was “sold” to the public. “Retains Local Representation!” It didn’t.
https://newton.jackprior.org/2021/03/02/why-the-2017-newton-charter-fight-matters-today/
@Tom,
Not quite sure why you’re putting a target on me because I don’t recall being a leader in opposition to the charter change. I did oppose it because I thought and still believe that eliminating ward representation at the very local level was … and is a mistake. I like knowing my ward counselor. As for as my at-large counselors, Jake was terrific but my other counselor doesn’t even know I exist and I certainly never hear from her. (Though strangely the BARASH campaign got hold of the email I used to get an oversized item pickup. Not sure who sold my email but that’s the only campaign I’ve heard from on that email. Go figure.)
As for making local gov more streamlined, I’m not going to rehash this. The plan as proposed with 5 at large counselors from anywhere in the city raises significant issues because power can be vested in one area. This is exactly the reason why, as Jack explained, such districts have been successfully challenged under section 2 of the voting rights act where power is vested in a small group while others are divested of equal representation. Not hard to look it up and confirm.
Lisa, I wasn’t targeting you, I was just answering your question….sorry if it looked like I was targeting you.
@Tom-
Thank you. Glad to know! Let’s all enjoy the beautiful weather headed our way this week. I could sure use the sunshine.
Lisa