Rhanna Kidwell, a key force behind collecting signatures to get the Charter Commission ballot question before voters in November, announced via email linking to a website that she’s running for the commission.
I’m not surprised but I am relieved.
I am writing to share some exciting news. I am running for one of nine seats on the Newton Charter Commission that will be elected city-wide this November.I have been involved in trying to bring charter reform to Newton since 2009, and I am thrilled that we will finally have this opportunity to examine and improve our local government.
If you haven’t heard about it…on November 3rd, Newton will vote on the question “Shall a commission be elected to revise the charter of Newton?” On the same ballot, voters can vote for up to nine candidates. If the yes vote carries, the nine candidates with the most votes will become the commission. The commission has two years to review Newton’s charter, which is like our constitution, and to propose changes. Voters must approve the proposed changes in November of 2017. The ballot question is the result of a petition signed by 8,400 Newton voters.
I hope you will take a minute to look at my website, which has information about my professional background and my community leadership experience in Newton. It also has more details about the charter commission and the issues.
I am proud to call Newton home. It is typical of our great city that so many Newton residents have worked hard to make this charter reform opportunity possible. I want to help lead our city through the process of reviewing and updating our charter, and I hope I will have your support.
Warmly,
Rhannap.s. Let me know if you would like to be added to my list of endorsers.
What are the changes she would like to see happen?
Phew! I’m relieved that Rhanna has decided to run for Charter Commission as well. There are many great candidates running but no one knows more about the CC process than Rhanna. She brings years of dedication and leadership to this important challenge in our city’s history and enters this race with the right motives to discover what changes (if any) will be the best model for our city’s future governance. Moreover she will bring intelligence, reasonableness and a methodology to the process that will serve the city and the CC well. Rhanna Kidwell most certainly has one of my votes and I urge V14 Nation to do the same.
Gail, thank you so much for sharing my email.
I am excited to be entering the race! I’ve been involved with the effort to bring charter reform to Newton since 2009, and I’m thrilled that we will finally have this opportunity for a formal charter review. Newton’s last charter commission, elected in 1969, brought important improvements to our city government, and I’m optimistic that this commission will also achieve valuable reform.
I am not running on a platform for specific changes. As a 21-year resident, I certainly have opinions, but I am very committed to the well-tested charter commission process. Newton deserves to have nine thoughtful, open-minded people to lead us through this process—individuals who will work to surface best practices and gather community input.
I do think the following issues deserve careful consideration:
–the size of the Board of Aldermen
–4-year, staggered terms for BoA and SC
–term limits (inconsistency between BoA and SC)
–instituting an automatic 10-year charter review
I believe that with a diverse mix of committed community leaders serving on the commission, Newton will fully benefit from this opportunity to update our charter. And, with the impressive candidates already in the race, I really like our chances.
Gloria, thanks so much for your generous words!
And @Gloria and @Gail…the signature deadline is still 20 days away, plenty of time for you to reconsider and rejoin the race!
Rhanna, your ideas about objectivity are very reassuring. I have noticed there are others running that share your unbiased position. At the same time I do see several people running for election that represent a more biased position.
As a voter I would vote against the C.C. if the the election appears weighted toward a group of people who have a very specific agenda for Newton’s future.
Colleen, I agree with you…this is a process that is intended to surface the best ideas. People who come in committed to specific changes won’t be an effective part of the process.
Last night the League of Women Voters of Newton conducted an excellent pubic forum to educate Newton voters about charter commissions. The panel was made up of one commissioner and one active citizen with the City of Everett charter commission, and one retired employee of the state who is a charter expert and has worked with many Mass. charter commissions.
They all agreed that for a commission to be successful, those who get elected should have an open mind on the issues. They described the ideal commissioner as being curious, willing to explore and listen to alternatives, aware, and willing to engage. One of the said “You don’t want someone who has already decided, or who runs on just one issue.”
NewTV co-sponsored and taped the forum, and I believe it will be available for viewing soon.
Rhanna,
What kind of turnout did you get at the forum? I’m just curious as to whether the community is paying any attention to the Charter Commission.
Gail there was about 40 people. What was reassuring was that some of the people (about half) I didn’t recognize, so they weren’t the same old people there.
Rhanna, congratulations and good luck…you deserve it.
I was there, Gail. The room was pretty full! There were a lot of Charter Review Commission candidates, many of whom have yet to turn in their signatures. (Rhanna Kidwell, Tom Sheff , David Koch, Kathy Winters, Karen Manning, Charlie Shapiro, Howard Haywood, Bryan Barash, and Jane Frantz were the ones I recognized). Former Ald. Ken Parker, Ald. Ruthanne Fuller, Ouida Young from the City of Newton Law Dept., City Clerk David Olson, Bill Renke, Pia Bertelli, LWVN President Sue Flicop and a few other League members plus a bunch of people I didn’t recognize. It was well run and informative, especially since Ouida Young was able to correct some interpretation differences about the Open Meeting Law which will govern the information gathering and assignment of sub-committees of the Commission. To keep the public interested in the proceedings, there will have to be a lot of discussion and publicity on all the blogs, Tab, Globe, Twitter, and Facebook sites. In fact, I hope the Commission sets up its own website and Facebook page!
By the way: I heard from what I consider a very reliable source that Ted Hess-Mahan will NOT be running. I also saw on the list at City Hall today that Barbara Brousal-Glaser has taken out papers to run for the Commission. (I was hoping that no sitting Alderman would be on the Committee, but would, instead, make themselves available as invaluable resources to the Charter Review Commission!!!)
Sallee,
Both Ted and Lisle took themselves out.
Neal Fleischer has set up a blog/website for the charter review. Please go to http://www.newtoncharter.com. It’s ready to take people on.
Colleen – You raise an important point. The people elected to the commission need to approach the responsibility with an open mind. In the past weeks, I’ve had a number of discussions with residents who’ve shared their perspective on a range of issues and it’s been enlightening. Most importantly, the elected members of the commission need to approach this responsibility without an end result in mind.
I’d like to add my name to those who commented that the LWV forum last evening was informative and very helpful.
Kathy Winters who’s a member of the Waban Area Council was also at the meeting last evening and is collecting signatures for the charter commission.
How is it that someone who campaigned for the formation of a Charter Commission for years can now present herself as someone with an open mind and having no agenda ! Sounds to me like someone with a true conflict of interest!
I would leave open the strong possibility that her research, and ideas for possible charter improvements are a positive and can easily co-exist with an open mind and the desire for those ideas to be vetted in a collaborative committee group setting.
All humans come to a table with certain ideas. If they have no ideas at all, their value at the table would likely be reduced. From the LWV forum which I attended, the process seems to be very much on the right track.
BPB,
Wanting a document to be reviewed that hasn’t been reviewed in over 40 years, doesn’t mean that she has an agenda.
I’m in the same position, I worked to get the charter reviewed, I do have certain ideas that I would like researched, but if the commission voted to keep the charter the same I wouldn’t be upset, because it was the review in of itself is what I want.
My concerns would be if the League lobbied (even quietly) for any candidate and especially for any of the positions they have taken and already announced. Why? Those positions were not researched by elected representatives of the voters in a visible process governed by the Open Meeting Law.
I believe there should be a distinction between having an open mind and having ideas for how one might reform our government structure. When I come to deciding who I will vote for in November, I will be looking for candidates who possess both.
What Greg said.
I’d be concerned if nine League members were elected to the CC but it doesn’t look like the LWVN is trying to take over the process. The group drove it to where it is now. I think it is makes sense to elect someone like Rhanna who is so intimately familiar with the work the League has done. She has my vote.
I do not know Rhanna personally but the fact that she has researched and fought for this Charter review makes me believe that she is perfect to serve on the commission. I see nothing to believe that she has preconceived notions about the commission’s findings – only that she possesses the will to investigate and make independent recommendations. Isn’t that what we need, and are seeking?
I have met Rhanna and believe that she can be objective in her new research when and if she is elected to the Commission. I worry that the League, itself, will lobby for their current positions, already taken and published on their website, as I heard them say they intended to do at a meeting that I attended in Rhanna’s house. I am a new member of the League and attended that meeting to understand how the League would proceed with their Charter Review Commission interests. The leadership was very careful to indicate that INDIVIDUALS would do lobbying and encourage candidates to run, not the organization itself. I am worried that organizations, even supposedly unbiased ones, are made up of individuals who may claim to have done the research already and to know the answers before the starting gate opens. I hope the League can remain above reproach.
and the problem with any citizens’ group lobbying (at least ones that are willing to publicly say who their members are) is?
Imagine my surprise at being asked to sign nomination papers for the Newton Charter Commission this morning ….. in the parking lot of Lecount Hollow Beach in Wellfleet on Cape Cod.
lol.
@Jerry: Aren’t you going to reveal the identity of the candidate? I like his/her resourcefulness!
It was I! I was at Lecount Hollow with some Newton buddies, and bumped into my friend Jerry, so I asked him to join in signing papers for Anne Larner. There are so many great candidates running–I’ll be supporting several and am truly excited about the Commission. I too attended the library forum and found it very informative. I haven’t visited Village 14 in awhile. Nice to see everyone!!!
@Greg: I suggest you check out the League’s website and compare it to NVA’s. They both list the names of their leadership and their goals. Identifying a membership list for any organization is not necessary for an organization to be transparent, as long as those goals are identifiable. Nothing wrong with any group lobbying for a position as long as the individuals are upfront about their affiliations. Nonetheless, if the League’s work to define a “consensus” on their issues were enough, we wouldn’t need a Charter Review Commission. The fact that they have raised some issues as worth studying is notable and to be commended. Any conclusions, however, are premature at best. By the way, I believe that, according to League procedures, Rhanna and Chris Steele would have to resign from their Directorships in the League in order to run for the Commission.
Full disclosure: I have recently joined the League and will be a gadfly there if I feel I need to be. I do not belong to the NVA, but receive and read their publications and will be a gadfly there if I feel I need to be. I guess that just makes me a gadfly.
Well I’ll be! Yes indeed the NVA has finally decided to list the names of its directors. I commend them on that and will create a separate post later.
But Sallee as you well know, the NVA operated in secret for about a year and a half.
Sallee, Chris Steele resigned from the LWVN board on August 3rd, and I resigned on August 12th.
In the democratic process, organizations are usually part of the conversation. A coalition of landscapers might weigh in on a leafblower ban, Bike Newton might lobby for more funding for bike lanes. In the charter commission process, the Waban Area Council might advocate for NACs, and the PTO Council might argue for a change in the composition of the school committee. The League will weigh in on issues it feels strongly about.
All of these organizations have their own process for adopting a position on an issue, and that process is not public. But the input of an organization, whether via letter, email, or comments at a public meeting, becomes part of the public record under the open meeting laws. I think you and I would agree that the League will be just one voice in the process.
LWVN will not (and has never) advocated for candidates–that is the core of our non-partisan policy. Even if they were/are/will be League members, they don’t get any special treatment. Right now, our efforts are focused on voter education–both in terms of who the candidates are and what the issues are.
Not clear about the open meeting law comment–we are a membership-based organization, not part of the government. We are open in our meetings by choice–there is no legal requirement, as far as I know.
@Rhanna: I couldn’t agree more. I hope the commission is inundated with a symphony of citizen voices that are listened to respectfully.
@Sue: When I said
“My concerns would be if the League lobbied (even quietly) for any candidate and especially for any of the positions they have taken and already announced. Why? Those positions were not researched by elected representatives of the voters in a visible process governed by the Open Meeting Law.”
I was saying that I hope and expect that the Charter Review Commission will, as elected representatives of the voters in a visible process governed by the Open Meeting Law, reach their own proposed recommendations.
Rhanna would be a fantastic Commissioner, I hope to serve alongside her if the voters so choose.
@Sallee – What Rhanna said. I resigned from the LWVN board a day before letting people know that I was going to pull papers for the Charter Review Commission.
I think we’re got a lot of great people running, and I’m looking forward to see who gets elected (and hope that I’m one of them!). Each is coming with a different background, but with a good history of service to the community. I’ll be updating my campaign website soon to give some of my own reasons for running and what experience I’ll bring to the commission.
Each candidate has had the direct experience of needing to be heard by their community and so I’m sure that each will turn that into a willingness to listen if elected!