In a straw (nonbinding) vote last night, the Charter Commission voted to extend School Committee term limits from four two-year terms to six. I’m surprised (probably because I haven’t paid close enough attention) because I would have thought they’d either remove term limits or keep them the same.
Personally, I’m a fan of term limits and the only change I’d like to see is adding them to the City Council. But I can be convinced otherwise. What do others think?
We need term limits either the same as it is now but not longer. And the same goes for City Council. There needs to be term Limits. Does extending the term limits for the SC have anything to do with Health Benefits? I thought if you were on the SC or Council/BOA for a specific amount of years you were then given health benefits for life.
We need term limits either the same as it is now but not longer. And the same goes for City Council. There needs to be term Limits. Does extending the term limits for the SC have anything to do with Health Benefits? I thought if you were on the SC or Council/BOA for a specific amount of years you were then given health benefits for life.
I always thought the School Committee terms were perfect for SC members. It gave them enough time to understand the system and, in many cases, serve as chair and then let someone else do the same.
And the former SC members that I’ve spoken to seem comfortable with that too, saying they were glad to serve and then glad to move on.
I always thought the School Committee terms were perfect for SC members. It gave them enough time to understand the system and, in many cases, serve as chair and then let someone else do the same.
And the former SC members that I’ve spoken to seem comfortable with that too, saying they were glad to serve and then glad to move on.
I have no problem with increasing them to 6 years, if the Charter Commission can explain why they think it’s a good idea. Turnover is good, but so is institutional knowledge and a certain amount of continuity. I’d rather see turnover due to more contested elections than just based on number of years served.
I have no problem with increasing them to 6 years, if the Charter Commission can explain why they think it’s a good idea. Turnover is good, but so is institutional knowledge and a certain amount of continuity. I’d rather see turnover due to more contested elections than just based on number of years served.
I am very surprised to learn about this, and I think it is the wrong approach. I am not in favor of giving the SC 12 years to remain on the board if they choose to and remain uncontested. Eight years is long enough.
I’m sorry I didn’t get to the meeting. There are two ideas that I wished to share:
1. Eliminate the SC members running by ward. Have SC members be at-large for the entire city.
2. Stagger election years and terms. It is too overwhelming to have to vote every 2 years for 8 positions. It would take some grandfathering at the beginning, but I like Brookline’s model. I believe the members are at different 3 year election positions, so more experienced members are in place to mentor newer members. Also, the town of Brookline doesn’t have to vote on every member of the SC every two years.
I am very surprised to learn about this, and I think it is the wrong approach. I am not in favor of giving the SC 12 years to remain on the board if they choose to and remain uncontested. Eight years is long enough.
I’m sorry I didn’t get to the meeting. There are two ideas that I wished to share:
1. Eliminate the SC members running by ward. Have SC members be at-large for the entire city.
2. Stagger election years and terms. It is too overwhelming to have to vote every 2 years for 8 positions. It would take some grandfathering at the beginning, but I like Brookline’s model. I believe the members are at different 3 year election positions, so more experienced members are in place to mentor newer members. Also, the town of Brookline doesn’t have to vote on every member of the SC every two years.
Oops – I misread it as 4 years rather than 4 2-year terms. In that case, I agree 8 years is plenty.
I think it’s useful to have the School Committee positions by ward. That way, all elementary schools are represented, which is important since they face different issues.
I agree with the suggestion to stagger election years – for both School Committee and especially City Council, where there are way too many candidates at a time to try to keep track of and evaluate.
Oops – I misread it as 4 years rather than 4 2-year terms. In that case, I agree 8 years is plenty.
I think it’s useful to have the School Committee positions by ward. That way, all elementary schools are represented, which is important since they face different issues.
I agree with the suggestion to stagger election years – for both School Committee and especially City Council, where there are way too many candidates at a time to try to keep track of and evaluate.
In my opinion, it’s far more important to give voters a means to remove a School Committee member [or other elected official] who breaks the law, than it is to extend term limits. Right now the Charter lacks any recall provision for anyone. The current School Committee might have thought twice before violating the State’s Open Meeting Law five times, if they knew they could face a recall for that illegal behavior.
In my opinion, it’s far more important to give voters a means to remove a School Committee member [or other elected official] who breaks the law, than it is to extend term limits. Right now the Charter lacks any recall provision for anyone. The current School Committee might have thought twice before violating the State’s Open Meeting Law five times, if they knew they could face a recall for that illegal behavior.
Given that the electorate has indicated on multiple occasions they want less councilors, I think it is counter intuitive to think people would want school committee members to be able to hold office for longer periods of time. The more likely guess is people want term limits on councilors too.
Where is the public outcry to keep SC members on longer?
This is just such an issue, that could sink an entire commission recommendation, if they misread the mood of the voters. Seems like a high risk, with limited up side potential.
Given that the electorate has indicated on multiple occasions they want less councilors, I think it is counter intuitive to think people would want school committee members to be able to hold office for longer periods of time. The more likely guess is people want term limits on councilors too.
Where is the public outcry to keep SC members on longer?
This is just such an issue, that could sink an entire commission recommendation, if they misread the mood of the voters. Seems like a high risk, with limited up side potential.
Wow. The Charter Commission needs to answer two questions. Do we have too many or too few contested elections? Will extending term increase or decrease the number of contested elections?
Does someone know who voted for and against in the straw vote?
Wow. The Charter Commission needs to answer two questions. Do we have too many or too few contested elections? Will extending term increase or decrease the number of contested elections?
Does someone know who voted for and against in the straw vote?
It seems clear that not many people run for School Committee, since we have mostly uncontested elections. I don’t know all the reasons that is the case, but the fact that School Committee races are city-wide make it very difficult to beat an incumbent. Or maybe it’s just that people who have the most immediate interest in the quality of the school system (parents) are busy getting the NPS clientele fed, washed and ready for bed. Whatever the reason for the paucity of challengers, as long as incumbents go largely unchallenged, extending term limits at least serves to keep experienced committee members on the job.
Institutional knowledge is a good thing, especially when, for example, a tricky personnel problem surfaces and the committee must go into executive session to act on a difficult decision. I’m just throwing out a hypothetical, but one never knows – it could happen. In those cases, it’s nice to have someone on board that can help steer the ship away from an iceberg.
It seems clear that not many people run for School Committee, since we have mostly uncontested elections. I don’t know all the reasons that is the case, but the fact that School Committee races are city-wide make it very difficult to beat an incumbent. Or maybe it’s just that people who have the most immediate interest in the quality of the school system (parents) are busy getting the NPS clientele fed, washed and ready for bed. Whatever the reason for the paucity of challengers, as long as incumbents go largely unchallenged, extending term limits at least serves to keep experienced committee members on the job.
Institutional knowledge is a good thing, especially when, for example, a tricky personnel problem surfaces and the committee must go into executive session to act on a difficult decision. I’m just throwing out a hypothetical, but one never knows – it could happen. In those cases, it’s nice to have someone on board that can help steer the ship away from an iceberg.
I disagree about the SC members needing to be elected by Ward because of the elementary schools. There are 15 elementary schools and currently 8 SC members. After being elected, they usually meet to determine who is taking on different roles. For instance, someone is a building facility liaison, there have been a couple of members who worked on the redistricting, there have been a couple of members who are working on High School Start Time. I would suggest that when a board is sworn in, they can also each be assigned 2 elementary schools. There are also 4 middle schools and 2 high schools. I can’t think of a recent decision that was helpful to any particular neighborhood or any specific school. They are really big picture members now, dealing with the budget, the 20 year plan to renovate or rebuild the schools, equity issues, safety issues, policies, later starting times, health, social-emotional programs, etc. I also think that we are really limiting our choices by voting for ward representation. In the past several elections there was at the most 1 (ONE) contested race. It has been a real struggle to recruit multiple candidates from the same ward to run. Take a look at Brookline’s School Committee members. There are 9 members, three have terms expiring in 2016, three have terms expiring in 2017, and three have terms expiring in 2018. http://brookline.k12.ma.us/Page/370
I disagree about the SC members needing to be elected by Ward because of the elementary schools. There are 15 elementary schools and currently 8 SC members. After being elected, they usually meet to determine who is taking on different roles. For instance, someone is a building facility liaison, there have been a couple of members who worked on the redistricting, there have been a couple of members who are working on High School Start Time. I would suggest that when a board is sworn in, they can also each be assigned 2 elementary schools. There are also 4 middle schools and 2 high schools. I can’t think of a recent decision that was helpful to any particular neighborhood or any specific school. They are really big picture members now, dealing with the budget, the 20 year plan to renovate or rebuild the schools, equity issues, safety issues, policies, later starting times, health, social-emotional programs, etc. I also think that we are really limiting our choices by voting for ward representation. In the past several elections there was at the most 1 (ONE) contested race. It has been a real struggle to recruit multiple candidates from the same ward to run. Take a look at Brookline’s School Committee members. There are 9 members, three have terms expiring in 2016, three have terms expiring in 2017, and three have terms expiring in 2018. http://brookline.k12.ma.us/Page/370
Gail,
I’m in complete agreement with your post.
Gail,
I’m in complete agreement with your post.
I’m in a hurry and don’t have time to read the comments, will later this evening, but I hope everyone will write to the Charter Commission with your thoughts to [email protected].
Off to City Hall.
Jane
I’m in a hurry and don’t have time to read the comments, will later this evening, but I hope everyone will write to the Charter Commission with your thoughts to [email protected].
Off to City Hall.
Jane
Unless we convert these to full time positions (SC and CC), which I’m not supporting, having term limits at 8 years makes sound economic sense. Otherwise 10 years and having attained 55 makes them eligible for lifetime healthcare coverage. Does that make sense?
Of course I don’t think that 10 year/ 55 makes in general.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong please.
Unless we convert these to full time positions (SC and CC), which I’m not supporting, having term limits at 8 years makes sound economic sense. Otherwise 10 years and having attained 55 makes them eligible for lifetime healthcare coverage. Does that make sense?
Of course I don’t think that 10 year/ 55 makes in general.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong please.
Healthcare benefits were not part of last night’s conversation at the Charter Commission meeting. I don’t know whether they are aware of any eligibility for benefits after a certain length of service. Hope they are now!
Healthcare benefits were not part of last night’s conversation at the Charter Commission meeting. I don’t know whether they are aware of any eligibility for benefits after a certain length of service. Hope they are now!
Please keep in mind that was a very preliminary straw vote.
Please keep in mind that was a very preliminary straw vote.
Sallee- Yes we are aware or health benefits.
Sallee- Yes we are aware or health benefits.
Again, does anyone know who voted which way for the straw vote? Also, I think it would be helpful for some of the members of the Charter Commission to help us understand their reasoning.
Steven Feinstein is giving the best defense that I can imagine for lengthening term limits. Here is my counterpoint.
1) Challengers in SC races (basically) only step up to run for election when an incumbent steps down or is term limited out. Term limits promote contested elections, which I think are good. Was it dumb luck that Josh Krintzman ran for School Committee 4 in 2011 when it was clear that the incumbent, Yeo, would not be his opponent? No. Josh picked the best time to run. The statistics show it.
2) Institutional knowledge is important, but I don’t see SC members doing a “better” job in the end of their terms compared with the beginning. In fact, you could argue that they do the best job in their first term, since that is when they have the most energy and are coming off an election where they have a lot interaction with voters. In the post-first term elections, they probably won’t need to move their lawn signs out of their basements (or garages).
Again, does anyone know who voted which way for the straw vote? Also, I think it would be helpful for some of the members of the Charter Commission to help us understand their reasoning.
Steven Feinstein is giving the best defense that I can imagine for lengthening term limits. Here is my counterpoint.
1) Challengers in SC races (basically) only step up to run for election when an incumbent steps down or is term limited out. Term limits promote contested elections, which I think are good. Was it dumb luck that Josh Krintzman ran for School Committee 4 in 2011 when it was clear that the incumbent, Yeo, would not be his opponent? No. Josh picked the best time to run. The statistics show it.
2) Institutional knowledge is important, but I don’t see SC members doing a “better” job in the end of their terms compared with the beginning. In fact, you could argue that they do the best job in their first term, since that is when they have the most energy and are coming off an election where they have a lot interaction with voters. In the post-first term elections, they probably won’t need to move their lawn signs out of their basements (or garages).
Jeffrey has it right. The vast majority of times we have turn over of a new elected official is when the incumbent doesn’t run.
The commission is somehow implying that it is better to have less turnover. I think this may be a defining moment in understanding the biases of the commission, and how they intend to shape the charter revision.
Time will tell.
Jeffrey has it right. The vast majority of times we have turn over of a new elected official is when the incumbent doesn’t run.
The commission is somehow implying that it is better to have less turnover. I think this may be a defining moment in understanding the biases of the commission, and how they intend to shape the charter revision.
Time will tell.
I did vote for 12 years. I think a moderate increase in the number of terms a school committee member can serve is reasonable. The following factors carried weight with me in my decision:
– In most cases I am against term limits as a principle. Democracy means that the people decide and we should trust them to make good decisions about how to govern themselves
– That being said, I am sympathetic to arguments that the lack of attention paid to local races in practice can lead to entrenchment that can be detrimental to progress
– There is a sense that 8 years is a manageable amount of time to serve, and this can often lead to situations where school committee members feel compelled to serve their full 8 years and challengers are willing to wait them out rather than challenging them directly.
– Whether on balance 12 years would create more or less competitive races is a bit more murky in my mind than some other commenters seem to believe, if anyone has data on this I would be happy to review it
– As someone who sees the good work that statewide advocacy groups do first hand in the state Senate, I am sympathetic to arguments that were made that an additional 2 or 4 years of service would make a significant difference in the ability of members to play a leadership role in the statewide education debate, particularly as members of leadership in the MASC (Mass Association of School Committees)
I did vote for 12 years. I think a moderate increase in the number of terms a school committee member can serve is reasonable. The following factors carried weight with me in my decision:
– In most cases I am against term limits as a principle. Democracy means that the people decide and we should trust them to make good decisions about how to govern themselves
– That being said, I am sympathetic to arguments that the lack of attention paid to local races in practice can lead to entrenchment that can be detrimental to progress
– There is a sense that 8 years is a manageable amount of time to serve, and this can often lead to situations where school committee members feel compelled to serve their full 8 years and challengers are willing to wait them out rather than challenging them directly.
– Whether on balance 12 years would create more or less competitive races is a bit more murky in my mind than some other commenters seem to believe, if anyone has data on this I would be happy to review it
– As someone who sees the good work that statewide advocacy groups do first hand in the state Senate, I am sympathetic to arguments that were made that an additional 2 or 4 years of service would make a significant difference in the ability of members to play a leadership role in the statewide education debate, particularly as members of leadership in the MASC (Mass Association of School Committees)
I voted to retain the 8 year term limit because turnover is so infrequent on the School Committee. Currently, we have three members who have never had a contested race, 3 who had contested races for their first term only and those races were for open seats. Only two School Committee members have had a second contested race, and one of those members ran and lost against 2 incumbents before winning a race with a seat open seat.
I also believe that it’s essential to have members on the School Committee who represent all parts of the community, and that includes all levels of the school system if possible (elementary, middle, and high school).
If the term limit is 12 years, we have a distinct possibility of having a School Committee in which the majority of the members no longer have children in the system. While I appreciate that we currently and in the recent past have had members without children in the system serve with distinction, I don’t think we should put ourselves in the situation where the majority of the Committee does not have children in the system.
The School Committee, the central administration, and the school based staff at all levels are an integrated whole and keeping a balance that works well is essential, and I think the 8 year term limit for School Committee members helps us achieve that balance.
I voted to retain the 8 year term limit because turnover is so infrequent on the School Committee. Currently, we have three members who have never had a contested race, 3 who had contested races for their first term only and those races were for open seats. Only two School Committee members have had a second contested race, and one of those members ran and lost against 2 incumbents before winning a race with a seat open seat.
I also believe that it’s essential to have members on the School Committee who represent all parts of the community, and that includes all levels of the school system if possible (elementary, middle, and high school).
If the term limit is 12 years, we have a distinct possibility of having a School Committee in which the majority of the members no longer have children in the system. While I appreciate that we currently and in the recent past have had members without children in the system serve with distinction, I don’t think we should put ourselves in the situation where the majority of the Committee does not have children in the system.
The School Committee, the central administration, and the school based staff at all levels are an integrated whole and keeping a balance that works well is essential, and I think the 8 year term limit for School Committee members helps us achieve that balance.
My comments about healthcare benefits was brief and unclear. School Committee members cannot be vested because their stipend is below $5000 a year.
My comments about healthcare benefits was brief and unclear. School Committee members cannot be vested because their stipend is below $5000 a year.
I was not present on Wednesday night due to a pre-existing out of town commitment (last night’s meeting was added to the calendar more recently). However, I would have voted against raising the term limit to 12 years, but for a different reason: To me the issue is whether or not to have term limits. I don’t see any particular merit in changing the term from what it is now if we are in fact still going to have it.
I was not present on Wednesday night due to a pre-existing out of town commitment (last night’s meeting was added to the calendar more recently). However, I would have voted against raising the term limit to 12 years, but for a different reason: To me the issue is whether or not to have term limits. I don’t see any particular merit in changing the term from what it is now if we are in fact still going to have it.
Thanks Bryan, Jane, and Chris.
My sense is that if you ask most people have served on SC, they think that being term limited out after 8 years is very reasonable if not a blessing.
Bryan, I have data. Work and life has interfered with my ability to quickly make progress on calculating statistics for an op-ed. Regardless of the op-ed, by the time summer rolls along, I am happy to give someone the data or calculate statistics from the data. This being said, my data is no substitute for my fantasy world, where the Charter Commission plows into studies of local elections by political scientists or hires a PhD student to compare election data in different localities.
No one has coughed-up the straw vote tally. Will it be reflected in the minutes?
Thanks Bryan, Jane, and Chris.
My sense is that if you ask most people have served on SC, they think that being term limited out after 8 years is very reasonable if not a blessing.
Bryan, I have data. Work and life has interfered with my ability to quickly make progress on calculating statistics for an op-ed. Regardless of the op-ed, by the time summer rolls along, I am happy to give someone the data or calculate statistics from the data. This being said, my data is no substitute for my fantasy world, where the Charter Commission plows into studies of local elections by political scientists or hires a PhD student to compare election data in different localities.
No one has coughed-up the straw vote tally. Will it be reflected in the minutes?
All of our votes will be reflected in the minutes.
All of our votes will be reflected in the minutes.
What I heard at the meeting was that of the 16 current and former SC members interviewed, only 2 would have stayed on longer than their 4 terms. The argument for a 6-term limit was that more races might be contested because people wouldn’t wait that length of time, but they would wait eight years.
What I didn’t hear was any evidence that this was, in fact, true. It seemed to me a supposition. And the issue of how difficult it is to beat an incumbent (and how much money it could take) wasn’t discussed.
What I heard at the meeting was that of the 16 current and former SC members interviewed, only 2 would have stayed on longer than their 4 terms. The argument for a 6-term limit was that more races might be contested because people wouldn’t wait that length of time, but they would wait eight years.
What I didn’t hear was any evidence that this was, in fact, true. It seemed to me a supposition. And the issue of how difficult it is to beat an incumbent (and how much money it could take) wasn’t discussed.
While we are discussing school committe, can anyone explain the logic of treating the SC as second class citizens to the CC?
Why do CC members get paid twice what the SC gets and why wouldn’t we apply term limits to CC too?
I know these are all part time jobs, but <$10k for CC and <$5k for SC seems out of line.
I grant that with 24 CC/s, using 8 year term limits could be a problem, but that is just another argument for adjusting the CC role so that fewer are needed.
While we are discussing school committe, can anyone explain the logic of treating the SC as second class citizens to the CC?
Why do CC members get paid twice what the SC gets and why wouldn’t we apply term limits to CC too?
I know these are all part time jobs, but <$10k for CC and <$5k for SC seems out of line.
I grant that with 24 CC/s, using 8 year term limits could be a problem, but that is just another argument for adjusting the CC role so that fewer are needed.
Jeffrey-I’m away this weekend, but will post the information you requested when I return to Newton.
Jeffrey-I’m away this weekend, but will post the information you requested when I return to Newton.
Jane, thanks.
Dan, I don’t know the thinking behind the difference in compensation. Peter Harrington who ran for the current Charter Commission, was on the original Charter Commission. He said at the Charter Commission “debate” that there was movement to have term limits for both the aldermen and for the SC, but there was an alderman on the original Charter Commission, who for some strange reason, put up resistance to the alderman term limits. It looks like politics crept in.
Jane, thanks.
Dan, I don’t know the thinking behind the difference in compensation. Peter Harrington who ran for the current Charter Commission, was on the original Charter Commission. He said at the Charter Commission “debate” that there was movement to have term limits for both the aldermen and for the SC, but there was an alderman on the original Charter Commission, who for some strange reason, put up resistance to the alderman term limits. It looks like politics crept in.
Yes, my understanding was that the vote was 5-4 in favor of SC term limits and 5/4 against on aldermen, with the swing vote being an alderman.
I do hope that as this is reviewed the commission revisits what is appropriate compensation for both bodies, and I’m hard pressed to understand why the numbers should be different.
Yes, my understanding was that the vote was 5-4 in favor of SC term limits and 5/4 against on aldermen, with the swing vote being an alderman.
I do hope that as this is reviewed the commission revisits what is appropriate compensation for both bodies, and I’m hard pressed to understand why the numbers should be different.
I really hope the Charter Commission doesn’t maintain status quo, leaving the School Committee with term limits and the City Council without them. That makes no sense to me.
I really hope the Charter Commission doesn’t maintain status quo, leaving the School Committee with term limits and the City Council without them. That makes no sense to me.
Dan and Gail,
The two articles (School Committee and Legislative Branch) are being reviewed separately. The review of Article 2 (Legislative Branch) is coming up in this month.
If you have an opinion on this or any topic, you need to express that to the Charter Commission. Please do not assume that everyone reads V14. Also, please inform the entire Commission of your opinions and the most reliable way for doing so is to email them at [email protected].
Dan and Gail,
The two articles (School Committee and Legislative Branch) are being reviewed separately. The review of Article 2 (Legislative Branch) is coming up in this month.
If you have an opinion on this or any topic, you need to express that to the Charter Commission. Please do not assume that everyone reads V14. Also, please inform the entire Commission of your opinions and the most reliable way for doing so is to email them at [email protected].
Dan,
first the charter states that the SC gets 5% of the mayor’s salary and the CC gets 10%. Now even with that being stated the CC still has to vote on any payraises. Last time the Mayors pay went from 96,000 to the current 120,000(?) the CC voted against payraises for both SC and CC.
I believe the logic as to why CC gets twice as much as SC is the amount of meetings and public meetings the CC goes to compared to SC. I believe it’s common knowledge that CC arguably does more work and deals with the public more (I believe).
Dan,
first the charter states that the SC gets 5% of the mayor’s salary and the CC gets 10%. Now even with that being stated the CC still has to vote on any payraises. Last time the Mayors pay went from 96,000 to the current 120,000(?) the CC voted against payraises for both SC and CC.
I believe the logic as to why CC gets twice as much as SC is the amount of meetings and public meetings the CC goes to compared to SC. I believe it’s common knowledge that CC arguably does more work and deals with the public more (I believe).
@Bryan
Appreciate the candor, but disappointed in your logic.
Your support for 12 years seems to be based on a philosophical opposition to term limits, and a belief that longer terms helps SC members have greater role on state-wide issues. There was little in your post that explains how 12 year limits actually benefits Newton.
There is a very established track record of a strong incumbency advantage in Newton. Your statements that its “murky” whether 12 years would encourage more challenges or not is simply not supported by the data, i.e. the general lack of challenges for SC or CC historically.
Please reconsider based on the data, not your philosophical tendencies.
@Bryan
Appreciate the candor, but disappointed in your logic.
Your support for 12 years seems to be based on a philosophical opposition to term limits, and a belief that longer terms helps SC members have greater role on state-wide issues. There was little in your post that explains how 12 year limits actually benefits Newton.
There is a very established track record of a strong incumbency advantage in Newton. Your statements that its “murky” whether 12 years would encourage more challenges or not is simply not supported by the data, i.e. the general lack of challenges for SC or CC historically.
Please reconsider based on the data, not your philosophical tendencies.
The Charter Commission election was frustrating. If Bryan is philosophically opposed to term limits, it would have been nice if he mentioned so in his League profile or in his Newton Tab editorial. Like Paul, I appreciate that he talking about this now.
I tried to ask the candidates very specific questions. A lot of them immediately went into flip-flop mode. saying things like, “Oh, I can’t answer whether or not the size council should be reduced or not. It is so complicated with so many moving parts. We need to consider everything at the same time.”
The Charter Commission election was frustrating. If Bryan is philosophically opposed to term limits, it would have been nice if he mentioned so in his League profile or in his Newton Tab editorial. Like Paul, I appreciate that he talking about this now.
I tried to ask the candidates very specific questions. A lot of them immediately went into flip-flop mode. saying things like, “Oh, I can’t answer whether or not the size council should be reduced or not. It is so complicated with so many moving parts. We need to consider everything at the same time.”
Jeffrey, You highlight a big challenge of running for charter commission. There’s a big difference between being philosophically opposed to term limits and running on a platform of removing term limits. Case in point, Bryan opposes them but voted in favor of term limits on the SC. Had he emphasized his opposition to term limits during the campaign, some voters may have been disappointed.
There was a motion to remove all term limits for the SC, and it failed for lack of a second. Seems like the commission does not have strong philosophical opposition to term limits.
Jeffrey, You highlight a big challenge of running for charter commission. There’s a big difference between being philosophically opposed to term limits and running on a platform of removing term limits. Case in point, Bryan opposes them but voted in favor of term limits on the SC. Had he emphasized his opposition to term limits during the campaign, some voters may have been disappointed.
There was a motion to remove all term limits for the SC, and it failed for lack of a second. Seems like the commission does not have strong philosophical opposition to term limits.
@Rhanna
Completeness is important here. He voted in favor of LONGER term limits, without a good rationale for doing so.
Transparency into his views could have better informed voters. Term limits is one of the key questions for the charter review. Your qualifier on “strong” opposition is potentially concerning. Does this suggest that there is opposition to term limits by others on the Commission?
@Rhanna
Completeness is important here. He voted in favor of LONGER term limits, without a good rationale for doing so.
Transparency into his views could have better informed voters. Term limits is one of the key questions for the charter review. Your qualifier on “strong” opposition is potentially concerning. Does this suggest that there is opposition to term limits by others on the Commission?
Here is the information for those who have inquired as to how the vote on extending the term limits of the School Committee occurred:
Brooke Lipsitt made the motion to extend the limit to 12 years.
Bryan Barash seconded the motion.
4 voted in FAVOR – Bryan Barash, Howard Haywood, Rhanna Kidwell and Anne Larner;
2 were OPPOSED – Jane Frantz and Josh Krintzman;
2 ABSTAINED – Brooke Lipsitt and Karen Manning; and
1 was ABSENT Chris Steele
School Committee is on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting as well as the beginning of our discussion on the City Council.
Here is the information for those who have inquired as to how the vote on extending the term limits of the School Committee occurred:
Brooke Lipsitt made the motion to extend the limit to 12 years.
Bryan Barash seconded the motion.
4 voted in FAVOR – Bryan Barash, Howard Haywood, Rhanna Kidwell and Anne Larner;
2 were OPPOSED – Jane Frantz and Josh Krintzman;
2 ABSTAINED – Brooke Lipsitt and Karen Manning; and
1 was ABSENT Chris Steele
School Committee is on the agenda for Wednesday’s meeting as well as the beginning of our discussion on the City Council.
In addition to this final vote on term limits, the Commission made one other motion and took one other vote before the final vote:
Brooke Lipsett made a motion to remove term limits, and no one seconded the motion.
A second motion was made to retain the 8 year term limit that that did not pass, but I want to check the audio to verify who voted no and who abstained on that vote. The audio of the meeting will be posted this afternoon.
In addition to this final vote on term limits, the Commission made one other motion and took one other vote before the final vote:
Brooke Lipsett made a motion to remove term limits, and no one seconded the motion.
A second motion was made to retain the 8 year term limit that that did not pass, but I want to check the audio to verify who voted no and who abstained on that vote. The audio of the meeting will be posted this afternoon.
Thanks Josh. Very interesting.
Rhanna. I agree with everything Paul said, so I won’t repeat.
The voters will make the final decision about the charter. Back in 1985 a ballot initiative was put in front of the voters that was pushed by some Aldermen to remove SC term limits. Any guesses about what the voters thought?
Thanks Josh. Very interesting.
Rhanna. I agree with everything Paul said, so I won’t repeat.
The voters will make the final decision about the charter. Back in 1985 a ballot initiative was put in front of the voters that was pushed by some Aldermen to remove SC term limits. Any guesses about what the voters thought?
I’m just curious as to why folks think term limits are a good idea/bad idea. Is the thought that more people aren’t running for these slots because the incumbency edge doesn’t make it worth it? Would the mayor similarly be term limited?
I’m just curious as to why folks think term limits are a good idea/bad idea. Is the thought that more people aren’t running for these slots because the incumbency edge doesn’t make it worth it? Would the mayor similarly be term limited?
Fig. Yes. Maybe.
It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent and because of it, people do not run. The problem is worse for school committee and councilor races. When you walk into the election booth there are lot of names to keep track of and incumbents have the name recognition that the challengers do not.
I am agnostic about whether we need mayor term limits. We only have one mayor. The election is every 4 years. I have looked at the data going back to 1977. Since that time, we have never had an uncontested mayoral election. School Committee and Councilor elections are a different, sad story.
Fig. Yes. Maybe.
It is very difficult to defeat an incumbent and because of it, people do not run. The problem is worse for school committee and councilor races. When you walk into the election booth there are lot of names to keep track of and incumbents have the name recognition that the challengers do not.
I am agnostic about whether we need mayor term limits. We only have one mayor. The election is every 4 years. I have looked at the data going back to 1977. Since that time, we have never had an uncontested mayoral election. School Committee and Councilor elections are a different, sad story.
Fig-I don’t see the issue as having to do with the elections, incumbency, or encouraging people to run for office. The question for me is how do we integrate the various parts of the school system (School Committee, central office, school based staff, families and children) so that it works most effectively? The present set up provides a quasi set of checks and balances that encourages collaboration and accountability.
Fig-I don’t see the issue as having to do with the elections, incumbency, or encouraging people to run for office. The question for me is how do we integrate the various parts of the school system (School Committee, central office, school based staff, families and children) so that it works most effectively? The present set up provides a quasi set of checks and balances that encourages collaboration and accountability.
Without term limits the system can get very entrenched very fast. Look at the CC, we’ve got some candidates there for over 30 years. Some are good and some aren’t, but why take the chance. These positions are not suppose to be lifetime positions. They are glorified volunteers (thats why the pay is so low). They do it for the love of the city. But, whenever there’s an opening, usually there are 3-4 candidates waiting to run. Why not bring in new ideas, fresh perspectives?
Without term limits the system can get very entrenched very fast. Look at the CC, we’ve got some candidates there for over 30 years. Some are good and some aren’t, but why take the chance. These positions are not suppose to be lifetime positions. They are glorified volunteers (thats why the pay is so low). They do it for the love of the city. But, whenever there’s an opening, usually there are 3-4 candidates waiting to run. Why not bring in new ideas, fresh perspectives?
Whoops. I just double checked the data. I was wrong about the mayoral elections. In the 1985 mayoral election, Ted Mann ran unopposed. That should be the only time this has occurred since, at least, 1977.
Whoops. I just double checked the data. I was wrong about the mayoral elections. In the 1985 mayoral election, Ted Mann ran unopposed. That should be the only time this has occurred since, at least, 1977.
I really don’t think it is just the incumbency issue that keeps folks from running. The pay is horrible, the hours are long, the “clients” (namely us) are demanding, the rewards are few and the pain is plentiful. I’d still raise their salaries. There are a lot of folks looking to help, but money and benefits do matter…
If Term Limits are set out, how do you handle the impact on the board all at once? Most of our political members are old hats at all of this.
I really don’t think it is just the incumbency issue that keeps folks from running. The pay is horrible, the hours are long, the “clients” (namely us) are demanding, the rewards are few and the pain is plentiful. I’d still raise their salaries. There are a lot of folks looking to help, but money and benefits do matter…
If Term Limits are set out, how do you handle the impact on the board all at once? Most of our political members are old hats at all of this.
Fig. Nothing is ever one issue, BUT more people run when an election has no incumbent running. The job is just as crummy regardless of who your opponent was.
The transition will be easy. One strategy is to say that only terms that start after 2014 count towards the limit.
Fig. Nothing is ever one issue, BUT more people run when an election has no incumbent running. The job is just as crummy regardless of who your opponent was.
The transition will be easy. One strategy is to say that only terms that start after 2014 count towards the limit.
History shows that the city had more competition for CC spots when there was no pay/healthcare attached to the job. The job was totally volunteer. This means to me, that money doesn’t matter to most….I am sure healthcare is a huge plus for some, but most people aren’t doing it for the whopping pay.
History shows that the city had more competition for CC spots when there was no pay/healthcare attached to the job. The job was totally volunteer. This means to me, that money doesn’t matter to most….I am sure healthcare is a huge plus for some, but most people aren’t doing it for the whopping pay.
A relevant comment was posted on the other thread on Charter but it seems more appropriate to answer here. Someone said that “eight years is enough time to be effective.” This is true, but
effective at what? The term limits on the SC seem to focus members on the short-term , not the long term. Solutions that work in the next eight years or whatever’s left of your term may in fact cause worse problems in the longer term and even foreclose alternative solutions.
I think thoughtful SC members now would admit that the bad decisions of twenty years ago have forced the recent SC members to chose among bad alternatives to accommodate the higher but quite predictable increases in school populations as the demographics of neighborhoods change.
Homes that were formerly filled with school age children are filled with seniors as the first group of parents age. But when these former parents, now seniors leave the homes around village schools that have been closed by short-sighted term-limited (?) SC members, they are replaced by a new group of young parents. If the centrally located schools of 100 years ago like Angier were all updated in place, the city would have the space to teach the children of today in modern schools with the expense of transporting the children from distant neighborhoods to updated but overcrowded schools where the simple act of crossing the last street to school becomes a monumental conflict between blue zone parents and nearby walkers. The horrendous choices necessary to accommodate the overlarge student body at the new Zervas that were laid out at the recent meeting at the Waban Library Center would not have been necessary if the students now to be bused or driven in to their new distant school were able to walk to their updated but convenient schools. Unfortunately, the SC of that day lacked the foresight to anticipate this problem that the SC members of 100 years ago did.
I don’t know if the term limits imposed in the Charter 25 years ago contributed to the shortsightedness of those elected under the Charter, but the contrast between the wisdom of those non-term limited SC members and the folly of the term limited one leads me to the conclusion that the term limits have been a serious detriment to the SC and the City as a whole. The term limits should be removed, not extended further. There are still serious issues with the SC, but they should be dealt in a manner that has not proven a failure.
City Councilor Brian Yates
Graduate of Emerson Elementary School, I don’t know if I’d be going to Countryside, Zervas, or Angier if I was back in the fifth grade now, but the barriers of Route 9 and Needham Street probably would mean that I’d be driven in a bus or a car to make sure that I lived long enough to graduate from Meadowbrook Junior High and Newton High. (whoops I mean Brown Middle School and South High. Are change and improvement synonyms?)
A relevant comment was posted on the other thread on Charter but it seems more appropriate to answer here. Someone said that “eight years is enough time to be effective.” This is true, but
effective at what? The term limits on the SC seem to focus members on the short-term , not the long term. Solutions that work in the next eight years or whatever’s left of your term may in fact cause worse problems in the longer term and even foreclose alternative solutions.
I think thoughtful SC members now would admit that the bad decisions of twenty years ago have forced the recent SC members to chose among bad alternatives to accommodate the higher but quite predictable increases in school populations as the demographics of neighborhoods change.
Homes that were formerly filled with school age children are filled with seniors as the first group of parents age. But when these former parents, now seniors leave the homes around village schools that have been closed by short-sighted term-limited (?) SC members, they are replaced by a new group of young parents. If the centrally located schools of 100 years ago like Angier were all updated in place, the city would have the space to teach the children of today in modern schools with the expense of transporting the children from distant neighborhoods to updated but overcrowded schools where the simple act of crossing the last street to school becomes a monumental conflict between blue zone parents and nearby walkers. The horrendous choices necessary to accommodate the overlarge student body at the new Zervas that were laid out at the recent meeting at the Waban Library Center would not have been necessary if the students now to be bused or driven in to their new distant school were able to walk to their updated but convenient schools. Unfortunately, the SC of that day lacked the foresight to anticipate this problem that the SC members of 100 years ago did.
I don’t know if the term limits imposed in the Charter 25 years ago contributed to the shortsightedness of those elected under the Charter, but the contrast between the wisdom of those non-term limited SC members and the folly of the term limited one leads me to the conclusion that the term limits have been a serious detriment to the SC and the City as a whole. The term limits should be removed, not extended further. There are still serious issues with the SC, but they should be dealt in a manner that has not proven a failure.
City Councilor Brian Yates
Graduate of Emerson Elementary School, I don’t know if I’d be going to Countryside, Zervas, or Angier if I was back in the fifth grade now, but the barriers of Route 9 and Needham Street probably would mean that I’d be driven in a bus or a car to make sure that I lived long enough to graduate from Meadowbrook Junior High and Newton High. (whoops I mean Brown Middle School and South High. Are change and improvement synonyms?)
@ Brian- you make it sound as if every elected official feels they will be re-elected multiple times so they can then go ahead and plan long range. You are even suggesting long range is beyond 8 years. ( and the school problems are related to term limits)
Isn’t thinking an elected official in Newton is assured of at least 8 yrs. sort of an arrogant, ridiculous position?
I think the argument that term limits prevents long range planning is preposterous. The Board of Aldermen had no such limitation all these years, and never implemented any sort of meaningful long range plan.
@ Brian- you make it sound as if every elected official feels they will be re-elected multiple times so they can then go ahead and plan long range. You are even suggesting long range is beyond 8 years. ( and the school problems are related to term limits)
Isn’t thinking an elected official in Newton is assured of at least 8 yrs. sort of an arrogant, ridiculous position?
I think the argument that term limits prevents long range planning is preposterous. The Board of Aldermen had no such limitation all these years, and never implemented any sort of meaningful long range plan.
No, Neal. You’ve drawn absolutely the wrong conclusions from what I said. I don’t think that an elected official is assured of at least 8 years. Based on observations of the reality, I do think that most SC members are assured of at least 8 years. Term limits don’t prevent long range planning but they do seem to make it less likely. The non-term limited SC members of around 100 years built Schools in the centers of village mainly where most children could walk to school..
They didn’t built next to swamps where expansion would be difficult. This system lasted over 50 years. Unfortunately when post World War II population increases make more spaces necessary, the distant successors put new schools in unsuitable places rather than expanding those already built in central locations. Eventually the errors of this time period caught up with the SC and made the first Charter Commission institute term limits that were adopted by the people. Unfortunately, these new term limited SC members focused on short term solutions overbuilding marginal sites between the villages rather than expanding and updating walkable sites in the village centers to accommodate the new realities like the need for lunchrooms at schools when both parents joined the work force. Where the products of the early 20th Century like Angier remained in place. modern schools could be built to serve the children within walking distance Where the sites wiser and non-term limited SC members had chosen were eliminated by SC members thinking no further than the rest of their terms. the SC of today have to make do with sites that are too far from many of the students they serve and on sites that need to be expanded by demolishing houses next to the schools.
In a more thoughtful world, the houses next to Zervas would have housed kids ready to walk to school next door, not destroyed to make way for enough parking to serve the expanded population bused or driven there. Are term limits alone the cause of these errors in judgement?
No. But they seem closely enough linked to return to the previous system that didn’t yield such egregious errors. Candidates for SC need to be scrutinized thouroughly be by voters aware of the errors of the recent past and the wisdom of the distant past.
I would respectfully suggest that the Board of Aldermen unconstrained by term limits has in fact adopted numerous meaningful long range plans including the Comprehensive Plan of 2007 and the more recent Open Space Plan. New Ordinances are essentially meaningful long range plans as well since they remain in effect until amended. I think the clarity of thinking of those unconstrained by term limits is clearly superior in this data as well.
City Councilor Brian Yates
Member, Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee, Chair of Zoning and Planning Committee when Plan was adopted by the Board of Aldermen
Member, Committee that updated the Open Space Plan that qualified the city for State help in acquiring state money for open Space
No, Neal. You’ve drawn absolutely the wrong conclusions from what I said. I don’t think that an elected official is assured of at least 8 years. Based on observations of the reality, I do think that most SC members are assured of at least 8 years. Term limits don’t prevent long range planning but they do seem to make it less likely. The non-term limited SC members of around 100 years built Schools in the centers of village mainly where most children could walk to school..
They didn’t built next to swamps where expansion would be difficult. This system lasted over 50 years. Unfortunately when post World War II population increases make more spaces necessary, the distant successors put new schools in unsuitable places rather than expanding those already built in central locations. Eventually the errors of this time period caught up with the SC and made the first Charter Commission institute term limits that were adopted by the people. Unfortunately, these new term limited SC members focused on short term solutions overbuilding marginal sites between the villages rather than expanding and updating walkable sites in the village centers to accommodate the new realities like the need for lunchrooms at schools when both parents joined the work force. Where the products of the early 20th Century like Angier remained in place. modern schools could be built to serve the children within walking distance Where the sites wiser and non-term limited SC members had chosen were eliminated by SC members thinking no further than the rest of their terms. the SC of today have to make do with sites that are too far from many of the students they serve and on sites that need to be expanded by demolishing houses next to the schools.
In a more thoughtful world, the houses next to Zervas would have housed kids ready to walk to school next door, not destroyed to make way for enough parking to serve the expanded population bused or driven there. Are term limits alone the cause of these errors in judgement?
No. But they seem closely enough linked to return to the previous system that didn’t yield such egregious errors. Candidates for SC need to be scrutinized thouroughly be by voters aware of the errors of the recent past and the wisdom of the distant past.
I would respectfully suggest that the Board of Aldermen unconstrained by term limits has in fact adopted numerous meaningful long range plans including the Comprehensive Plan of 2007 and the more recent Open Space Plan. New Ordinances are essentially meaningful long range plans as well since they remain in effect until amended. I think the clarity of thinking of those unconstrained by term limits is clearly superior in this data as well.
City Councilor Brian Yates
Member, Comprehensive Planning Advisory Committee, Chair of Zoning and Planning Committee when Plan was adopted by the Board of Aldermen
Member, Committee that updated the Open Space Plan that qualified the city for State help in acquiring state money for open Space
The decision to sell school buildings was made by the mayor and approved by the then Board of Aldermen.
The School Committee does not have the authority to buy or sell property.
The decision to sell school buildings was made by the mayor and approved by the then Board of Aldermen.
The School Committee does not have the authority to buy or sell property.
@Jane, Then why was it the school committee that created the large central schools (Zervas as one example) instead of adding a walkable school in Upper Falls? Perhaps you forgot to read along with the context, the SC determines the plans that later are approved. If the past SC saw that the student population was level the Mayor and BOA would not have had the opportunity to sell the former school building.
@Jane, Then why was it the school committee that created the large central schools (Zervas as one example) instead of adding a walkable school in Upper Falls? Perhaps you forgot to read along with the context, the SC determines the plans that later are approved. If the past SC saw that the student population was level the Mayor and BOA would not have had the opportunity to sell the former school building.
Groot is right. No school property is sold without the initial approval of the Schoold Committee.
Groot is right. No school property is sold without the initial approval of the Schoold Committee.