In a straw vote Wednesday, Newton’s Charter Commission voted in support of term limits for:
- Mayor: 12 years (current charter: no term limits)
- City Councilor: 16 years (current charter: no limits)
- School Committee: 8 years (same as current charter)
Notes from the Newton League of Women Voters is here.
I can’t say enough good things about the Charter Commission and how they’ve gone about their work. Professional, thoughtful, transparent and thorough. And I certainly plan to withhold judgement on the proposed Charter changes until I see the complete proposal, and listen to Commissioners explain their reasoning to the public. But I do worry that something which started as a clear effort to reduce the size of the City Council, may be shooting itself in the foot by including so many changes in the proposal. It’s risky business. Because this may be the last time in many years that we have an opportunity to actually reduce the size of the Council.
Hi Mike – A lot of what appear to be “changes” are actually updates so that the proposed charter is in keeping with state law. As you know, state law trumps local charters, so our charter is outdated in several areas. We had to rewrite several articles so that they were in keeping with current state law. We also added a 10 year charter review as a means of ensuring that our local charter, as it is presented on the City of Newton website, is in keeping with state law.
The major local changes are in the size of the city council and adding term limits for the mayor and city council.
Jane,
I would have left term limits alone. Everyone talks about the size of the now Council, but when was the last time we heard anyone complain about the lack of, or length of, term limits? I think that the average voter would look at term limit changes, and say that “I don’t want to have to vote for somebody I don’t want, simply because the person I do want, has served for too long.”
I would suggest the CC focus on the reduction, allow for a 10 year, or shorter, charter review, and let the next CC test the waters on term limit changes.
Just a couple of neat stats. New York City has one Councilor for every 170,000 residents. Newton has one Councilor for every 3,500 residents. If NYC had the same Councilor to resident ratio they would have nearly 2,500 Councilors! I’m not saying that this stat has any relevance to Newton, but the difference is staggering.
Interestingly, we’ve not had much feedback about term limits since the first deliberation, and the people who have spoken to me tend to favor limits to all bodies and positions. The question is what the right configuration is, and there isn’t a perfect solution that suits everyone. Since the vote, I’ve heard from two people – one person is upset that the term limits are too long and the other thinks they’re too short.
Councilors in large cities such as NYC work full time and have a staff to assist in their work. Our councilors are part time employees (with very limited pay) and have one person to assist the entire council. That’s a significant difference.
I do think that the major change has been the reduction in the size of the council and that the term limits will have a lesser effect on the workings of the city government.
Jane,
I would assume that you have not heard much feedback about the term limits, because the majority of folks that vote, vote for the best candidate available. Those same folks are probably less likely to follow the CC, or politics in general. There are 85K residents here, and you have heard from 2 of them about term limits. Nothing personal, but I think you’re more likely to hear from the vocal minority, than the silent majority.
Randy – Actually, I really take the time to seek out feedback about all charter issues. Perhaps I should have been clearer – only one family and one individual have contacted me about this particular issue, which surprised me. I think you’re quite correct that the main issue of concern for most people is the size of the council.
Term limits was an issue during the campaign. Many people like myself, feel that all branches of government should be held to the same standard. Right now school committee has term limits while everyone else doesn’t. It should be all have term limits or none. I am thrilled the CC is looking into this. We need fresh ideas and perspectives and term limits will make sure that no one can overstay their position. These elected positions aren’t meant to be lifetime positions.
There are certainly pluses and minuses to term limits. These seem reasonable as proposed, and we already have one government body with them in place. I would support these term limits. Yes, you may loose somebody that is really good after 16 years, but there may be a popular councilor who you think just does not get it on your issue. Sometimes change in people is the only way progress is made…
Make it staggered so you don’t loose institutional knowledge and things are good.
The city council would be 6 two year terms and the mayor 2 four year terms? The city councilors will still be running every two years? And these are not lifetime limits? One year off and they could run again.?
I know I am quite the nerd but I have dissected the NLWV notes.
While I too applaud the hard work the Charter Commission has done, some changes are seemingly being made just for the sake of change. Unlike the unanimous early vote to eliminate the ward councilors, this decision was made after much discussion and many failed proposals. Even the latest vote for the term limits above that carried with 6-3 in favor was arrived at reluctantly after it had failed 7-2 earlier in the evening.
Several commissioners questioned adding term limits to the city council and the mayor and the final vote seems more about the school committee having term limits in the present charter.
Questions were brought up about what the addition of term limits would accomplish.
The idea was suggested that since they were already including making a major change not only in the size of the city council but in its structure, maybe setting term limits could wait as the problem of turnover could be accomplished by those changes alone. Another sentiment concluded that if as commissioners they were having a hard time agreeing on term limits they were probably making a mistake.
Being able to sell the new Charter to the community was discussed as having to justify the change to the current system to the public along with the major changes to the city council.
From the NLWV notes, so not direct quotes from commissioners, Brooke says “If going to do something like this, need to have strong argument as to why term limits would work” and Howard adds “Might be stressing this too far, when the CC can’t even come to agreement on whether they are really good but Rhanna counters with she “feels that big backers are extremely excited about term limits.” Anyone care to explain this comment?
Also from the notes, so not direct quotes, Rhanna “feels that in reality, the power of incumbency takes power away from voters. Makes argument for term limits she “Gets angry when people talk about ballot box imposing term limits–can’t do when someone doesn’t have an opponent. Especially at local level, power of incumbency is staggering. When choose to run, set up for a lifetime of discomfort with some neighbors,” especially for the mayor.
With the council down to 12 members, running every 2 years without “incumbent” written on the ballot, I think name recognition will mean the most. 12 councilors elected city wide will make it much harder for newcomers to win a seat. In this new system, I think upon learning who is running I can guess who will win – they will have the most city wide name recognition.
The proposed term limit for mayor is 12 years, 16 for councilors, and 8 for school committee members. Two members of the Commission oppose term limits under any circumstances and your second paragraph reflects the comments of one of those individuals. As a point of information, a motion was made to remove all term limits and it was defeated.
Many, if not most, of our votes are divided, which I don’t see as an issue. The discussion process often influences my thinking. In fact, after discussing the size and composition of the city council at 3 meetings, the final vote was 7-2.
As Tom pointed out, the term limits issue was brought up to us during the campaign last fall and the sentiment that I heard at that time was that people favored them. Two other issues that people raised have been addressed:
1. Clarification of residency requirements for running for office
2. Updating the process for filling councilor, school committee, and mayoral vacancies.
3. Updating the area council article
In addition, certain articles required updating so that the charter was in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws So the actual “change” took place when the state law changed, not as a result of our actions.
As we near the end of the beginning of the review process, I’d like to compliment Josh Krintzman for his drafting skills. When I read the proposed articles, I find them to be user friendly to those of us who aren’t lawyers.
I love term limits. Thanks CC.
In any debate about term limits, it’s worth remembering Ted Mann. He’s been gone for a long time now, but he remains the Gold Standard for Newton mayors. Mayor Mann served 22 years.
I was planning to stay out of this discussion but read the notes and couldn’t help myself. These are valid concerns and questions I’m pointing out.
Jane, thanks for responding but you didn’t answer any of my questions. Can you or someone else answer them?
The questions mentioned next were expressed by several commissioners, not just two. Two were for no term limits but others questioned adding term limits to the city council and mayor, as I said.
Term limits does zero to address the loss in representation to each ward.
Due to the proposed removal of the Ward seats, this further sets up a dynamic where the folks with the most money always win. Every day that goes by, it appears more and more that this is not by accident.
Vote NO on this Charter Change.
It consolidates power, eliminates our most locally accountable representatives, and reduces residents’ input.
What?????
Sometimes I think people just throw out buzz words.
How does term limits consolidate power?? It gives more people an opportunity to run, because most people won’t run unless there is an open seat. It promotes a higher turnover which should infuse local government with new and fresh ideas/perspectives.
It promotes accountability because more elections mean more people watching what’s happening..
AND it promotes residents input because many people, including myself, feel the only time elected officials pay attention to the electorate is during election time.
I don’t understand.
@Tom-
Please re-read the post. There was no mention of a singular relationship between terms limits and power consolidation.
Term limits is a complex topic. There is a credible argument on all sides. I am 100% certain that if there had been term limits for Ted Kennedy, the votes of MA would have lost out. Too national for you? OK. It holds true for Ruth Balser, too. Not local enough, still? OK. It also holds true for Gentile, Baker, Yates, among others, as shining positive examples.
One thing is clear: getting rid of the very people who are closest to their constituents (Ward CC members) is just bad policy. But good for certain business interests and the consolidation of power.
Marti- Some very quick answers:
Yes, the city council and school committee terms are still 2 years. There was no discussion of term lengths at the meeting.
The term limits are not life time terms: 4 terms for SC, 3 for mayor, 8 for city council. The current charter does not preclude a SC member who has reached the term limits from running again after leaving for one complete term.
I’m not sure what the question is at the end of your fourth paragraph. I’d have to listen to the audio to know whether the comments from the two members you quote were in response to one another or unrelated. Over the course of a 90 minute discussion, a lot is said so context matters.
I appreciate your questions and hope that this adds some clarification. Send along any others you might have.
That was some quick writing quite late at night, so I want to add, as I always do, that these are proposed changes to the charter.
Charlie,
We have a very talented group of citizens. Everytime I think we will miss someone when they leave office, we seem to replace them with someone who is even better. I’m not worried about replacing people. I am worried more of complacency and losing touch with the electorate, which term limits resolves. Also, if you have specific goals for the city and you can’t accomplish those goals in 16 years, then maybe either your goals are unrealistic or your ineffective. Either way, 16 years is plenty.
I do have a question for the Charter commissioners on this board. We obviously have people on the board that have been in office over 16 years…Does the term limits start at the date the new charter is passed (grandfathered) or will everyone approaching and over 16 years have to give up their seat in the next election. I think people might want clarification on this issue.
Good question, Tom. If the proposed charter passes, the clock is set at 0 (that’s a zero) for the mayor and those on the city council or school committee in January of 2019.
It’s zero for SC, too? You’re not touching the sc term limits, they already exist. Are you saying that a SC member can have 6 years in office and if this passes, it will give the sc member another 8?
Tom – The Collins Center (the consultant) told us that the clock would start on Jan. 1, 2019 because that’s when a new charter would take effect. I assumed that meant for the SC as well but I’ll double check at our next meeting.
What Charlie said.
The model city charter is based on old history prior to Nov. 8th. As we clearly saw, the political paradigm shift has left Newton quivering. Hillary mourners stubbornly refuse to accept that perhaps the equality of gender identification did not transfer from the race theme. The women of the Golden Circle are circling the wagons in a last ditch effort to maneuver with their Charter Commission designees. Dragging their heels with an alleged ‘we know what’s best for Newton’ attitude will pompously lead to voter rejection, being overcome by defiance of logic & common sense. Good luck ladies.
Thanks Jane
@Mike: In your opinion, what made Mayor Mann such a great Mayor?
I won’t speak for Mike, but what I liked about Mayor Mann was how he liked people (he wasn’t using the position as a stepping stone) and he actually stayed in the city and got things done. If you had an issue, you could call him directly or approach him at city hall and he would listen to you and make a phone call and the problem got rectified.
He made his share of mistakes as well. He did make the decision to sell off some elementary schools.
He was Mayor before prop 2.5, so his financial issues were way easier than they are now, but the key thing was that he actually liked and listened to people and wasn’t using them just for votes.
My Quest to Understand Term Limits
I’ve never understood term limits. The concept has always struck me as manipulative and counter-democratic – A sneaky maneuver by those who want to be in power.
So, I went on a quest to find logically sound arguments FOR term limits so I could at least say it’s one of those issues where both sides have a valid argument.
First I went to Google to find out why our Presidents have term limits and learned that our founding Fathers debated term limits and decided no.
It seems the 22nd amendment was a partisan GOP reaction to discredit FDR’s legacy and the reason that enough Dems went along with it was because Southern Democrats were divided from the Northern wing of their party because of race.
“Roosevelt had drifted toward support of black civil rights in his latter terms; and Truman openly supported civil rights. Southern Democrats, then, could no longer count on an ally in the White House. In their eyes, anything that weakened the Presidency (and thereby strengthened Congress, in which Southerners controlled key committees) was good.”
So, I then scoured this post (sorry @tom, you made this easy for me) for a sound argument …
@tom “It gives more people an opportunity to run, because most people won’t run unless there is an open seat.”
Really? Do we really want to legislate to compensate for cowardness?
@tom “It promotes a higher turnover which should infuse local government with new and fresh ideas/perspectives.”
Really? We want to legislate that new and fresh ideas are a fundamental requirement for running a city government?
@tom “It promotes accountability because more elections mean more people watching what’s happening AND it promotes residents input because many people, including myself, feel the only time elected officials pay attention to the electorate is during election time.
Really? We want to legislate resident engagement? Surely there are other – less dictatorial ways to build public awareness and engagement in city government.
@ ? Especially at local level, power of incumbency is staggering.
It’s too hard to take down a popular effective official elected by the people so we need to lower the bar so it’s more fair? Is it more important
@Charlie Shapiro writes “Term limits is a complex topic. There is a credible argument on all sides.”
I wholeheartedly disagree. In a democracy, why would you legislate to suppress the will of the people? There really is no middle ground here. If you own a company, would you fire your most experienced and successful employees to give others a chance? Should older employees be unilaterally retired?
So, if you’ve got a logical agrument for term limits that tread on the rights and spirt of our democracy, I would seriously love your input.
@Tom Davis– My friend Tom Sheff gave you an excellent answer. Tom and I grew up during the Mann years in Newton. No one else compares.