We are years away before the League of Women Voters Newton‘s efforts to create a charter review commission could be become a reality. Still, there’s no time like the present to resume debating the size of Newton’s Board of Aldermen. Vote in our unscientific poll and then post your thoughts in the comments.
[polldaddy poll=”6293856″]
I’m not sure, but if we ever change it, we might want to change it to an odd number.
The correct number, IMHO, is 12, all at large, 1 from each of 8 wards and the others from any ward. One of the banes of the board, I believe, is the parochialism of representing the interest of specific wards. Unlike Congress, or the State House, there just does not seem to be a need for it in Newton, which has more in common among its 14 villages (not 24 and not 8 ) than differences.
Twelve is also divisible by three and by four, for when a supermajority of 2/3 or 3/4 is required. It is also divisible by 6, which is the number of committees we need to address the main areas of responsibility of the board. Committees would be smaller, and aldermen would again serve on 3 each. I also think we should stagger elections so that no more than half the board runs at any one time. It would maintain continuity while giving the public fewer candidates and races to get to know.
Finally, twelve is a manageable number in terms of running meetings while ensuring representative democracy. It is large enough to represent a diversity of views but small enough to avoid excessive deliberation and debate. Naturally, given the greater responsibility and fewer number to share it, we should double the pay.
@Ted:
Interesting point about factors of 12 — I hadn’t thought about that. Question, though: Isn’t it burdensome for an alderman to sit on three committees? Do you think more people would run if the job were less time consuming?
An odd thing happened in my last post. I put an “8” before a “)” and it automatically came out looking like a smiley with sunglasses: 8)
Ted’s proposal sounds about right, though I might skip the staggered terms as unnecessary with a much smaller board.
I hesitate to go against Ted on anything related to Newton Government, but I don’t believe the size of the Board is why it’s so often extremely difficult to resolve issues expeditiously in Newton. In addition, I’m very involved in my Ward as a member of the Newton Highlands Neighborhood Area Council and the Ward 5 Democratic Committee. I’m very pleased that we have John Rice’s strong background with villages and neighborhoods in the Ward, Deb Crossley’s professional background in environmental and architectural matters, and Brian Yate’s unequaled contribution in terms of his deep understanding of Newton’s government and the City’s non-profit institutions, historic preservation, rules and precedences of the Board, and the overall value of his institutional memory. All have been very helpful in the work I do within the Ward and village of Newton Highlands.
I see two general and highly related problems that are far more significant and they are more attitudinal than institutional.
1. Overly inclusive boards, committees and task forces that result in drawn out processes which accentuate differences among interests rather than common ground. I point to the tortuous community deliberations over Newton North and Dog Parks as examples.
2. Newton has often been referred to as a City where “everyone is first in line”
This is a generalization, I know, but there’s a tendency by many to approach government for public resolutions that will be entirely in their own interest. They want it all, the way they want it. Give and take and seeing things from the other fellow’s perspective are not strong suits when personal interests are involved.
Ted, I think what needs to be done is an overall look at the responsibilities of the BOA (95-09) and try to cut some responsibilities and either assign it to someone at city hall or find volunteers to handle it. For example can the ZBA people handle special permits (quite frankly, I dont know) but maybe if they can’t, a group of volunteers can. And maybe special permits can be kept with the board and something else can be arranged (I’m just saying some responsibilites can be moved to volunteers). Without a study (95-09) that gets done the number is random and if I would give a random number I’d give 15. 15 is odd so no ties, it still has the 2/3 vote as ted points out.
@Bob: If John, Deb and Brian weren’t all aldermen (and this applies to any other fine alderman who contributes to our community but might be displaced with a smaller board) there are many other ways they can contribute their expertise to enhancing our civic life, just as you do, and as so many others do. We have neighborhood councils, commissions, “friends of …..”, volunteer councils, non-profits and, need I say, a chamber of commerce, always looking for participation.
And yes I share your frustration over the way we’ve looked to task forces and committees to ponder problems, but when those things have failed in the past, too often its because our leaders on top were using those mechanisms as a way to pass the buck, not to come up with genuinely unique alternatives.
The size of the Board should be determined by need: What do we need a Board of Aldermen to do in this day and age?
Does it make sense to have people with no zoning experience to be voting on many of the matters that the board decides? How many people on the finance committee have finance experience? Do we want people with no engineering background to be voting on road and building design? Or public safety?
The world is only becoming more complex, and the competency requirement increases with it. To Bob’s point, you could always call public meetings and provide a forum for citizen input. But it seems that a number of board functions could be performed more effectively with less acrimony is placed under professional management. And if so, you could probably function better with a very small board.
@ Sean, Currently, Newton voters decide in 25 contests every 2 years (not including the mayor). 16 at-large aldermen, 1 ward alderman, and 8 School Committee members. Under Ted’s proposal, without staggered terms, we would vote in 20 races, 12 aldermen and 8 School Committee members. That doesn’t do a lot to ease the voter fatigue. With Ted’s proposed BoA and staggered terms for both SC and BoA, we would vote in 10 races every 2 years.
I know that it would pose some issues of equal representation, but ideally I would like to restructure the Board of Aldermen in a way that specifically supports Newton’s unique village structure. Most people don’t know what ward they live in. Hardly anyone knows their precinct. But ask any resident what part of Newton they live in, and they are likely to respond with their village.
A Charter Commission will put the whole governance template under review. The size of the BoA is but a small part of the issue. Would Newton be better served by a City Manager, than a “strong” mayor? What functions are best served by the deliberative body that an elected board or council would be?
The size of the board is not the problem. To Rhanna Kidwell’s concern about voter fatigue, the current form of government (and the candidates for office) has failed to attract 80% or more of Newtons voters to even come to the polls for aldermanic and school committee elections in the past ten or more years, and fails to convince 60% when the mayor’s post is at stake that it’s worth the effort to vote.
That’s a problem.
Max, I don’t agree that size of the board is not related to “voter fatigue”. The vast majority of voters don’t have the time, motivation or inclination to form a clear impression of all of these local officeholders. That may be disappointing, we might wish it were otherwise, but its true.
When it comes election time, if the only votes they’re casting are for people they know nothing about, they stay home. I try to keep up reasonably well on issues but I know I have the same feeling at the polls when presented with some of the more obscure state elected offices – say Clerk of Courts.
I think reducing the number of elected offices down to a more manageable number is probably the most important way of increasing that 20%. Otherwise the only informed voters are the small number of political junkies. Even today I think a substantial fraction of the votes that are cast in the aldermanic elections are done with incredibly little information by many voters.
I’d prefer an 8 member city council (one per ward) that sets policy related to zoning, finance, land use, etc. and sends the day to day work back to the city departments. Residents would be more likely to know who their representative was on the council. It’s how the School Committee works and it’s been a very successful model.
Well said Greg. Go Celts.
There are opinions. But what is the main goal, which the opinions are related to? It looks like each participant has own goal.
For example, LWVN has the goal to create a Chapter Review Commission. But, what for? Only “to promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens in government and to act on selected governmental issues”?
(See http://lwvnewton.org/members/bylaws/ )
Firstly, there should be formulated the Goal. For example,
“Improvement of the management of the City of Newton, as a municipal corporation and a social system”, or
“Improvement of the quality of life of the Citizens of the City of Newton, as a municipal corporation and a social system”, or
“Improvement of the financial sustainability of the City of Newton, as a municipal corporation and a social system”, or
Superposition of the above with something else, etc.
Secondly (of the great importance), there should be formulated the Goal Function connecting the Goal with manageable parameters, like, the number of members of the City Council, financial parameters, etc.
Otherwise, there will be mental wandering off and fruitless brainwork.
Bob, I welcome dissenting points of view. This is a fascinating discussion, and bodes well for a possible Charter review.
I think of the size of the Board the same way I think of expansion in professional sports. The schedule gets longer, the playoffs have more rounds, and while athletes are far better today than they were when the leagues were smaller, there aren’t any more truly great athletes who stand head and shoulder above the others than there ever were. There is more parity, but I am not persuaded the quality of competition has improved. If we had fewer positions on the board, I believe we would have the same number of really good aldermen, and hopefully, they would still get elected. Or, as I like to say, I am all in favor of reducing the number of aldermen on the board, so long as I get to pick.
Speaking for myself only, I was on 3 committees before, I am on 2 now, and the difference is more or less like going from a zone defense to a man-to-man (to continue the sports analogy). I believe that no matter how many aldermen you have, there will be sufficient mission creep to fill our time. Reducing the size necessarily will require a reduction in the workload (although I think we could still wring out more efficiency). But, with fewer aldermen, the job will no doubt be more demanding, and the compensation should be proportionately increased to reflect that fact.
To jane’s point, the board does not really engage in all that much day-to-day administration. If I were to make one change which might significantly reduce the board’s workload, it would be to allow by right many of the things that the Land Use Committee and the board almost routinely improve by special permit (think parking waivers), or send it to the ZBA as Tom suggests. Not much time value added there. But I am somewhat bemused by the contrast between jane’s post on another thread, complaining about a certain city employee having too much power, and her suggestion on this thread that the board should give city employees more power. Over the past decade, the Board has ceded more and more of its oversight of traffic and parking regulation to the traffic council (not a part of the board), and if people are unhappy with that, then reducing the size and role of the board is definitely not for you.
Tom, ultimately, we have made a lot of changes on the board under the past two presidents. We have reduced the number of committees, ceded power and authority to other city agencies or commissions, consolidated some of our functions, improved communication within the board and with the public through the aldermanic email and website, and reformed our rules to move things along more quickly. And we have IMHO had effective leadership to move in that direction. But (as Bob’s post actually supports) it always comes down to the people themselves who serve in these roles. You can have a perfect system, but if you put a flawed person at the head of it who lacks the skills or competencies to make it work, no review or reform is ever going to fix it. Or, as the kids say, “there’s your problem.”
But, I am just one aldermen. I hope more of my colleagues will chime in on this fascinating topic. We are the only ones who really know what the job entails. And, I am feeling a bit lonesome here on this blog thread.
A parting thought: I have to push back on the notion that task forces and commissions are a waste of time or the result of passing the buck. No deliberative body has a monopoly on expertise, experience or insight. When it fails to come up with an answer that can draw a consensus, or recognizes that it lacks the requisite talent and skills, it seems to me supreme good sense for that body to appoint a task force or commission that draws on the best and brightest in our community who are not in public service but willing to make the commitment to come up with a solution. The CAG comes immediately to mind.
In support of a village-based system, Mike says:
Okay, but why is it important to governance that folks know the name of their village?
No question, there are issues of local importance. Families are concerned about the condition of the schools their kids go to, which is based on geography. There are local impacts to development, condition of parks, condition of roads, &c. So, by all means, have some notion of local connection for some or most of the newly configured representatives.
There is nothing especially relevant about our village identity to issues of governance.
Ted, while I don’t disagree with your general point about commissions, for every CAG, there’s a Newton Center Task force or two or ten.
I think that people who have served on commissions and seen the work of commissions are generally skeptical about how much the board and the executive have paid attention to their work.
The CAG was beneficial because our executive branch was willing to heed its warnings and adopt many of the recommendations. Contrast that with the Blue Ribbon Commission, whose report began collecting dust about an hour after the press conference thanking the group for its hard work.
And need we get started on the high school task force that called for a hybrid building until someone else unilaterally announced could get a brand new building almost the same price?
Now one could argue that keeping part of the old high school would have been a bad decision and in the long term we would be better off. But that argument would then reflect poorly on relying on expert tasks forces to solve problems.
But it’s a great argument for better leaders.
If we had fewer aldermen we might have a better quality of candidates to choose from in contested elections, not to mention even more people running for governor’s council!
Ted – slow down. I’m wearing out my copy of “Sports Metaphors for Dummies”
Instead of looking at paring down what we have, perhaps a better approach is to assume that there is not a council, and then determine the necessity of one. I would argue that there is merit in having a body that reflects public sentiment and provides oversight to the executive. But, the question is: for what?
The commission report issue is an interesting one. Does the fact that a 24-member city council repeatedly looks to outside expertise to address fundamental decisions points to this model’s weakness or limitations? I don’t agree that a city council is comparative to a state legislature or Congress. They have aides and ample support, people who are subject matter experts. The legislator plays a political/constituent representative role. The decision making capability is very different.
Perhaps the most effective model would be to start with a small committee of individuals who are elected to provide budgetary oversight. Obviously, most people would want someone with some expertise in this area. Other than that, and with other channels for gaining public input, it’s fair to question whether a perpetual city council is necessary to facilitate optimal city government decisions.
Sean– You said… “There is nothing especially relevant about our village identity to issues of governance.”
I could not possibly disagree with you more. Nearly every Newton resident also views themselves as a resident of the village they live in. Each village has unique characteristics and it’s own distinct issues. The village system as a whole is not only worth preserving, it’s worth supporting with a representative system that reflects the interests of those who live in a particular village.
Our current system of representation is defined by ward and precinct boundaries that mean nothing to anybody, other than the fact they determine one’s voting location. For example, I live in Newton Centre. Just 2 blocks outside the actual center itself. I’m more interested in what’s going on in Newton Centre than any of the other villages. I walk there. I shop there. I dine there. I bank there. My kids all went to school there. But for some reason [which I’ve never fully understood] my home falls in Ward 7-Chestnut Hill, rather than Ward 6-Newton Centre.
I vote at Ward School which I have no other connection with, rather than Mason-Rice which is the school all my children attended. I vote for the ward alderman from Chestnut Hill, rather than the ward alderman from Newton Centre. I’m represented by the School Committee member from Chestnut Hill, rather than the member from Newton Centre. Ask anyone on my street what village they live in, and I guarantee each and every person would say “Newton Centre.”
So, tell me Sean, what practical relevance do the ward and precinct boundaries have, and why would you prefer them to village based representation?
I agree with Mike. Our current system explicitly has ward aldermen to represent local issues. Nearly all local issues really are associated with a particular village. So when there’s some hot issue in Newton Center it makes sense that the ward alderman represents all of Newton Center not just a piece of it. Likewise if there’s a hot issue in say Upper Falls it may be of no interest to anyone on the other side of Ward 5 in Waban.
I don’t see it as a big problem, but given a choice I’d rather have the Ward boundaries map on to village boundaries. There really is no rationale for the existing ward boundaries that I can see, they just are what they are for no apparent reason.
Sean, the BOA doesn’t appoint that many task forces. The ones I have chaired or served on (e.g., Zoning Task Force) have included aldermen and citizens and have had a finite mission which we accomplished for the most part. The aldermen in 3 out of 4 cases accepted our recommendations and they were vast improvements over the previous set of circumstances. My takeaway is that it is the people and not the paradigm. If you have good leaders and good members, the task forces work. If not, you are up that creek without a paddle.
So Bill, if we use your model of budgetary oversight only, who sets the policy on zoning? Without zoning, you would have people building gigantic houses covering every buildable square inch of the lot. Then, of course, you need some oversight of public buildings/parks/playgrounds. And what about other departments like public works, or parks and recreation and the public safety departments? Do we not have any oversight of those departments either? All of you should read a memo that Peter Harrington wrote many years ago when he was an alderman. If you want to see dysfunctional government, you should see what they were doing back in the 1960s and 1970s. Meetings that went until 2 a.m., no first call of items, debate on every item, committees that observed open meeting laws only in the breach. We don’t need to start from zero, we have a pretty good base of knowledge about what does and does not work. We also don’t need technocrats on a deliberative body; we need knowledgeable, intelligent decision-makers and leaders. By reducing the number of seats, I think we would concentrate the talent. Kind of like reducing stock to a rich, flavorful sauce (get out your “Cooking Metaphors for Dummies,” Jerry).
I will scan it (I have only the dead tree version) and send it to the Village 14 blogmasters and they can figure out how to post it.
Ted-I merely – and clearly – said that one city employee often does the bidding of other city departments as well as members of the BOA. I’ve also seen more than a few aldermen use their power inappropriately to serve their own purposes, so stories about individual aldermen or city employees have no place in this discussion. We’re talking about the structure of city government, not individual job performance. But I think you knew that was what I meant, so we’ll leave it at that.
To say that the aldermen don’t do much day to day work is simply not accurate. Why do the aldermen spend time making decisions about what individual home owners can do with their property? The BOA should set the zoning policy and policy for what can be done to property and let the city departments do their work based on the policy. A 24 member BOA doesn’t see the forest for the trees.
I also suspect that an 8-member city council that focuses on policy would attract very high caliber candidates.
Ted: Does the public want an elected body to provide oversight for every aspect of city government? A 20% turnout for elections would suggest that a very large majority of the residents in this City may not care.
I should mention that I do respect and appreciate the time and effort that aldermen put into their roles. However, if a Charter Review is initiated, it would be incumbent upon those performing this function to explore if there is a more optimal model for decision-making and civic engagement.
This thread about the size of the BoA seems to have become a proxy for area councils. Not all “villages” are so cozy. Newton Corner, where I live, was cleaved by the turnpike some fifty years ago, but is still viewed as a “village”. Ward 1 which includes Newton Corner, also includes much of Nonantum, yet another “village”, as well as the outer edges of Newtonville and perhaps even Newton Centre (way outer). While the Newton Corner Neighborhood Association has tried to create a “village” atmosphere, there is precious little village to hang on to. What to do?
I would vote for the current number of twenty-four members on the sound principle “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” For all the disagreements about individual projects and policies, I don’t think most Newton voters would want to swap with the residents of virtually all the other communities with smaller councils but less fiscal stability and quality of life. Maybe the current mix isn’t really why Newton is a nicer place to live than most of these other cities, but what urgent need justifies taking a chance? Similarly why go Council Manager over strong Mayor? Even the best of the Plan E cities have serious problems. Perhaps we shouldn’t look at the Board of Aldermen as a large city council but instead a small representative town meeting with all the strengths and weaknesses of that form of government.
All that being said, there are some issues that might deserve Charter Commission scrutiny but may not deserve change. The Citizen Assistance Officer might reasonably be placed under the Board of Aldermen to give the Board better information about problems in the government.
But might that come at loss in the ombudsman effectiveness at getting things done by leaving the Mayor’s office
There are some arcane provisions about the declaration of the Treasurer or the Comptroller as the Director of Finance. This seems like a dead letter as both these individuals do their administrative jobs, the Comptroller advises the Board financially as well as running the city’s accounting function, and most recent Mayors have had separate Budget Officers or most recently a Chief Financial Officer. This system seems to work fine. Giving the ability to the Board to appoint separate legal counsel when the Board and the Mayor’s interest might have some value but might be not enough to justify a Charter Change.
The reduction in the number of aldermen would be objectionable for two reasons. Many citizens only know a few Aldermen and the reduction could further alienate citizens by removing some of those who have helped them and represented them. As some have noted, a reduction in the size of the Board should be accompanied by a transfer of some major function to another body like Special Permits to the Zoning Board of Appeals or Planning Board. It’s not clear that the citizens who serve on these bodies would want the tremendous increase in workload with financial compensation. Obviously basic knowledge in zoning and land use is required to serve on the Special Permit Granting Authority, but I don’t think that theoretical expertise should substitute for the knowledge of the needs and values of the community that
running for office should provide. The accountability that facing the voters in the future gives is a primary value of retaining the Special Permit power in the elected Board of Aldermen.
However., the topic of accountability does lead to the one portion of the Charter that most deserves Charter Commission scrutiny. The two at large members per ward elected every two years means that no voter who dislikes one of two members from any ward gets a clear shot at him or her. They could well unseat their favorite while their unfavorite escapes. The best way around this would be four year staggered terms. This would answer the concern about lengthy ballots as well and allow incumbent Aldermen At Large on the correct cycle to run for Mayor without forfeiting their seats. The downside is that accountability is delayed, perhaps to the point of futility. An Alderman At Large who casts an unpopular vote in his first year will not have to fear voter retribution for three years. Would he or she become a statesman, a philosopher-king of the sort Socrates envisioned or just an arrogant dictator?
Alderman At Large Brian Yates