The Newton League of Women Voters has launched a new initiative to establish a Charter Commission to examine the city’s laws and recommend changes. A perennial issue that’s sure to resurface as part of that effort, is the size of the Board of Aldermen.
The city charter dictates that we have 24 aldermen, a particularly large crew in comparison to other cities and towns. Does that large complement of aldermen help us? hurt us?. Does that large board make city government work better? worse?
The shrink-the-board arguments seem to be the more obvious ones (e.g. unnecessary expense, voter bewilderment, unwieldlyness-is that a word?). I’m particularly interested in hearing the case for maintaining the current board size, which may be less obvious.
Raising good ideas on why the City Charter should be revised is good, but our lesson from the last Charter Commission is to set the expectations of both the voters as well as the promoters of Charter Reform .
Last time around, I believe the residents (and the League) had done such a good job advocating certain recommendations for the Charter, that most thought they were as good as voting on the Charter when the vote for the Commission and the Commissioners came along.
The Commissioners then spent their 18 months in discussions and arrived at a Charter that only incorporated SOME of the ideas the comprised the full Charter recommendations from the League and many supporting elements were NOT adopted resulting in some what of a patchwork Charter that disappointed many people … especially those who thought a reduced number in Aldermen was going to be a part of the new Charter.
I do support Charter Reform, I just encourage those who feel strongly about certain aspects that should be incorporated into the new Charter, to run for Charter Commission. Trying to job of the Commission outside of the Commission would very likely be an exercise in frustration.
People have to understand that if you put 10 people in a room, each of those 10 have a different view as to what the perfect charter would look like. It’s inevitable that most people would be disappointed due to not getting everything they want…there are so many issues it’s impossible to please everyone. All that I want is for the charter commission to hear the people at public forums look at all the issues (plus their own) and research and benchmark and come up with what they feel is whats best for the city.
To answer Jerry’s question, I believe the opposition used 2 main reasons to get around this. They argue that 24 alderman brings more diversity and it’s easier for people to contact an alderman with 24 members as opposed to 15(?). They also argue that the people who vote are uneducated as to their workload. Lowering the size would increase the remaining boards workload. A study has to be done, if it hasn’t already, to view the workload. The ironic thing is I proposed an item (95-09) to set up a committee to take a look at what the board does and recommend efficiencies, etc. and it’s been stuck in committee for over 3 years. The reality is they are afraid of losing power and losing their own positions.
Is there any backstory on why there are 24 in the first place? Knowing gov’t, they might have used another council (or parliament) as a model. Which one?
Or maybe there were 24 lawyers in Newton back then, and they each needed to build their client exposure?
We have many bright and talented people within our city government. I’m thankful for them and appreciative of their efforts. But the fact that this issue [downsizing the BOA] is still being debated years after the citizens of Newton expressed their desire [at the ballot box] to reduce the BOA, shows just how difficult it is to effectuate real change.
I was told, by Brian Yates I think, that in earlier era there were two bodies (like the house and senate). In a previous reform the two bodies were replaced by a single board of aldermen. The combined head count in the two bodies was 24. When they created the new board of aldermen they kept the same total number of seats to avoid a political scramble.
I’m sure some other blogger’s knows more detailed (and/or accurate) history than me.
@Jerry, you got it correct. In 1897 (!), a bicameral legislature was merged into one body, with no seats eliminated.
@Greer, a significant facet of the 1969-71 charter commission was that, of the 9 members, 5 were sitting elected officials. That included 2 state legislators, 2 School Committee members, and 1 alderman. Even the state legislators resisted downsizing the BoA because they felt that they needed the endorsement and support of the aldermen in order to be reelected. For Newton to really capitalize on the opportunities inherent in a charter commission, its members cannot be that invested in the status quo.
As I recall, citizens who run for seats on the commission may campaign with a wish list of charter changes, but they are not bound to those ideas. Once seated the commission members can review and propose changes to any aspect of the charter, ultimately placing before the electorate a proposed revised charter that may or may not align with campaign positions.
Voices in opposition to seating a charter commission a few years ago expressed concern that ultimately they could only vote up or down on the package of changes the charter commission proposed, and not on individual items.
I am sure that Rhanna or Tom can confirm, but I think there is a home-rule option of making charter changes item-by-item without empaneling a charter commission. I don’t know how involved this process is, but it should be part of a charter reform discussion.
Regarding why the board should stay at 24 members, I recall one of our aldermen arguing that there is to much work now for the current membership level, and a reduced number of aldermen would make their workload downright impossible. While I am quite open to hearing arguments for and against reducing the Board’s size, this particular argument does not resonate with me as our aldermen perform much work that is handled effectively in most other communities by municipal employees. Greer, Ted, your thoughts?
@Steve – the “workload” arguments is an interesting one. Without a doubt, the aldermen do have a heavy workload. I’ve been amazed at how much time, energy and commitment they all seem to put into their work for the city.
I think that no matter what size the board is 3, 12, 24, 52 – if you fill it with smart, dedicated people their workload will over time always grow heavy. The total workload is inevitably connected to how many board members we have. The total workload will shrink or expand with the size of the board.
So for me, the question seems to come down to looking at all the activities they’re involved in and sizing up whether you think overall most of those activities are constructive.
A potential virtue of a big board are that we have a lot of smart dedicated people simultaneously working on the city’s issues and that can be a major asset for city government.
A potential downside of a big board is the mirror image – we have a lot of smart dedicated people complicating, regulating, and knotting up all sorts of issues better left alone.
Despite the fact that we do have an exceptionally big board, I guess I’d have to say that overall we mostly get the value without too much of the drag. I think occasionally our surplus of aldermen unnecessarily bog things down. Occasionally they unnecessarily weigh into issues better left alone. I think overall though they seem to do just fine … which surprises me since I would have guessed that having that many aldermen would tend to be completely unworkable.
Jerry, to reinforce your comment about the work load expanding to fit the size of the Board…of the 53 city councils in Massachusetts, the average city council size is 11, comprised of, on average, 7 ward representatives and 4 at-large. Other cities all get by with fewer than half of what we have. (Newton is the only city with more than one representative per ward.)
Also, on that point…of the 21 cities in Massachusetts with a population greater than 50,000 (excluding Boston)…the next largest city council has 15 representatives. Two councils have 13, and the rest have either 9 or 11.
So far, there is nothing tangible for the revision of the Charter – it may continue “as is”, only good wishes cannot suffice – the necessity for the revision is necessary.
The following is only a suggestion: Let’s say the Charter and fruitless attempts to amend it are analyzed for a possible violation of a civil right: for example, Amendment I “… the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Let’s say the violation looks possible – the lawsuit in a Federal Court is started – and the Court finds that the Charter contains unconstitutional provision – that will give the necessity for the revision of the Charter – and the proponents for the amendment of the Charter will have obtained the strong position.
Of course, there might be other ways to find or create the necessity.
Steve, there is a Home Rule Petition (aka Special Act Charter) under which the city council can petition the Mass. legislature for a special act that will change the city charter. The special act requires a 2/3 approval by both houses of the legislature. It is generally considered that this method cannot be used for major changes such as the size of the city council or term lengths–such major changes should be put to voters of the city.
The other mechanism is a Home Rule Amendment…a city council and mayor in concurrence can put very specific changes to voters…a public hearing is held, subsequent vote by city council must be approved by 2/3, change is reviewed and approved by the attorney general, and then placed on the ballot at the next municipal election. Obviously, this would only work for very specific changes and not for broad reform.
The major problem I have with a home rule petition is that the city is leaving it up to complete strangers (state reps), some have never visited Newton and all they’ve heard about us is the NNHS situation, to make incredibly important decisions on our behalf. Whereas, a charter commission involves the entire community and “we the people” have an opportunity to shape the city we all want to live in. Again, we may not all get wht we want, but it sure beats the HR petition or doing nothing.
On the workload issue, I’m not convinced that it will increase per board member. Much of the work of an alderman is redundant of the work of other aldermen: getting up-to-speed on issues.
Or maybe the city departments should be doing much of the work that the Aldermen do.
FYI there is another way which, those of you who remember Dick McGrath, suggested as the only way Newton will rightsize the BoA. – Putting together a slate of 8 ‘at large’ candidates (one from each ward). Each taking the solemn promise to not serve, regardless of the outcome, will not only send the voters’ message for internalized reform, but will also effectively rearrange financial priorities, leading to a greater confidence vote in the executive branch. By demoting the control and power of the legislative branch from within, a humbling and more realistic image from those outside the municpality will ensue; no longer is Newton the wayward calf of liberalism.
@schlock That seems rather fanciful. They’d have to get elected first. You really think people would vote for a slate of people who promised to do nothing, even if they promised not to take their stipend and health insurance? I sure wouldn’t. And if they didn’t even go to meetings, how would that affect quorum requirements?
The size of the board should be drasticly reduced. With 24 alderman, many people vote in elections ignorantly. We have many alderman that run unopposed. What incentive do the unopposed alderman have to be responsive to the residents of their wards?
Schlock, I suspect your comment may have been more satirical than serious, but if 8 members were to simply opt out of serving, it would make it virtually impossible for anyone coming in for a special permit to get a fair shake. The state law requires a 2/3 vote of the entire body–not just those present and voting–which means 16 votes. So if even one alderman is absent from a meeting, the applicant could never get a special permit approved. The only alternative would be to not vote at all on a special permit, which would result in “constructive approval” under the state law. But then the BOA could not impose conditions in the special permit to mitigate the impact of the project.
Julia made me laugh. Do we think people would vote for candidates that promise to do nothing? Hell yes! Massachusetts’ first and only honest candidates step forward now!
In my opinion, the forming of the Neighborhood Area Councils would address many of the concerns expressed by those who are concerned by the Aldermen’s work load.
1) As Steve pointed out, it is not the job of the Aldermen to micro-manage the work of the staff, but it seems to be the expectation of the public that the Aldermen answer for any action or misstep taken by staff, so many Aldermen feel obligated to get involved in the day to day activities of the city.
2) As an Alderman, I receive daily calls from various individuals whose needs are not being met by the city … whether repeated attempts to report a broken sidewalk, broken street light, issue at the school, or treatment by an employee … and I know, we’re a big city and for every complaint I get, I know there are hundreds of other requests being addressed just fine. Having more help, helping our residents better navigate in interact with the city is great … This is where I think Neighborhood Area Councils would really be helpful.
3) Home Rule petition can be used and has been used to make modifications to the Charter, but election process, composition and election of the Board may not be modified this way and something like reducing the size of the Board can not be done by Home Rule petition.
Ald Tan Swinson — Didn’t our mayor attempt to improve service through both a 311 system and a position that monitors requests? If my day was consumed that way, I’d want the mayor to fix the response system. I say this respectfully and with some experience that my requests are not handled timely or at all.
@Greer,
This isn’t the first time I’ve read someone mentioning the Area Councils as a good way to alleviate Aldermanic workloads. Could someone explain how?