Political commentator and Newton resident Marjorie Arons-Barron weighs in on the charter commission on her blog.
We may be a city, but it’s the councilors’ connectivity to the wards that authenticates neighborhood responsiveness and highlights accountability. A good ward councilor has in his or her DNA the pulse of the ward and the fiber of its neighborhoods. The responsiveness of a councilor elected citywide, even if he or she is designated “from” a ward, is bound to be diluted, with tens of thousands more constituents to answer to.
There are political groups that want to speed up the political process especially in regards to land use. This group favors a smaller city council. This is not a good solution to the land development issue. Voters lose power over their politicians. The historical nature of Newton will be lost to the need of high rise development.
At risk is the loss of local political power to the constituents. A small power elite would emerge as a result.
The big challenge for the CC is whether at this juncture, it will listen to the overwhelming kickback to the elimination of ‘ward specific’ representation. Will they admit that perhaps they were caught up in the cultural Newton phenomenon of ‘we know what’s best for you’?
Will they risk jeopardizing the entire package based on this one prominent unfavorable matter?
Are they reasonable enough to admit that perhaps they don’t have it all together; perhaps the rising tide is distrust in the charter revision process, possibly further alienating those whose support they are attempting to gain? – if nothing else works – try the truth..
Thanks for publishing this Greg. I thought it was well thought out enough to read it into the public record at the public hearing last night!
Collen…you are exactly right!
If development is to come, let it be openly, if fiercely, debated.
I disagree with the comments concerning Land Use and the Charter Commission above.
Land use was not the deciding factor in reccommending a smaller city council. Clearly most of Newton want a smaller council, for many and varied reasons, and have voted for it 2 times. Many of those reasons have been commented on multiple times.
A smaller council will not affect special permit approval or the loss of historic Newton. They have no power now and will still have no power to change the economics in play that bring developers to the area willing to speculate wealthier people will continue to want to live in Newton.
A smaller city council would not affect development being “openly, if fiercely debated.” In fact it could increase public input at hearings. A larger variety of residents might come if they were not so long. Public comment is a small part of the hearings now and comes after 24 Councilors have voiced their opinions, many of them expressing the same ones.
“Voters lose power over their politicians.” This is just not true. You can vote for whomever you choose. Of course that is the power voters should have. If you mean “influence over their decisions,” that might be lessened, but maybe it should be.
The assumptions made in these comments of the affects of a smaller city council rely on Newton voters only electing Councilors who want more developments, density and smart growth. I think the probability of that happening is too small to measure. It seems more likely that voters would elect more Councilors who want to maintain the historic feel of Newton when dealing with development issues.
I couldn’t agree with Marjorie more. She is right on! The CC Members should pay attention.
I was very persuaded by Councilor Laredo’s testimony at the Charter Commission last night in favor of 16 at-large aldermen with four year staggered terms and may ultimately lean that way, although I’m still undecided.
But I did come away convinced that five city wide councilors from any ward is a mistake because it would make it very hard to target any one or more specific councilors to unseat, much as its hard to unseat one of our two at-larges now.
Greg, Of the 20 largest cities in Massachusetts , Newton is the only one that does not have any truly at-large councilors (no residency requirement). 6 cities have only the truly at-large, and the rest have a mix of the at-large plus one from each ward. It’s a popular structure because it has strong benefits. The Model City Charter’s top recommendation is 5 to 9 truly at-large because it allows you to get the best people in the city…you don’t have two talented people in Ward A facing off while a less dedicated person in Ward B runs unopposed.
An at-large pool allows a great opportunity to expand the talent pool…if you live in a ward with a well-loved councilor, you can run for the at-large pool. It offers a less contentious election…candidates aren’t running against a person, they are just running for a seat, which might appeal to some candidates who might not otherwise run. It ensures contested races…there will always be people willing to run for the at-large pool, while there won’t always be people willing to challenge an incumbent.
I don’t share the concern that it would be hard to unseat an under-performing councilor. I think it would be very tough to win one of the 5 at-large seats, and I imagine there would more than 5 great candidates most of the time.
I don’t really favor any scenario with more than 1 representative per ward. We are the only city or town in all of Massachusetts (and likely the US) with more than one representative per ward. When you have more than one, you immediately have redundancy.
I did support the idea of 4-year terms, because I share Marc’s concern about the length of the ballot. Others were more persuaded by the need for officials to be more frequently accountable to the voters.
Thanks for sharing that Rhanna.
Although I know I’m the guy who wants to separate individuals from any charter decision, I think most of us can close their eyes and think of that at-large person you’d really like to see be held accountable in an election by a challenger who was willing to challenge them specifically. You lose that opportunity with this format.
As it is, many informed voters go to the polls trying to decide if they want to bullet vote for one at-large, even though they’d really prefer having a say about two. This just seems to make that thought process even more complex.
So…I’d encourage you not to structure the entire city government around that one person whom you’d like to see in a 1:1 matchup. :)
In the current 13-member proposal, 62% of the seats would offer exactly what you want. I think the competition for the other 38% would be steep, and the benefits of that pool would outweigh the possible pitfalls. And if we did end up with that one undefeatable councilor, then that’s the will of the voters.
Haha. When I close my eyes I imagine a composite of, um, interesting Alders/Councilors from across the decades. And I think of this problem only in the abstract, hoping to free future generations from the tyranny of bullet voting. I know, cue, the Aaron Copeland soundtrack.
As a Ward Councilor it may be no surprise that, like in the musical Oklahoma, “I’d like to say word for the farmer.” First, my long experience is that constituents turn to us for help and we can respond because we represent them directly. While all of us on the Council do some of this work, I could not do the same City-wide. In other words, while all our votes count the same, the ward focus of the Ward Councilor is an advantage to the citizens we represent. For example, I am the person who was called on a Saturday several years ago when no one else was around to help a constituent get the constituent’s cell phone out of a big belly solar trash compactor before it was lost. This is not high policy but it sure mattered to that individual. Also, the work I did in helping save the Newton Commonwealth Golf Course, the Durant-Kenrick Homestead, The Waban Hill Reservoir, or help secure citizen support for the Covenant Residences 40B project on Commonwealth Avenue would not have been possible if I did not have the confidence and support of constituents in the Ward, as well as two able at large colleagues. In other words there is lots of work we do as members of the Council that will get lost in translation to the new smaller at-large model.
Second, the only model we have for city-wide election at large without a ward base is the Charter commission itself where currently 4 of the 9 are residents of the same Ward. That was not planned, but it does point up the risk of concentration of power and interest when the matters up for discussion have more local impacts, as issues before the Council so often do, from school construction to park improvements.
Third, the legislative work of the Council is different from the School Committee, which is often held up as model, because it supervises the School Department, not legislates or grants special permits. In these latter roles, our current Council arrangement has assured a wide diversity of opinion. Newton is a big city in size, and diverse in neighborhoods and points of view, all of which are currently represented on the Council. I am not confident that diversity would persist in the proposed new smaller and more at-large focused arrangement, especially for those wards which are less dense but still need assistance and representation. We would not want who represented Massachusetts to be decided in New York, nor would Maine want it to be decided in Massachusetts. It is worth remembering that like the Congress, at one time Newton had a bicameral local legislature, and the merged version we have combines both at large and district representation, which is a balance that has served us well.
That is why, respectfully, I still believe the changes proposed by the Charter Commission will not be good for the City. I do understand that others, however, believe otherwise, which I respect. Nonetheless, I do hope the Charter Commission will reconsider the issue of ward councilors as well as term limits, as much of the best work on the Council has occurred as Councilors get more experienced, even as the Council and the City benefits from talented newcomers.
@Councilor Baker: With all due respect to your service overall and your efforts regarding the Newton Commonwealth Golf Course, the Durant-Kenrick Homestead, The Waban Hill Reservoir, etc., etc, are you saying that you would not have cared or championed these projects if you had been elected to represent Ward 7 from an At-Large seat?
And certainly I know you well enough, and have a high regard for you, to believe that if you were an At-Large representative you would have still helped that constituent with the cell phone inside the Big Belly.
So really is it about the positions or the individuals that we elect to these seats that matters most?
I’m pretty confident its the second.
Councilor Baker, when we were elected, the Charter Commission spanned 6 of 8 wards (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), and the most from any one ward was 3 commissioners from Ward 2. Since then, one person moved from ward 1 to ward 2. But we still span 5 wards, and the only other concentration is 2 commissioners from ward 5.
A few decades agp. the State League of Women Voters was successful in winning approval of a major cut in the size of the Massachusetts House of Representative. Has the performance of the smaller House been better in any significant verifiable way since? The three Speakers of the House preceding the current Speaker were all convicted of Federal crimes, but I don’t think that was the objective of the reduction.
I expect that constituent service varies greatly by ward. I can only say that living in Ward 6, I’ve rarely found the ward councilor more attentive than the at-large reps from the ward. That isn’t to say we haven’t had good people in that position, just that they weren’t usually the first to return my call or e-mail when I sent a request to all three. In fact, the three often preferred to work together as a team or consult with each other on local matters, often in a way that felt very… redundant.
The days are gone when you should have to call your aldermen to get a tree cut down or a pot hole filled. 311 may not be perfect, but with those two departments it seems to work remarkably well. Except for the truly exceptional case (perhaps even then) I’d say there’s something seriously outdated about our city if we need an elected official to handle service matters. It’s a tremendous waste of resources, both for the elected officials and for the city employees to handle the interrupts. Far better IMO to make sure customer service works more effectively!
Along with the apparent redunancy of a larger board are complex processes. Not only does the average citizen have trouble knowing all the names on the ballot, most cannot begin to track items as they work their way through committee. From my experience, most councilors don’t even have a good handle on which item goes to which committee, and in which order. That’s a big impediment to civic involvement. It’s often the case that by the time some matter comes to the attention of the public, the arcane public process is nearly complete. For those who make a hobby of following an item from committee to committee, there’s a huge amount of information relayed, and sometimes lost, from one meeting to the next. Combining committees to hear an item is sometimes a solution, but that carries with it operational issues as well.
Please let me know if I’ve missed something in this process on comparable city elections in other parts of the state. What are the statistics of contested municipal elections around the state? I would be interested in finding out if there are truly serious candidates and contested races in the races in all of the similar sized cities in our population range.
Important things to know would be: how many cities find the need for primaries, and how many seats go uncontested?
My personal thoughts are that this is all scale-able, and that once you reduce the number to 13 then you would still have a great number of the races uncontested with only term limits actually controlling turnover.
Speaking of term limits, which I support in concept, how different would our Council look this year if we have had ongoing term limits? Would you be happy?
Again I stress that as a soldier/statesman, I am questioning this process on behalf of the residents of the city, as I most likely will not be affected by either outcome.
To Adam’s point “constituent service varies greatly by ward”. I am also in Ward 6 and had the Ward Alderman two doors down but services came from Ward 5. This is dependent on the individuals. Of course one at-large councilor could be a dud when the current three gives the resident a fighting chance of getting constituent services.
I really think that the council needs to expand its scope of thinking. We might be better off with a god-king of Newton, or settling all zoning disputes through trial by combat (two men enter, one man leaves) …. ;)
@Lisle, great comments. @Greg, great comments (about binomial voting).
Greg, as you know, Lisle would have been helpful regardless. That being said, I think he is unusual.
Maybe instead of focusing on the councilors, we should focus on the voters. I am represented by Lisle, Marc Laredo, and Ruthanne Fuller. When it comes to everything about my ward, I only talk to Lisle. I don’t think I am alone. Don’t fear. Marc and Ruthanne will attest to the fact that I chew their ears off about city issues.
In a previous blog, I asked Rhanna, Jane, and Josh, if there was a decision in Newton that might have been reversed if we had no ward councilors. I did not get an answer, which I interpret as a “No.” If we can’t think of one example of how eliminating ward councilors would have improved Newton, then why are we trying to fix a popular form of government that does not appear to be broken?
As many know, I am an infrequent contributor (lacking even a photo) to these pages, but the issues are particularly important.
First, Rhanna is correct about the distribution of Charter Commissioners; my point is simply that we ended up with four in one ward, which as indicated, was not designed, but that history indicates that ward concentration can occur with councilors elected from anywhere in the City, as currently proposed by the Charter Commission.
Second, Greg and Jeff are accurate that I would have worked on all the things I mentioned, but I doubt with the same depth, as literally hundreds of hours were involved with each of the major projects from start to finish, and I would also wanted to have been equally available city-wide to those who sought me out if I were elected by them. The point is that the Ward Councilor is often the first responder for constituents, and has the Ward knowledge and capacity to stay involved and commit deeply to a more local issue, an important public service that I do not see being available in a smaller Council all elected at large. Also, term limit turnovers will mean some of this important local knowledge and history will be lost with time.
Finally, perhaps lost in the conversation is the value in having multiple councilors to turn to when citizens have a problem. Ours is a citizen City Council with most of us (myself included) having full time roles elsewhere. I foresee a the proposed new Councilors seeking higher compensation to be able to spend full-time in their roles, as in Boston, as well as staff for individual councilors. Again, I can understand that reasonable people may find this likelihood okay, and even desirable. For my part, I think something valuable to the City will be lost.
I recognize that the members of the Charter Commission have arrived at their provisional decision with the best of intentions. All of the Commission members, even those who have held elective office, however, have only run city-wide. Therefore I am trying to bring forward to them and to Newton citizens what I hope are helpful perspectives about the Ward Councilor role from my over thirty-two years of service in that capacity. The decision about what the Commissioners ultimately propose is of course up to them, and then, a year from November, up to Newton voters to decide.
I’m still waiting for an explanation of why it’s appropriate for our State Reps and Senator to vote on statewide issues even though they’re elected from within Newton and Newton/Brookline/Wellesley, respectively. And why it’s appropriate for our US Senators and US Rep to vote on issues that affect the nation, even though they’re only elected by Mass, 4th District voters.
“I would have worked on all the things I mentioned, but I doubt with the same depth, as literally hundreds of hours were involved with each of the major projects from start to finish, and I would also wanted to have been equally available city-wide to those who sought me out if I were elected by them.”
A thoughtful point from Councilor Baker that merits consideration.
Emily…Newton is a city of 18 square miles, overwhelmingly funded by property tax revenue. What happens in Auburndale or Chestnut Hill directly affects my daily life here in Newton Centre. Anywhere in the city, proposed development and its impact on tax revenue, traffic, school population, historical preservation, or affordable housing matter to me directly. I can walk to Newton Highlands and Newtonville but I don’t live in either Ward 5 or 2. If we have a 13-member system, I would like to be able to vote for the representative from those districts. I can keep track of 13 reps.
Massachusetts covers 10,500 square miles. Issues in Pittsfield or Truro have little or no impact on me. Even if I wanted to be sure our state legislators are making the best decisions for local investment of funds throughout the state, I can’t keep track of 200 senators and representatives.
The Model City Charter’s top recommendation is a city council composed of 5, 7, or 9 representatives all truly at-large, to ensure that the best people in the city are elected. Six of the 20 largest cities in Mass. have this model. However, the MCC acknowledges that in cities of great diversity, district representation is important to make sure every district has a voice, and Newton is certainly in this category. The MCC recommends that district representatives are elected at-large to avoid parochialism and make sure the focus is on the best interests of the city.
Who are the people who prepared the Model City
Charter ? What do they base their recommendations on?
I would think total at large candidacies would be extremely expensive and thus discourage candidates without substantial financial backing. Why do the Charter Commissioners think the opposite or do they agree but not mind?
Brian- The National Civic League develops the MMC. This is the introduction to the website:
“Founded by Theodore Roosevelt, Frederick Law Olmsted, Louis Brandeis and other leading municipal reformers in the late nineteenth century, the league has been instrumental in efforts to make local governments more open, accountable and effective.”
I posted the information about how much each local race cost for the 2015 election (July 1-January 20 when the reports are due) about a month ago. The information is from the OFCP website and shows that with the exception of this year’s Ward 2 at-large race, there’s no difference between what a candidate spends on an at-large race and a ward race.
From @Rhanna: However, the MCC acknowledges that in cities of great diversity, district representation is important to make sure every district has a voice, and Newton is certainly in this category.
What makes Newton greatly diverse? From my perspective, this seems to be one of the most homogeneous communities in the Commonwealth! I am coming to see that the ward “fiefdoms” may make sense by linking smaller direct representation with geographic delineation, but beyond that this ward business just doesn’t make much sense (vs. having all representation at-large).
ANP: One out of every five of every Newton residents are foreign born. That is not the case in most of the state’s suburban communities.
Newton is incredibly economically diverse. We have five Title 1 elementary schools (eligible for federal funding based on % of kids who qualify for free lunch) and another large percentage of kids in the system who live in multimillion-dollar homes. We also have geographic diversity with very distinctive neighborhoods.
Dear Jane,
Thank you for the information on the Civil League.However, since Teddy Roosevelt is very busy celebrating the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service, Frederick Law Omstead never shows up for meetings of the Friends of Hemlock Gorge, and Judge Brandeis is too busy with legal affairs,
the names of the founders are not really helpful. Who are the drafters of the Model Code and what is their experience in local government in this century?
As to the fundraising question, I maintain that it would be very expensive to run for one of the total at large seats. Councilor Auchincloss’ total would not be unuusal. It would be typical.
Brian Yates
Charter Commissioners should be excluded from ever serving in the capacity for which they make the rules for. So many aldermen this time around chose to not protect their position by not running for CC. Take note WGC.
“We might be better off with a god-king of Newton, or settling all zoning disputes through trial by combat (two men enter, one man leaves)”…
–I like Empress…..
Does an Empress have term limits?
Hi Brian – I’ll get the OCPF information for you later today. This is factual information, not speculation.
Brian-These are rounded numbers, but here’s the expenditure data from the OCPF website from July 1-January. Ward 2 is clearly an outlier. I pulled it together about six weeks ago and posted it on V14 at that time:
Councilor At Large:
Ward 8
$2263 – Lipof
$7135-Wolpe
$500-Kalis
Ward 5
$3300 – Yates $3275
$8300-Crossley
$7600-Pitts
Ward3
$3571-Malakie
$5586-Ted
$5274 Cote (5271)
Ward 2
$14,000- Leblanc
$4,100- Barton
$18,000- Barton
$21,000- Albright
$33, 900- Auchincloss
Ward 1
$0-Ciccone
$1019-Leary
Ward 2
$4000-Norton
Ward 3
$0-Bousel-Glaser
Ward 4
$0-Harney
Ward 5
$0-Rice
Ward 6
$0-Blazar
Ward 7
$4500-Baker
Ward 8
$22.50-Lappin
Jane commented, “there’s no difference between what a candidate spends on an at-large race and a ward race.”
It looks like the numbers disprove your claim. Other than Baker and Norton, in Ward 2, the candidates for Ward Counselor spent almost nothing while, even if the Ward 2 at-large race is an outlier, thousands were spent on the other at-large races.
If having 13 at-large seats creates more competition, I think the races would conceivably cost more like the race for at-large in Ward 2.
@Greg: My own preference is NO but I don’t think it is wise to make a determination without proper study of what other “benchmark” empires are doing first and reviewing public comment from potential subjects.
Jane, thanks for doing this. To my eyes, (and Marti’s) even if you take Auchincloss out of it, it seems like the Ward contested elections are less expensive than the at-large contested elections.
Of course, one election won’t tell us much. Has the CC put data together on this? I am happy to run the statistics if needed. I think the simplest comparison would be the amount spent per candidate in a contested at large race with the amount spent per candidate in a contested ward only race.
None of the ward councilors had a contested race, but two had expenditures that totaled more than 4 of the at-large contested races. In ward 8, the expenses ranged from $500 to $2260 for the two elected candidates and in ward 5, the range for the electeds was from $3300 t0 $8300. Both ward 3 at large elected candidates spent in the vicinity of $5000-$5500 in a contested race. There’s no reason why an at-large candidate would need to spend more than an at-large by ward. Candidates for both seats are running citywide campaigns.
It was once stated on this blog that Emily Norton spent $9000 on her first campaign. That’s more than any at-large candidate spent this year outside of the ward 2 race.
Hmm…I think I spent $15K back n 1997 to unseat Eric MacLeish and I did – but had a recount and won by only 12 votes.
I’d say name recognition is more important than money. If you don’t have name recognition through either a long history in the city or deep involvement in city affairs, then yes, you’ll have to spend some money to get it. Another less expensive way to win an election is to become involved in various aspects of city events, government, etc. But to say that you have to spend a lot of money to win an election in Newton simply isn’t accurate.
Do people need to know you? Of course. 15 of our current councilors grew up in Newton. One could make a case that a candidate benefits more from deep roots than deep pockets.
Don’t let the money distract you from the rest of the story. Money. Time, Focus. Energy. They all play a role.
This is assault on voters’ rights and as the Ward Councilor is is it the most foundational aspect of local representation is being gutted, the entire proposed Charter must be voted down next year. (its a flat up or down vote – no cherry picking is allowed)
The charter commission was democratically elected by voters and voters will get a chance to accept or reject this. Shouldn’t “voters’ rights” extend to deciding what form of government voters want. Or is that Charlie Shaprio’s decision?
I wholeheartedly agree with Charlie’s first sentence!
Jeffrey-These numbers are from the OCPF website and the previous year’s reports don’t show up (if you can figure out how to get to them, please give me a heads up). What we can see is that campaign expenditures vary depending on the councilor. One at-large contested councilor spent $500 and was elected, while 2 ward councilors who didn’t have contested races spent 8 times that amount.
“15 of our current councilors grew up in Newton. One could make a case that a candidate benefits more from deep roots than deep pockets.”
62% of Newton’s City Councelors grew up in Newton. A interesting fact I did not know.
Jane, if the CC only has last (one) year’s numbers for expenditures, there is no way to know that at-large races and Ward races cost the same.
I would be interested in the opinion of other ward 6 residents. From my view point our ward Councilor is far less responsive than at-large Councilor Vicki Danberg. Anytime I have emailed the ward 6 delegation, I always hear from Vicki. Can’t recall the last time I heard from the other 2.
@Alicia, I have found the current Ward councilor Blazer to be as responsive as Vicky. Note Vicky is much more responsive now than before she had a contested race. I think we have two good representives of the three. The previous ward alderman was not very active. I agree that we should not judge the proposal from the CC based on current personalities but if history is a guide it has been nice to have a few representives from the Ward to assure effective constituent services.
I am a member of the Newton Highlands Area Council and I can’t repeat often enough that John Rice and Dick Blazer have been deeply involved in our activities and responsive to our concerns about a number of important Highlands issues and problems. They both are regular participants in our monthly meetings and other activities. We rely on them for guidance on many items of concern to the Highlands and Newton as a whole. They listen to us and they respect us. It wasn’t that long ago that many were predicting that the area councils and ward aldermen would be at each others throats fighting over power and turf. That hasn’t happened yet, and I suspect it won’t happen in the future. We don’t agree on everything, but nothing is ever a game changer. That’s because there is a common understanding of our village and its needs and its priorities that binds us together. And none of this precludes either area councilors or our ward councilor partners from coming together with the rest of the City on issues that involve all of us. This is a very healthy and dynamic arrangement that’s good for the Highlands and good for Newton.
Groot, I’d have to agree with Alicia’s assessment in Ward 6. It may also depend very much on the issues, and whether a given councilor is on the related committee (again, where the ward and at-large councilor designation mean absolutely nothing)
@Greg-
First, it’s spelled “Shapiro”, but no worries. :)
Signatures for the formation of the Charter Commission were collected from voters who were pitched the idea of a smaller Board. For the members to then use that power to reduce the ability for voters to have direct and focused advocacy for their Ward is at the very least…a bait and switch.
Show me any data whatsoever that suggests that a majority of voters would prefer to have the most basic local representation stripped away from them.
So yes… I call it an assault on voters’ rights. And that’s being kind.
Charlie, but the voters get to vote on it again. They get to vote it down. So…basically you feel that since folks that gathered signatures didn’t prepare those signing with every possibility for what the charter commission would do…it’s a bait and switch.
Can’t say I agree.
Perhaps it isn’t representing the true will of the majority. But they can vote it down.
Perhaps it weakens local representation. But they can vote it down.
Perhaps it overpromises and underdelivers reform. But they can vote it down.
Perhaps it is the worst thing ever. But they can vote it down.
So…how is it an assault again on voters’ rights? When they get to vote on it? Can’t square that circle.
As for being kind in that description, as as assault on voting rights is a pretty stark phrase, what would be the “unkind” way of phrasing it? You are demonizing something that you don’t agree with, when you could simply disagree with it and lobby against it with the folks who get to vote on it. Namely, all of us.
Did any of the elected Charter Commissioners ever mention their preference to eliminate ward councilors while running for the position? I don’t remember a single one. Now they all agree the ward councilors should be gone. It seems very curious. What is the strength of the argument? That some how you will have more contested races? Better representation?
Based on what?
While there have been very strong indicators over time people want less councilors, I just don’t see how the commission reached the conclusion , the best way to do it, was to eliminate an entire class of representatives. Those most closely aligned with your immediate neighborhood.
I have yet to meet anyone who prefers the elimination of the ward councilor.
If the Charter commissioners have misjudged the sentiments of the community, it would be a real shame. A lot of people worked very hard for this opportunity. While there are some fundamental changes that need to be made to the charter, if this goes down in flames because of the push to eliminate ward representation, it would be a terrible missed chance that isn’t likely to happen again for a while.
I completely agree with Neal. I would vote against any proposed charter revisions if it included having the Ward Councilors be elected city-wide. I think this concentrates political power and makes it more difficult to vote in new councilors who do not have the blessing of the current powers that be.
Also, agree with Charlie – city-wide election reduces the power of an individual ward vote. IMHO the ‘living in the ward’ requirement without ward voting is window dressing.
I totally understand why many folks here feel it is imperative to preserve our ward councilors. There are many good arguments and examples.
But portraying this as a conspiracy or a threat to democracy is over-the-top and unfair to the individuals on this volunteer commission who who (a) put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us and (b) were elected to recommend possible changes to our charter.
Also, anyone who claims to know for certain that the majority of voters will oppose this is just making that up, unless they have secretly contracted with a polling firm to study the matter.
Yes, there are many strong voices of opposition. And one can guess what might happen. But, really, no one knows.
And that, my friends, is the way it works in a democracy.
Neal brings up a good point. I tried darn hard to figure out how the 22 people who ran for Charter Commission stood on issues. Few people would say anything definite, beyond, “It’s complicated. I can’t say anything since each piece needs to fit into all the other pieces.” With a few exceptions, the election (like almost all Newton elections) was a resume contest–I am on the PTO, I am in the League, I went to law school, I am a nice person, I am endorsed by the Newton Democrats, etc. The “debate” and League profiles illustrated few differences. If the candidates felt strongly about the having city-wide elections for all positions, it would have been nice if they could have told voters before the election.
Who is to blame? Ourselves. The Tab (which has been improved 5 fold over the last year), did a horrible job covering the charter race, and their charter endorsements contained no information whatsoever. The debate was horrible. The League profiles were horrible–If you don’t believe me go back and read the questions. Most citizens did not care. We should have demanded more.
A couple candidates rose to the occasion. For example, Charlie Shapiro clearly said that he wanted to preserve the ward-elected councilors. Because of this, I voted for him. At the time, I did not have an opinion per se on ward elections, but I still voted for him because it was refreshing to see someone take a stand.
As I’ve mentioned before, reducing the size of the Board has been an issue I’ve followed closely since at least ’92. I always thought 16 was a good number. When approached at the Farmer’s Market last summer by a representative of the League who was collecting signatures to put the Charter question on the ballot, she said that one of the main reasons was their desire and goal to reduce the size of Board.
It seemed to me to be a narrowly focused reason to go through all of the song/dance of a Charter Commission for just one aspect and single issue but since I agreed with that position, I signed. Not once had there been mention of eliminating ward representation. Wish I had known that otherwise I wouldn’t have signed my name. Serves me right for leaping in without realizing that I was potentially handing them the keys to everything.
Jeffrey – I answered all of your questions forthrightly at the YMCA event. I’m off the grid for about 5 days (graduation and finals), so this is my last comment for a while. In my many conversations with constituents from early July when I declared my intention to run (and after the signature collection) until we began our deliberations, only about 5-6 people mentioned the ward councilor position to me and they were evenly split on the issue – about half for retaining the position and the other half favored eliminating the position.
@Greg. I’m a strong supporter of keeping our current ward councilor arrangement, but I hardly see this as a test of democracy or a conspiracy to mold things one way or the other. I simply feel that it makes no sense to scrap something that has been working pretty effectively for something that is both untested and wholly unneeded. I noted earlier the harmonious and constructive manner that our ward city councilors and elected members of the Newton Highlands area council have been working to address needs and challenges in our village. This is an asset that is both empirical and tangible and I know that virtually every other member of the Highlands Area Council will second what I say here.
If I comment again on this topic in this post or in subsequent posts, I will focus only on things I know to be true from having experienced them first hand as a Newton activist or that I have learned collectively from other folks toiling in the vineyards here. I won’t comment on this or that municipal model, or any general poll results. I don’t think these really matter much when measured against specific examples of what actually has gone on in Newton and in our villages and how ward councilors have fit positively into this arrangement.
Being elected to this commission or any other elected position doesn’t give you superior knowledge, and doesn’t give you immunity to scrutiny and question.
I recall being quite frustrated by the vague responses I received from many candidates, unwilling to usually state with any specificity on almost any topic. Interestingly, on a number of occasions, candidates would tell me they could not take a position on the reduction of the Board, until the scope of responsibilities was redefined. That concept seems to have gone out the window, and replaced with the need to eliminate ward representation. While some have stated a number of cogent arguments to keep the ward representation, what is the strong argument(s) to eliminate it?
This isn’t about conspiracy, though someone on any side of an issue will always have biases that need to be kept in check. It certainly isn’t about undermining democracy in the large sense. but still, what is the motivation, what is the rationale, why do all the members of the commission feel it important to have someone elected from a particular ward, but not feel the need to have those people from that ward be supportive of that individual? What is the point?
What is so obvious to all of them, that is eluding so many others?
Where is the evidence that ward representation has been detrimental to our city? We know that many people can attest to the ward alderman being the most responsive to the needs of the immediate community in the past.
@Neal Fleisher, as one of the candidates that stated “I can’t give you a number until we know what the City Council will do”, I also feel the elected members of the CC are not following through with what many of us told the voters. I think there is some discussion of changing some of the Planning responsibilities. Perhaps the work load of the City Council will change when we see the whole of the revised charter proposal.
It seems that I am in the minority because when choosing who to vote for to be on the CC, I tried to decipher which candidates had not made up their minds and would proceed with open minds. I knew the League had definite ideas about what they wanted to change and did not want anyone from the League to be on the CC and did not want any current elected officials. I did not vote for Rhanna but think she has proved herself to be a valuable asset on the CC. I was looking for individuals with various talents and experience who would complement each other but had different viewpoints on the workings of Newton. I liked statements like “I can’t make a decision on the best size of the City Council unti the scope of responsibilities is redefined.”
I was disappointed when, after just a couple of months studying the city council, “straw”votes were taken and unanimously passed, including size, composition and term limits, leaving the division and redefined scope of responbilities to the new smaller Council. (Which I don’t necessisaily disagree with but what a surprise.)
It was the unanimous vote that surprised me the most so early in the process. How could all of these newly elected commissioners agree? But then I thought, well it was only a straw vote.
Subsequently the commision has adamantly stayed with their decision without entertaining any ideas for revisions, although they say they will look at it again at the end when they put the pieces together. After a straw vote, I find most committees emphasize the possibility of change, after more information and consideration, more than they earnestly defend their early vote. I would particularly have liked to hear more about certain ideas that may be revisited instead of just vaguely defending current unanimous decisions.
While I don’t believe there are any conspiracies or violations of anyone’s rights, I am disappointed with the early consensus of the group. I would have liked to see some decenters who had different ideas and that some decisions would require further study. Anne Larner’s, recently posted, report on the School Committe is an excellent study of the past. She has a similar one on the City Council coming out soon. These reports require study by the commission but the vote has already been already taken.
Jane, I voted for you because you answered my questions in a straightforward way. In fact, those who were elected that I voted for have done a great job engaging with the public on this site. Thank you!
My point is not about ward representation per se. There is no conspiracy theory. My point is that is that specifics almost never come out in Newton elections. The Charter race illustrated it. The reduction of the board size is important. The continuation of ward councilors is important. Yet, despite debates, op-eds, endorsements, League questions, and newspaper articles, this information did not come out!
Here are two concrete examples that don’t involve the charter commission. First, at-large councilor elections. A challenger almost always runs in a three-way race against incumbents. Because of this, we seldom see races where challengers talk about what they would do differently from a specific incumbent. They are not running against a specific incumbent, they are running against two incumbents. Yes, you can think of counter examples with recent elections, but we never see the differentiation that you get in a senate, presidential. or even a mayoral race. Second, the League asks all candidates exactly the same questions. Because of this, we never get a debate, and we never get questions like “what would you do differently from the incumbent?” I have submitted questions intended for all candidates with the flavor of, “What do you think was the best and worst council decision over the last two years?,” or “What do you think are the biggest differences between you and the other candidates?” but my questions like this never make it.
At some point on V14, Rhanna (forgive me Rhanna, if I am wrong) said that she did not want elections to be confrontational. I am in the opposite camp. Confrontation is good. We can still be polite. Voters need to see differences. It is the only way that voters can help steer the direction of the city.
In the old days, I think in the 1970s, the Tab used to print a big grid with all the candidates, and boxes for where they stood on various issues. I would love it if we see a grid in the Tab again. The issues that had the grid did not have endorsements. Who needs endorsements if you know where everyone stands on issues?
Jeffrey, on elections for City Council and School Committe, I would like to see the same as you. The answers to your questions would provide better insight. I think elections should be confrontational to some extent. Otherwise how do we know what difference the candidate would make. I also agree that candidates should be able to run against a specific opponent.
Marti, thanks for the kinds words.
Just a word about our process and timing of decisions. I know it seems like we have 2 years to do this work, but state law actually requires that the charter commission submit its preliminary report (complete draft of the new charter plus “any explanatory information the commission deems desirable”) to voters by March 4 of 2017, or 16 months after the commission was elected. So we have 16 months to review and revise 12 articles of the charter plus write an explanatory report. After considering planning / setup time and the summer hiatus, our time frame is actually pretty tight.
So we spent December creating a project plan / timetable for every article review and straw vote. We put a lot of thought into the order of review, and we couldn’t leave the Executive and Legislative until the end because other articles hinge completely on the form of government. We posted our timeline on our website and included it in our email blasts.
By April 13, when we began to deliberate Article 2/City Council, we had been serving for 5 months, had met 17 times, and had deliberated 4 other articles. Howard Haywood and I (the Article 2 leaders) spent 2.5 months compiling research, gathering feedback, and planning 2 forums with elected officials from Newton and other cities plus a public hearing.
So, Neal, Groot, and Jeffrey, you imply that charter commissioners hid their true views during the campaign. Would you be willing to believe that people did actually come into the process with an open mind and have formed opinions based on the rigorous study of the alternatives that we have all been engaging in? I think the views of everyone on the commission have been shaped our work to some extent.
As to why the vote was unanimous, while I can’t speak for anyone else…best practices (recommendations from the Model City Charter, which are found in practice in our peer cities) include 4 scenarios, and 2 of them we didn’t even consider as we didn’t think they made sense for Newton. (We did consider 2 scenarios that aren’t considered best practices…keeping 24 and a council of 16.) So it’s not statistically improbable that, if commissioners had a bias for best practices, we all favored one scenario.
@Rhanna- I think it nearly impossible for anyone to be seriously considering running for charter commission not have formed some opinion of changes needed to be made to the charter. Would it be possible to be convinced of changing your mind, sure, but to be a blank slate- no way. What would be someone’s motivation for running if they hadn’t even thought about problems with the current charter?
Rhanna: I am assuming you are looking at the 8th edition of the Model Charter? In it, it states” In considering the appropriateness of using the at-large system, each city must assess its own situation.” The model charter Alternative 3 calls for a mix of at large and “ward” representation. In its commentary it states: The mixed system combines the citywide perspective of the at-large council members with the local concerns and accountability of district council members.
I think it a misrepresentation to suggest the model charter “best practices rejects ward representation.
Jeffrey – Do you have the questions you asked each candidate for the Charter Commission? They were spot on and I had no trouble answering them.
I don’t recall the issue of ward councilors being a significant issue during the campaign. How to deal with special permits was the main concern from start to finish.
I had asked why the charter commission thinks it’s appropriate for our State Reps and Senator to vote on statewide issues even though they’re elected locally.
Rhanna responded, “Issues in Pittsfield or Truro have little or no impact on me.”
Actually, those who follow state politics know that the State Reps from Winthrop and Haverhill have quite a lot of impact over you, even more than our own Newton Reps, as they almost singlehandedly determine what legislation moves forward in the House. Depending on the issue, Reps from many other cities and towns also make decisions that impact us here, specifically those that hold Committee Chair positions.
So according to your logic either we should all be allowed to vote on all the State Reps and Senators, OR local representation makes sense here in Newton.
I’m also curious what the charter commission has done with the $45,000 allocated to it by the City Council (I was the sole no vote) to hire a consultant to guide their thinking about charter changes. The charter commission seems to have made quite a few decisions without the benefit of this consultant’s counsel.
Jane, these were the questions that I asked. At the time, I thought (and probably others thought) that I went overboard. In retrospect, I should have asked more questions and created my own “grid” for other interested voters.
1) You are forced today to make a decision, without consultation, about the number of Newton alderman. What number would you choose?
2) On a scale from one to ten, where one is “disagree strongly,” five is “no opinion” is ten is “agree strongly,” evaluate the following statement, “One of the primary goals of the charter commission should be to recommend changes that encourage contested elections in Newton.”
3) If you were to rank the field of 22 candidates based on the extent to which they are political insiders or political outsiders, where the top political insider has a rank of 1 and the top political outsider has a rank of 22, how would you rank yourself?
I often appended number 3, by asking people which other candidates they perceived to be the top insider and the top outsider. Some candidates found this question obnoxious. My preference was for commissioners who were outsiders, that did not seem to have political goals beyond the commission, who wanted a smaller board and more contested elections. I (and the Tab and the League, and the debate moderators and everyone) should have asked about Ward councilors.
I was turned off by candidates who bristled when being asked these questions, candidates whose goal was to give me the answer that they thought I wanted, or by candidates who were unwilling to articulate a thought process. Ex-ante Josh was the type of candidate I probably would not have voted for–he did not answer the questions they way I liked and he ran for school committee. Despite this, I voted for him because he knew I did not like his answers, but his reasoning was thoughtful.
Emily-That’s not accurate. The consultants from the Collins Center has provided a significant amount of data and meet with the leaders of the articles before the deliberations. In addition, they attend every meeting and we frequently ask for feedback or information during meetings about specific issues.
I’d like to repeat – from the moment the charter commission was approved up until the Commission completed the preliminary deliberations on the Planning and Development article, people spoke to me about special permits more than any other issue.
@Jane & Rhanna:
Can each of you please explain the rationale for your vote in favor of eliminating the ward councilors. Why will that change make us a better city? What evidence did you have to help formulate the logic behind the vote.
thank you
I’d like to ask all those unhappy about losing Ward Councilors how they would propose allocating 13 councilors? And for the sake of discussion, don’t just say “I don’t think the number should be 13.” My question is, “If it had to be 13, how would you do it?”
Neal, your quote from the MCC is from the commentary for Alternative I, where the entire council is elected at large with no residency requirement. After assessing Newton’s “own situation”, the charter commission did not even consider that scenario. We also did not consider Alternative IV, where the council would be composed of only ward councilors, 1 from each ward.
I never suggested that “best practices rejects ward representation”.
The MCC thoughtfully comments on the pros and cons of each of it’s 4 alternatives, as there are benefits and drawbacks to each and none is perfect. The trick is to figure out which alternative is the best fit for your own city. Of course, reasonable people may disagree.
@Greg, 8 ward councilors on two year terms and 5 at-large without residency restrictions on four year staggered terms. Each voter would have 2 or 3 positions to learn about with potentially easier paths for new voters to enter a Ward race and similar hurtles to overcome (unseating 2 / 3 incumbents) for at large.
I am not sold on the number 13 until we understand the proposed responsibilities of the City Council. I am not in favor of full time councilors so would not be looking to fewer people spending more time with additional paid staff to perform legislative duties. (Sorry, longer answer than your questions asked for)
If it had to be 13, I’d be leaning towards either the current proposal which includes ward residency for 8 of the positions or, if including directly-elected ward councilors, I’d seek to stay close to the status quo by electing 4 of them and combining wards somehow. To have 8/13 ward councilors as Arons-Barron suggests, sounds like a big increase in parochialism, not simply downsizing the council. I don’t see how that’s good for our city.
In this week’s TAB (not available online yet?) Marcia Johnson made the clearest presentation I’ve heard yet on the make up of city council — the sort of issues which were completely ignored in Arons-Barron’s post.
Rhanna, interesting comments but I don’t find much additional input adding to the discussion. Anyone keeping up with the deliberations knows the timeline and when you started working on the city council. We know about the forums and the hearings and the deadline of the preliminary report.
That being said, even though I wanted, and was told that was the plan, the commissioners to begin with open minds, I think that most commissioners came with definite opinions. I find it interesting that the leaders selected to head Article 2 were two who came with definite ideas about the city council, for whom I did not vote for that very reason. Howard was disappointed in the Ward 2 Representative particularly during the Austin Street special permit process and near the end when it seemed it might not pass and an at-large councilor became a deciding vote – many in Newtonville feel the same way although they generally go unnoticed. That doesn’t necessarily mean either of you began work in the commission wanting to eliminate Ward Representatives but I do think it would have been better to have others as leaders of Article 2.
It seems to me, from your statements, that all of the research and forums, including several valid ideas expressed, did not have much of an impact on decisions. It all came down to studying the Model City Charter and selecting the alternative that unanimously passed. I not only disagree with this statement but find it a bit condescending, “So it’s not statistically improbable that, if commissioners had a bias for best practices, we all favored one scenario.” I think it is highly unlikely that 9 varied commissioners would completely agree on several major changes to the City Council, that will require many logistical decisions, when making that decision not long after deliberations began on April 13. It seems more likely that the leaders presented a particular alternative in the Model City Charter and pursuaded the others that it was the closest to the model Newton has now, was among the best practices and should be selected.
You say, “I never suggested that “best practices rejects ward representation” but yet it was unanimously approved. That really doesn’t complement your statement above about unanimous agreement being a “bias toward best practices.”
“The MCC thoughtfully comments on the pros and cons of each of it’s 4 alternatives, as there are benefits and drawbacks to each and none is perfect. The trick is to figure out which alternative is the best fit for your own city.” So that’s the trick – how disappointing. If this is the way decisions are made, it explains the lack of clear reasons being given by CC members on why these changes are best for Newton. The reasons can be given based only on the general ones supporting them in the Model Charter, not a study of Newton. We residents of Newton and Anne Larner seem to be wasting out time.
“Of course, reasonable people may disagree.” But none of them are on the CC.
Why continue to call them straw votes; you all seem pretty convinced to me?
If it had to be 13, I would propose 4 Ward Reps and 9 at-large with 4 having a residency requirement and 4 not. No Ward Reps would be allowed to hold office or be heads of committees. The 4 Ward Reps would come from the 4 Wards formed after new decisions were made that cut the 8 Wards into 4. I do not want more Ward Reps than at-large under any circumstances.
I support a smaller city council but am not particularly concerned with the exact number. I am more concerned about the ratio of Ward to At-Large. I understand the reasoning behind keeping Ward Reps but not to the exclusion of at-large. I think it makes more sense to increase the size of the Wards and have one rep and one at-large rep from each of the 4. The entire city would vote for 9 of the 13 and the 4 Wards would vote for their Reps.
Marti – The Councilors whom we spoke to and heard from, including one who had been both ward and at-large, said they approach their responsibilities in the same way. All the ward councilors say they have the same commitment to the city as the at-large councilors and for the most part, at-large councilors say they attend to lot of constituent services and are very connected to the people in their ward. For this and other reasons, I’ve come to believe that all elected officials should be accountable to all the voters in the city.
Brian asked where the MCC came from and I answered the question, but that doesn’t mean that it was the main source of information – it is one of many sources. Everyone on the Commission has done a great deal of reading on various charter related topics and have read many charters from cities throughout the country. We’ve looked at data, read widely, listened to many constituents from all parts of the city, spoken to people from other cities, etc. All of these sources become part of the decision making process.
On a final note, we often disagree and most of our votes on important issues are divided.