Can’t Miss TV! The League Presents: 2 discussions about the proposed new charter

The second episode of The League Presents was taped last week, and continues the discussion about the proposed new charter, this time with charter commissioners Anne Larner and Chris Steele. The first episode featured charter commissioners Rhanna Kidwell and Brooke Lipsitt. Both episodes were hosted by Sue Flicop, current president of the LWVN, and Anne Borg, past president.

Episode 1

Episode 2

LWVN Member Meeting on the City Charter Proposal

Member Meeting on the City Charter Proposal

Meeting Minutes

Sunday, April 30, 2017

Waban Library Center, Waban

After welcoming members and outlining the meeting, two speakers spoke on the arguments for and against supporting the proposed City Charter.  The statements of Frieda Dweck (in favor) and Sallee Lipshutz (against) are at the end of the meeting minutes.

Members then asked clarifying questions, which were answered by a combination of the speakers and the Charter Commission members in the audience.

At this point, members were allowed to speak for 2 minutes to give their thoughts on the charter proposal.  Twenty-eight people chose to speak.

At this point, members were asked to write “yes” or “no” in response to the motion made by the Board, which suggested a “yes” vote:  for LWVN to support the proposed new charter for the City of Newton.

The vote was counted shortly afterwards.  With 59 members voting, the vote was 52 in favor and 7 against.

 

Statement of Frieda Dweck:

We’d like to thank the League for giving us this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Yes for a New Charter campaign.  More importantly, we’d like to thank the League for all the work it has done – including its 2010 charter study and its signature collection effort – to get the charter review initiative to where it is today, with proposals for a new city charter.

The most significant change being proposed by the Newton Charter Commission is the change in the size and composition of the city council.  Before addressing that aspect of the proposal, however, we want to point out that the changes being proposed to the charter include much more than simply reconfiguring the City Council.   Among the changes being proposed are:

  • imposing term limits of 12 years for the mayor and 16 years for the city council;
  • adopting financial procedures that ensure transparency with respect to the city’s financial condition, it’s capital assets, and its progress in executing a capital improvement plan; [Charter Commissioner and League member, Anne Larner, commented on this in the Special Newsletter]
  • a periodic review of the city’s comprehensive planning document;
  • updating the responsibilities of the School Committee to reflect substantive changes in law as well as to reflect current practice;
  • an explicit conflict of interest statement for all city employees; and
  • a requirement that the city charter be reviewed by a charter review committee every 10 years.

The sum of all the parts of the changes being proposed by the Charter Commission make this initiative a once in a generation opportunity to update, modernize, and improve our city government.

Now – more on the changes to the City Council…

The proposal provides for the reduction in the size of the city council from 24 members to 12 members, with 1 councilor from each of Newton’s 8 wards and 4 who can live anywhere in the city.

All 12 councilors would be elected city-wide so that every voter would have the opportunity to vote for 100% of Newton’s elected officials.

In its deliberations over how to restructure the composition of the city council, the Charter Commission examined model city council recommendations, interviewed officials from cities throughout the state with varying city council structures, and heard testimony from current and former Newton elected officials.  After all that work, the commission determined that, although unique, the model being proposed best meets the goals set out by the commission at the outset of its deliberations – to provide Newton with a more effective and responsive government, one that creates greater public engagement in city government, and allows for better community understanding of our governmental structure.

Those goals are achieved through three features of the proposal relating to the composition of the City Council:  1) reducing the size of the council, 2) electing all councilors city-wide, and 3) providing voters with an opportunity to vote for 4 councilors from a pool of candidates that have no residency requirements.

Reducing the size of the council:

The Commissioners determined that Newton residents would be well-served by a smaller council.  Having a 12 member council will make it easier for residents to understand the ballot and to learn about the candidates; create more competition among candidates, yet still provide the diversity of opinion that is important in any democracy; and reduce redundancy.  The School Committee and the Charter Commission are good examples of how even an 8 or 9 member body can balance diversity of ideas with effective process.

Electing councilors city-wide:

The issues that affect residents most – traffic, safety, and economic development – are city-wide issues.  So, when performing their jobs, councilors should be acting in the best interests of the city as a whole.  Most Newton city councilors have testified that they do, in fact, take into account the best interests of the city as a whole, and that there is no real difference in the way ward councilors and at-large councilors approach their jobs.  To insure that our councilors are most effective in protecting the best interests of the city, the commission determined that they should be accountable to every voter in the city.

Additionally, having all councilors elected at-large creates equity among the councilors.  Currently, all councilors have equal voting power but are not elected by an equal proportion of voters.  Under the new charter, all councilors will be elected in the same manner, reducing the discrepancy in the number of votes required to earn a seat on the Council.

Despite claims to the contrary, councilors elected city-wide will also still be responsive to the needs of the residents of Newton’s many neighborhoods and to the needs of the diverse ethnic, racial and economic groups in Newton.  The 8 councilors that are elected with a ward residency requirement will continue to insure the interests of the ward.  And all councilors will have an incentive to understand the specific concerns and interests of residents in all Newton’s neighborhoods and villages.

Focusing on the ward only, however, as a means to protect local interests, does not necessarily reflect the diversity of our city.   While many have been painting Newton as a city of 8 wards, Newton is also a city of 13 villages.  Those villages vary dramatically in population and size, and do not align with our voting wards or precincts.  Our varying racial, ethnic and economic groups are spread throughout the city and also do not align with ward boundaries or live in defined neighborhood enclaves.  At-large voting will allow minority candidates to garner support from voters city-wide who share their values and priorities.

Campaigning city-wide for office can be harder than campaigning in just one ward.  Historical data from Newton elections, however, shows that candidates of all backgrounds, income levels, and neighborhoods can be successful in municipal races, especially candidates that have established track records from consistent involvement in city organizations or a strong network in Newton through extensive activism.  A candidate’s willingness to connect with voters and that candidate’s costs of campaigning are often driven more by whether they are engaged in a contested or uncontested race, rather than by whether they are running by ward or at-large.

The pool of candidates:

The inclusion of 4 councilors elected from a pool of candidates who can live anywhere in the city further offers an opportunity for minority candidates or those representing minority points of view to be elected by receiving a plurality of votes, rather than a majority.

Electing councilors from a pool of candidates addresses another goal of the Charter Commission – increased participation in city government: competition for councilor seats is expected to increase, and the pool gives candidates another way to participate without directly competing with a candidate from their home ward whom they support, or is a popular incumbent.

We believe the smaller council, the composition of the council as structured by the proposal, and the method of electing that council, all serve the best interests of the residents of Newton.

The Charter Commission’s proposals are not perfect.  The commissioners themselves grappled with various issues, and their straw votes often reflected differing opinions.  Ultimately, however, the commission unanimously concluded that the proposals, when taken in their totality, best suited the needs of Newton.

We want to conclude with a note of appreciation for the work of the Charter Commission.  Over the course of the last 17 months, the Charter Commission has approached their work with diligence, intelligence, introspection and transparency.  They reviewed existing data, conducted additional research on their own, interviewed experts and officials, deliberated amongst themselves and debated their differing viewpoints, and heard extensive public comment.  There is no doubt, regardless of the outcome of the vote in November, that this group of 9 individuals have performed an amazing service for the residents of Newton.   They have made us reflect on our form of government, our city’s best interests, and made us talk about the topics that are key to keeping Newton a vibrant and engaged community.  Thank you!

 

Statement of Sallee Lipshutz:

Nota Bene: A paper distributed at the League Meeting discussing the pros and cons of the Charter Proposal contained an argument that I made that the cost of running for an At-Large Councilor seat could be 6 times as expensive as running for a Ward Councilor seat, thus making entry for a newcomer much more difficult. At the April 30 meeting of the League, an audience member asked my source for the mentioned $5000 vs $30,000 figures. I have researched those numbers more closely and can report that in the 2015 Municipal Election, newcomer At-Large Councilor candidate Jake Auchincloss spent $40,000* vs. the ~$1990** expenditure in the 2013 Municipal election of newcomer Ward 1 Councilor candidate Alison Leary.

Conclusion: It can actually be 20 times more expensive for a newcomer to run for an At-Large Council seat as for a Ward Council seat. This is clear proof of economic barrier to entry!

*Source is MA Office of Campaign and Political Finance

**Source is City of Newton Election Campaign Finance

The Commission’s proposed charter violates fundamental League principles.

Two core values of the national League’s mission statement are:  to build citizen participation in the democratic process and to empower grassroots in communities. The proposed charter fails to achieve either of these objectives. Worse, its results would be diametrically opposed to them:

  1. It would result in the reduction of equal citizen participation in the democratic process by creating an economic barrier to entry to candidacy by removing all the directly elected ward councilors. To run a candidacy for ward councilor within a single ward is vastly cheaper than running a citywide campaign. It costs up to five times more to run for an at-large council position than to run for a directly elected ward council seat. New candidates are able to walk the ward, speaking to a large proportion of the voters, introducing themselves and ascertaining information about the voters’ needs. In contrast, it is impossible for an at-large candidate to knock on every door in the city. To finance the expensive media-intensive campaign that must substitute for the face-to-face interactions appropriate for a ward candidacy, the at-large candidate must have a deep pocket organization or party to support the methods necessary for an at-large campaign. New entrants to the political process are highly unlikely to obtain such support.
  2. It would prevent the empowerment of grassroots in communities because it would isolate local voices from a remote more centralized city government. Advocacy for local issues would face the same burden that confronts an at-large candidate when compared to a ward candidate. The ward would lose its champion.

We know that change is coming to Newton and that well financed developers are waiting in the wings for our response this November. If the charter passes, residents of each ward will no longer have their ward councilor, elected by ward voters only, to be a defender of their rights. Grassroots participation will play a smaller role as a more centralized city council governs from a more remote City Hall. There will be no representative knowledgeable of the practical concerns of those citizens who are most affected by any proposal seen as supposedly “good for the city.” To hear the community’s voice through its local ward representative is to produce a better change and to prevent the tyranny of the majority. It might take more work and longer meetings, but the end result is invariably better than proposals developed without adequate local input.

The LWVN has a well-articulated position on the Newton city charter. Not only does the proposal fail to uphold the League’s central principles, but it also fails to adopt the technical remedies which the local League has repeatedly advocated.  The proposed charter contradicts many of the League’s positions and ignores others. For example:

  • They have not provided 4-year staggered terms for the School Committee.
  • They have not created the position of Citizen Assist Officer.
  • They have not required regular updated comprehensive plans by requiring them only when there is a new Mayor or when the Mayor chooses to modify or rewrite it.
  • They have added term limits for the city council and Mayor. The League’s position did not include term limits for these positions. To the contrary, it eliminated all term limits by advocating for the removal of the only term limits existing in the current city charter, the term limits for school committee.

I would like to add here that requiring term limits removes the choice from the voter to keep a Mayor, Councilor or School Committee Member whose performance has been exemplary and who would be re-elected easily because of past performance in the job.

Besides, we all know that elections are term limits!

In its city council configuration the new Charter proposes eight at-large representatives elected with residency requirement and four councilors elected citywide with no residency requirement. That means that one ward could have five councilors who reside there, while the other seven wards each have only one councilor. The ward with five councilors would have five times the political power of any other ward.

Electing a councilor-at-large does not guarantee representativeness. The election of an at-large city councilor can be completely dominated by one or a few wards with high voter turnout. Minority voices or those of differing socio-economic groups can be completely shut out. However, voting in a set of eight different wards, by residents living only in those wards, DOES guarantee that everyone is truly represented. Boston has moved to district representation. Framingham has just adopted it to guarantee equitable representation in its new city form of government and we would be well advised to keep our current balance of at-large and directly elected ward representatives to maintain our genuine local democracy. We should not allow our city government to be centralized, with a smaller non-representative council, while losing the precious ward councilor advocate we have enjoyed for decades.  We should vote NO on the proposed charter today and again in November.

Thank you.

People who spoke after the presentation:

  1. Jen Abbott
  2. Rhanna Kidwell
  3. Diana Fisher-Gomberg
  4. ???
  5. Susie Heyman
  6. Blank
  7. Lisle Baker (N)
  8. Alicia Bowman
  9. Sallee Lipshutz  (N)
  10. Linda Morrison
  11. Sarah Ecker
  12. Marcia Johnson ”be respectful”
  13. Sharyn Roberts
  14. Sue Rosenbaum
  15. Priscilla Leith (N)
  16. Bryan Barash
  17. ??  “disappointed”
  18. ??
  19. Chris Pitts (N)
  20. Andrea Steenstrup
  21. Kathleen Hobson
  22. AnnaMaria Abernathy
  23. Sandy Butzel
  24. Ann Morse Hartner
  25. Anne Larner
  26. Holly Gunner
  27. Bonnie Carter
  28. Jay Harney (N)
  29. Alison Leary
  30. Deb Crossley
  31. Margie Ross-Decter

Vote: 59 members

52 Yes

7 No

 

   

 

 

Charter Commission Meeting: April 26, 3017

Charter Commission Meeting

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Attending:  Josh Krintzman (chair), Rhanna Kidwell (vice-chair), Bryan Barash, Jane Frantz, Howard Haywood, Anne Larner, Brooke Lipsitt, Karen Manning,

Joined at 8:45 p.m.:  Chris Steele

Public Comment: 

???? Roberts:  in the preliminary report, mentions two significant changes.  How has effectiveness of smaller city council been proven more responsive and effective?  What is this based on?  [Then there was back and forth between this person and Josh Krintzman about this being a complicated answer that the CC has deliberated on for a long time, with lots of data to back it up.  Howard mentioned that this issue has been on th ballot twice and both times voters supported it overwhelmingly. The person who asked the question was referred to the CC website with all the documentation available there.]

Sallee Lipshutz:  looking at explanation of major changes…ask about discussion on Monday that the ward councilors at large provide ward representation.  Considers argument specious and terribly misleading.  Hope you will think about changing.

Andrea Steenstrup: thinks that proposed council will be more accountable, since can vote for every member and everyone will know that.  Can go to anyone with complaints.  That’s why they are more accountable.

Draft of Charter:

JF:  express concern on decision made over Boards and Commission…page 9.  Was brought up by one person about one Board; in serving on multiple member bodies in the City, city employees provide a valuable conduit to supervisors—could be a great loss to Boards and Commissions.  Have several thousand city employees, many of whom are very involved with the city—not just in jobs, but as citizens.  Think it’s a loss to the Board and Commissions.

BB:  remind Jane that there is still opportunity, if contemplated as part of the set-up of the Board and Commission.  Hope that it would be helpful to have a member of the department—part of the document that sets it up.

AL:  many are advisory to the Mayor—they are exempted from this.  There are a number of opportunities—are there examples that might help give a picture of her concerns?

JF:  all-citizen committees going to a supervisor and having a meeting with them—(reference to something from an earlier meeting). Sometimes employees can empower residents to take stronger action.  Not asking for a change—wanted to point out that was a concern about eliminating thousands of people who could be active members.

BL:  one other item in draft—Section 8-4, revisited special elections.  Looked at draft language—“as recommended by Election Commission”—is it the City Council alone or with EC?  No reason for each to be different…should be consistent.  Recommend/motion taking out rest of sentence after “September.”

Consensus of meeting:  all agreed.

Final Report:  went through and made minor changes.  Lots of wordsmithing!

Josh will update the report and the charter in time for tomorrow night’s meeting.  Then the Charter Commission will vote tomorrow night if it approves of the final draft.

Plans to work on website and to think about what should be in a letter to the City Council.  There is also the summary for the ballot.

Respectfully submitted by Sue Flicop.

 

Charter Commission Meeting 4-12-17

Charter Commission Meeting

April 12, 2017

Attending: Josh Krintzman (Chair), Rhanna Kidwell (Vice-Chair), Bryan Barash, Jane Frantz, Howard Haywood, Anne Larner, Brooke Lipsitt, Karen Manning, Chris Steele

Approval of Minutes (March 29th):  Approved unanimously.

Public Comment:

Jennifer Huntington:  Thanks to Charter Commission for their hard work and active listening.  Voting yes for a new charter:  smaller city council will increase accountability and efficiency.  Believe in term limits—increase interest in running for office.

Nancy Tenor:  Thanks for all your hard work.  Section of proposal that will hurt Newton is the one that removes local ward representation from the City Council.  Intrigued by idea of villages—varied and distinct.  Most of her neighbors are against removing local representation—people know their representative and are worried that they will lose that connection.  Candidates will also not be able to hear the issues that concern their constituencies—opportunities will be rare to have small events.  Only those with high disposable incomes will be able to afford to run—proposal limits representation and weakens democracy.  Many at the state level started at the local level—we should be encouraging this.  When candidates have to cover the whole city they will not be able to understand the local concerns.

Kathleen Hobson:  about process: she needs to vote on a charter that is a result of a process that she can count on and be proud of.  Up until March 29th, it was just that.  Then, all of a sudden, the process broke down and moved to a track motivated by fear about the passage of the proposal.  Can’t just hand off creating districts to the Election Commission—not enough time to do a proper job.  Can go back to the model that they reaffirmed 3 times very strongly and that she was proud of.  It would be hard to sell the new version.

Jack Pryor:  Thanks for your service.  Read info on all 56 communities that use city councils in MA.  Newton is an outlier with 24, proposal is an outlier as well.  84% use ward-elected representative of what they do.  14% are at large.  As you get smaller, get more direct representation.  Vast majority are mostly ward-elected when there are both.  Newton with 9 other communities that are all elected at-large.  Only 2.6% of communities in MA are 100% at-large.  Nationwide, some are challenged due to civil rights.

Sallee Lipshutz:  Thanks for all your hard work.  Housekeeping—maps of districts are difficult to discern various districts.  Secondly, would like her letter sent this week to be on the record.  The conclusion is that they still have time to have 8 at-large and 8 ward councilors—voters would breathe a sigh of relief and it would pass with a high acceptance rate.

Lois Levin:  listened to some of tapes of meetings that she missed, including the last one.  Sudden revision of unanimous decisions.  Issues with the recording.  Document from Anne makes clear that the decision requires a lot of work—can’t just snap your fingers.  Implementing wouldn’t be abrupt, though the change was.  Doesn’t understand how the ward alderman represents people better than others.  Most are responsive and receptive—calls city for potholes, but if there is an issue wants to talk to someone who is responsive.  Doesn’t matter if they live 2 blocks from her or 20 blocks.  Notion that a neighbor represents you better is irrational.  Does not understand why abruptly reconsidered all the hard work they did; chaotic reaction to it.  One of the most important things is to reduce the size of the Board, but getting rid of ward aldermen was a piece of it.  Doesn’t need ward aldermen to feel represented—is a unified city with common goals.

Deb Crossley:  favor the city charter—spoke a couple of times.  Terrific work that they did.  Surprised by 5-4 vote that represents a change of mind.  Not an inherent difference in responsiveness between ward and at-large councilors—it is the person who determines that.  Will vote for the charter anyway since it reduces the size of the council—help to focus their energies, work better together (very difficult for large council to pay as good attention to each issue and be ready to vote in a timely fashion).  If really believed as they did a number of weeks ago, then that is what should put forward.  Put forward the best model for the city.  However if honestly believe that district model is the best, need to double the meetings between now and the end to draw boundaries—too much incentive for shenanigans.  Not meaning anything derogatory, but tension that happens about whether or not will be included in the next elections.  Not appropriate for the Election Commission to do this.

Draft of New Charter: 

BB:  document to help kick off discussion about how to look at districts.  Look at advantages of district model v. the other model.  Advantages of district model—head-to-head races, 100% geographic diversity, majority rule, every race 50+1%.  Pool:  More potential candidates to choose from, no head-to-head races for those who aren’t willing to run against neighbor, no geographic limitations, allow minority voices (possibly less than 50%).

If going to go to districts, need to figure out how to write that into the charter.  Aspects to decide:

Who is going to decide what districts are?  In the charter (permanently), temporarily in a transition document, or delegate to city council or election commission.  Point raised in memos and by consultants that Election Commission might not be the appropriate body and possibly City Council would have an up-or-down vote on it.

BB:  King Solomon question—limited time frame to finish this process.  Really going to have to deal with asking people to vote on charter without knowing exactly how council would be elected.  Should politics be a consideration?  City Council does have control over redistricting process; had thought to give this to the Election Commission.  Strong value to independent redistricting—large topic to take on in time we have left.  Consultants said that districts and ward should probably be drawn by the same body.  Districts in other communities—examples of all ways that can be drawn.  Not breaking new ground, but there are options to consider.

AL:  struggle with districts in Newton are for a different purpose in other districts.  They are for voting purposes for representative—ours is to ensure that councilors are geographically dispersed and not concentrated in one neighborhood (as opposed to one person, one vote.)  Do they tend to disperse more or is there a concentration?  Now eight wards—natural way to scatter; when have 4—come together at one point.  Will there be concentrations in one place.  Introduced idea of Election Commission at last meeting—was trying to think creatively because facing a deadline—however, having conversations with law department and doing research—thought about how an Election Commission is built, who peoples it, and what its purpose is—districts are meant to be non-partisan, so why have Dems and Reps deciding it?  Would like to see a reconsideration of putting this to the Election Commission.  Is it best to put aside and discuss or have a vote on it first?

JK:  look at districts, came up with three options; would be comprised of two contiguous wards, tried to even voting numbers, not bizarrely shaped; agree that put in something in transition section about what the districts would be.

BB:  most charters that do a preliminary district, typically say that this will be the starting point for the first election, and then a chance to change them.

JF:  question on 2020 Census—when would have the info for ward redistricting?  [Discussion that led to conclusion for 2021 election.  Would this be for one election?  Who then makes the decision?]

BB:  feels like having temporary model leaves a safety valve.  Seems like district is a model going forward—if the districts need to be changed, create another way to do it besides changing the charter.

JK:  need to discuss is creating temporary or permanent districts.

BL:  seems that there is no logical option to making a temporary assignment so that people can understand in more than words what this means.  Have the obligation to try to make that clear in transition section.  Challenge is not do we put in temporary districts, but do we assign the wards to districts in the body of the charter or make a temporary assignment with instructions that need to be revisited after every census?  If felt that could get the delineation correctly, then put in the charter.  Potential for political mischief by redrawing the district lines every 10 years—in reality only happens if not working.  Who gets the job?  Not as disturbed by composition of Election Commission—they are relatively independent.  But is the question about whether the EC can even take that, or if required to have the City Council draw ward/council lines.

Collins Center:  if take the premise that all elections are province of the state, and precinct is building block for all ward/districts, always Marilyn’s understanding that the clerk brought a proposal to the council based on the census.  In Newton, the council does some of it.

BL:  don’t think it matters who makes the proposal—decision is made by City Council.

Collins Center:  have different option—could create a commission to examine the issue of how to create districts and determine its membership—for the initial election.

BL:  after initial time, is there a requirement for City Council to do this?  Can we override it?

CC:  NO—election law is state law and it is uniform.  Can’t override in charter.

BL:  therefore doesn’t matter who makes recommendation—vote ultimately has to be taken by city council.

AL:  pretty sure that Ouida said that Cambridge had used a home-rule petition to have someone besides City Council set the district lines.

BB:  home-rule is a way to ask the state to override state law.  Complexity of doing this—independent redistricting is a much larger process, not in the next three weeks.

AL:  in her opinion, seems sensible to her to proceed with Charter Commission drawing first districts in charter—don’t do it unless have general public hearing and time for feedback on this.  Then would take the easy route and put any further responsibility past the first election with the City Council, and think about putting in parameters.  City Council has had issues in past with extending courtesies—must better to have body that is elected by them with public hearings that people attend.  Election Commission sits in a small room, has a hard time to pass minutes, doesn’t always take audio of meetings, etc.—doesn’t have gravitas that the council has.  Is a big issue to people—if go this route, have to do it so that support the ability of the public to see the sausage being made, to comment on it and to find records of meeting.

KM:  Agree with Anne, especially about public hearing.  Feels that significantly downplayed—not a minor change, is something the city hasn’t seen before.  If info sits out there for a week or two, how know that getting all the feedback.  Have had info out there for 1.5 years…doesn’t think a hearing in this short term is responsible or enough—better than nothing.

HH:  hears that we should go to districts but doesn’t know how.  Have council members that say should not be in the hands of the council; EC is not qualified or can do it legally—selected based on political party.  Haven’t had a public hearing on this topic—haven’t heard anything that there is overwhelming support for districts.  Sees still support for keeping ward aldermen.  No argument for why go to districts.  Arguments for districts do not apply to Newton.  What are we trying to do here.

JF:  supported this idea for months—begun to heard from many people outside the meeting that they were uncomfortable with model that CC had come up with.  Last 3-4 months, more and more people were approaching her that the at-large pool was problematic.  Head-to-head races, concentration in one part of the city.  Many people approached her recently and said that they were relieved.

KM:  in the abstract, understand that JF prefer the proposal.  Truth is only 3% supported it.  Would they support it if they knew the roadblocks—EC or City Council?  How divide up districts?  No perfect composition—so many models.  Precedent is important—if so many MA communities support at-large pools, it must work.  Research did not turn up any alarm or reservations by those that CC spoke to. Abstract v. reality is different.

CS:  like Jane, was interested in district model, especially head-to-head races.  Concept of trying to do something in a rush—has broken things that way.  Feels like going down that road.  Have to be able to establish districts as least for the first round—don’t have time.  Don’t have enough dialogue or time for enough dialogue to figure out who will draw districts in the future.  Also drawn people through long process so far, but in past 14 days made a significant fundamental change—would have preferred to have come to this earlier.  But not so opposed to concept of pool that to go in the district direction is better than having had the process so far.

BL:  always been iconoclasts in Newton—size of city council, use of area councils, etc.  Chris raises central question—she likes districts—reviewed arguments and read everything—as talked to people, am more and more comfortable with district model.  Issue about whether we are in a position to make rational and supportable decisions about first iteration of districts.  If CC wanted to, is there enough time in 3 weeks to have a public hearing and to then have enough time to deliberate on what hear that day/evening and finish the report.  If answer is no, then made the decision.  Wouldn’t mind meeting on weekend or several nights in a row.  Is this feasible?

BB:  hear concerns and agree that will have to schedule significant time to take this on.  Going into a holiday weekend, then school vacation, so sets back public hearing as a start.  Limiting factor, could make time to do it, but would have to happen in 1.5-2 weeks.

JF:  short-term questions, and talking a charter than would at least last 50 years.  Willing to put in the work.  Focus on making the right decision.

[Discussion on deadline—May 4th was the agreed upon date.]

HH:  every time CC meets, people get up and talk about the process—thanks for working so hard, for being so transparent, and how consistent.  Up until 2 weeks ago—can’t say that wasn’t a change.  It was a significant change—put the citizens in that rush mode.  HH thinks this is unfair—can public handle that many more meetings because CC broke from regular process and added a complicated issue without giving due process.  Public had to wait until 10:30 at night to make comments.  How long has it taken to do lesser things?  Can’t get this done.

BB:  hear the argument that is a break from regular process—this is the end of the process.  Supposed to reflect on preliminary repot—process set out by state law.  Unfortunately, time line is compressed, but are following process.

JF:  agree with Bryan.  Had a public hearing, responded to it.  Got input from all around—don’t have consensus on any one issue.

KM:  need to go by email receive and comments we hear—only thing we have in common.  Have no idea of context of private conversations—not solid data.  Gotten concrete feedback that the district model doesn’t satisfy those unhappy with original proposal.  Timeline—important.  Just because some influential people support the district model, they don’t understand all that is involved and haven’t done the research.

BL:  hear what Karen says, sees Rhanna’s data. Are representatives—don’t need to count comments, etc.  Know that the total number of people who have heard from are a small fraction of the voters.  Up to CC to put together to the best of their judgement.  This is the first time there is serious tension among members of the commission.  Wants to put the question again about time…are they willing to join Brooke and sit down and have a public hearing?  Fact that is vacation week—doesn’t affect many people who have been here.

AL:  with Brooke in spirit, but there is a practical consideration.  Would not want to have a vote that wouldn’t have all of us there.  Have to be respectful of each other who might not be available.

RK: (asks people with kids in public schools to raise hands) Feel uncomfortable to do anything during school vacation week.  Didn’t count comments to put finger in the air—was about the idea about the feedback that have gotten—if going to talk about responding, need to agree to what it is.  Haven’t been privy to communication about district model.

BB:  agree about school vacation; is it reasonable to expect public to go to so many meetings in a row if want to follow process.  Fact that willing to address some of the concerns without giving exactly the model some want does not mean that not responding to feedback.

JK:  need to decide who decides districts (if keep with districts).  Felt that the district model wasn’t that radical—taking model that we like (at-large with residency requirements) and apply it to the remaining 4 councilors.  Felt it was a minor tweak—since this is the way it’s been done.

Sense of body about whether continue with districts—question by AL about process moving forward: if continue with districts, have public hearing and then schedule more meetings.  HH—need to figure out details first—see what look like and then vote.  JK:  city council draw districts, CC draw initial ones for first election.  HH:  how do we know that the CC should draw the districts?  Should draw out the whole program and then vote…need to know where going before decide.  Disagree on how got to this place without process during last meeting.

Yes to district model (Franz, Barash, Lipsitt, Krintzman)

BB:  vote should be whether to proceed regardless of preference.

RK:  let’s finish the discussion about proceed.  Do we have the time to finish this discussion.  Don’t think should meet on weekends—asking too much of public.  Counts seven days without weekends and school vacation before proposal is due.  Need vetted proposal, straw vote, public hearing, then vote and finalize the report.  Short amount of time.

JF:  go back to point that making a charter that will last for 50 years.

RK:  because will last for 50 years, would like to be responsible and make sure it won’t blow up on them.  Have had to walk back things when realized won’t work—now don’t have time.

JK:  will find space every week of April 24th.  Need a motion on whether to go forward.

BL:  schedule meetings during week of April 24th to give this proposal a full hearing.

Motion:  continue vetting district model and meet as many times as it takes the week of April 24th including scheduling public hearing.

[Discussion:  was this a straw vote?]

KM: would have been helpful for people to have the info they have now on district model.  About public hearing—realize how much work it takes to get together a transcript of a hearing?  Karen does it—it’s political, people are reading those minutes.  They can take 7-10 days, especially if there is a job or family involved.  Will take a while, then maybe 3-4 days or a week to review them, respond, think about it.  Not responsible.

BL:  thanks to Karen for accurately recording all this material—overwhelmed with the work that they do.  Doesn’t disagree with Howard about the vote last time.  But they are having a discussion now.  Not afraid to move forward with deliberation.  Are they willing and able to do the work?  Written record is extremely important—especially when the public makes its decision.

AL:  agree that need to move forward.  Do need to acknowledge who thought the vote was a final vote—need to deal with this perception.  If have some tight meetings, need outside help—no fair to have Karen do it.

RK:  BL made a comment that shouldn’t stop arbitrarily—feel that this was started arbitrarily.  People have heard some comments, but no consensus on model or on time left.  Not a legislative body—simple majority is not a win.  What matter is is they have the time to do this responsibly and if can get a consensus around this model.

JF:  point out number of times visited term limits, three (sic) meetings on area councils, extreme amount of time on other things.  If not have consensus on district model, don’t have it on at-large model.  Mistake to assume that if one model is defeated, then the other would be OK.  That vote no longer exists.  Regrets didn’t examine other models.  No matter what, will have a split vote.

HH:  recall vote was 7-2 in favor of the at-large model. Doesn’t sound very split.  Talking about whether we go forward—got away from process that has hurt them within the group and with the public.  Is this motion another straw vote? Got opinions from City Clerk and Law Office—haven’t addressed their comments on how complicated they are.  So we’re saying we don’t need their opinion and that we should just go ahead.

JK:  read the memos and if there are two ward together, it will be fine.

JF:  hold Ouida in the highest regard.  Gets three paragraph answers when expected only 1 line—may give information that is not necessary because she is careful.

[JK asks David Olson if he has anything else to add.]

RK:  two models with no consensus.  Then go forward with the model that is complete and has been vetted—not try to rush around with something that is very complete and political.  Could lose support from people—not reason not to proceed if this is something that believe in.  Uncomfortable with the rush.

AL:  feels torn.  Has been on both winning and losing sides—has been her policy to graciously lose when lose and work with the majority opinion.  Not sure whether it is possible to move forward isn’t clear yet.  Not clear how much time other pieces are going to take—is it helpful to vote yes and possible waste time.  It’s a real dilemna.  Very much want a package that is sellable to the community that reduces the size of the council and has a composition that makes some sense.  One on the table now is no her first choice, but the issue now is if can do a good job for all the other pieces.  Would like to have a better sense of what is left.

VOTE on motion:  5-4 Failed.

New motion:  (BL)  move that revert to previous preliminary draft

Discussion:

BB:  obvious that people feel uncomfortable going forward with last vote.

JF:  hope that includes respecting a no vote.

VOTE  8-1.  Revert to at-large pool and the district drawn body.

Prohibition on holding compensated officer for 1-year post:

Marilyn spoke with AG’s office about what needs to be changed.  Need to add something about when this is available—at conclusion of service.

BL:  motion in Section 2-4a: “service” is better than term.  Insert “within one year of service.” Instead of “at one year of service.”  Motion APPROVED.

[Discussion about whether this is for the same position or a new position.]

City Employees on Boards and Commissions:

BB:  voted to make a change…doesn’t recall an additional change needed.

School Building Review Committee: 

AL:  recommend in Section 4-4, delete the second sentence “upon written communications…” Multilayers of committees depending on circumstances—working with Ouida, felt it was best to keep it simple.  Try to make sure that whenever a school building program comes up (either fully self-financed or with MSBA) there will always be a voting place for a SC member on the committee dealing with that.  Easiest way is to add to section 11-7 to make sure that Design Review Committee will have a voting slot for a SC member.

Special Elections Blackout:  hold for next time

Recall Election: 

BB:  debated months ago, no conclusion and decided to leave it out.  Discussion occurred before the most recent presidential election—might change some people’s opinion in light of personal conflicts, etc.  Letter of the law might not be enough to capture behavior that might lead to a recall.  Is there a willingness to talk about a recall again?  No need to significantly deviate from available language.  Lots of kinds of conflicts that might lead to questioning of person in office.

RK:  have been national stories of that nature—supported this when brought up before.  The bar is set so high in terms of signatures—couldn’t be done frivolously.  Very ugly chapter if ever had to recall Mayor, but would result from ugliness that would be there and would be a national news story—is a nice safeguard that would hopefully never be used.

JF:  turmoil from some situations even if they don’t lead to recall.

Motion (BB):  include recall provision.

BL:  offer a friendly amendment that discuss recall provision for the Mayor.  Terms for SC and CC are so brief that recalling someone and hold a special election is terrifying.  BB—accepted.

VOTE:  6-2-1.  Motion PASSED.

Further articulate proposal?  BL:  came up with language with the Collins Center to come up with language.

Multiple Member Body Quorum: 

Marilyn:  Section 11-12d.  issue is that “unless otherwise required by law” should be moved after “multiple member body.”

Ouida raised two concerns about Article 3-10: 

  1. Scheduling a special election at the next city council meeting.  Suggestion that it be introduced in recognition of the City Council process. Can’t deliberate and vote on same date.
  2. Special election in summer—want exception that instead of July or August, could be held at a late time.

BL:  about #2, could change to ‘earliest practical date’ to avoid slippage.  Personally doesn’t worry about having an election over the summer.  Was a concern when Mayor Mann died. Can be modified the setting of the date, but intent should be clear that it should be the earliest possible time.

BB:  Blackout dates should be a “may” instead of a “shall.”

KM:  wants to take a little more time, but will go with the flow.  Would prefer to have time to ask questions.

Final Report: some changes, can use preliminary report.  Hold week of April 24th to schedule another meeting. Are scheduled for Wednesday, April 26th.

AL:  did research this week on registered voters by party.  There are 30 parties that people can register for…one that three registered voters in Newton called the Pizza Party.

Respectfully submitted by Sue Flicop.

CC Meeting 3-30-17

Charter Commission Meeting

March 29, 2017

Attending:  Josh Krintzman (Chair), Rhanna Kidwell (Vice-Chair), Bryan Barash, Jane Frantz, Howard Haywood, Anne Larner, Brooke Lipsitt. Karen Manning, Chris Steele

Approval of March 15th Minutes:  Approved  unanimously.

Public Comments: 

Lisle Baker:  three points:  current council is fair, efficient and effective; part of its efficiency is that work is divided into committees with 8 members each; no leadership that controls what happens, since it is a large body.  Part of value of large council is that deliberate as a large body—therefore maintain system that we have.

Bill Humphrey:  composition of council:  believe that 100% of council should be voted on by the whole city; it should be instantly clear how the government is set up.  Full confidence in city council, though the current proposal is not his first choice.  He will support it.  Allows someone with a particular emphasis to run on that emphasis (i.e. environment) without running against someone in their ward.  Glad to see update to 1970 charter.

Charlie Shapiro:  not in favor of proposal.  Good to review the way the city is structured.  Heard from Chelsea Charter group that votes of charter commission should be unanimous—as these do.  But believes the proposal does hard to fundamental ward and village structure, as well as Newton democracy.  Taking away right to vote for your own ward alderman.  Consolidates power and allows special interests to take over.  Proposal reduces the voter power throughout the city—help folks already entrenched and those with tons of money.  People who are independent thinkers would have a tough time.  Would like to see people read the proposal very carefully—and think about undercutting the ward system.  Will do everything possible against it.

Virginia Ewell:  opposed to proposal—like the character of villages and not the fact that losing her representative.  Should be voted on by people in the village.

Priscilla Leith:  upset that chosen to remove ward councilor.  Depends on his ward councilor—is his campaign treasurer.  Doesn’t take a lot of money, can get signatures easily.  Is not possible in the entire city.  Valid reasons to retain ward-elected representative:  more familiar with traffic, knows business leaders, listen to all who contact them, cost of running by ward is less, having ward councilor to being elected by ward—parallel to state constitution.  Would not relish having to come to meeting—thanks for doing this.  Feel ward councilors are the most democratic way to run for government.  Current proposal allows members to be elected in a cluster, and all from one geographic area.  Agree with previous speaker—would be likely to come from higher income areas of the city and have money to run.  In Lowell, all elected at-large, and now no diversity on City Council (despite 40% people of color).  Fewer people to share work, regret this, will probably vote no.

Jay Walter:  favor of 12 person council; accomplishes a number of things:  accommodates ward representation while keep citywide accountability; simplifies the ballot process—too complicated now; streamline government—expedite legislative agendas and permitting process.  Applaud commission for thoughtful, thorough deliberations.

Liz Hiser:  Thanks to all for service and leadership.  Composition of city council—you got it right.  Data used to make decision—qualitative experiences and information shared.  Considered historical data about elections; testimony from officials, looking at outcomes all over MA, learning from the Model City charter, testimony from other communities, created infinite opportunities for Newton residents to share views.  Discussions were robust, especially around main decision points.  Even as some are encouraging to go back—trust your decisions, trust your reasoning, keep all reasons and arguments, hope still feel that draft charter is the council structure that would yield greater citizen engagements, understanding and participation.

Nancy Zollers:  You got it right.  Grateful for how got there with data and deliberations, concerned about Emily Norton’s mailing—thought was from the city.  Think proposal is real democracy—in introduction to documents.  Voters have more influence over the actions of the council when they can vote for all councilors; create more effective response of government.  Will sign up for and work hard for passage—must be scary that won’t pass.  Not a good reason to go back

Sue Flicop (for LWVN): reiteration of LWV process and that the League has not voted yet on whether to support the charter proposal or not.

Draft of New Charter: Revisiting the following topics:

CHARTER COMPOSITION

JF:  two main reasons—1.  hearing serious and growing concerns about at-large councilors; hear underlying message is that people don’t trust the at-large pool.  Considers trust in proposal to be central to mission.  Haven’t taken this into account.  When hear possibilities that don’t relate to one another, is concerned about trust.  Believe that come to the right number of councilors, but concerns about the composition. People seem to prefer district model.  2.  Maintaining geographic requirement does not prevent any resident from going to any councilor and speaking about a particular topic.  But removing the geographic representation could mean that part of the city do not have equal representation for long periods of time.  Proposing that revisit the composition of the council—specifically to consider the district model.

JF:  Motion to adopt the district model where 4 councilors are divided up equally from across the city so that each district is equally represented—voted on at-large.  BL seconded it.

Discussion:

BL:  agnostic on the issue—seconded it because it is an important discussion to have.  All have had more conversations with members of the public in the last two weeks than in the last 1.5 years.  Substantial amount of input from people who really prefer retaining the ward model.  Can say that those people are energized because of Emily Norton’s flyer, or for comments from Lisle Baker, or because some ward councilor has been responsive.  More people speaking on behalf of retaining ward councilors than for any other combination.  Naïve not to consider this a potential problem for passing a charter that commission approved.  Not heard any member of commission in favor of retaining ward councilors as they exist today.  No doubt that will continue to support all councilors elected at large…motion addresses the feeling that someone is represented locally.  Because of the nature of the public communication, it is all one way.  They hear from people, but haven’t had the back-and-forth communication.  Therefore need to make the best judgement about whether that is a meaningful change—make more people comfortable with proposal put forward than the 4 totally at large.  One other factor that makes the district model appealing—provides all head-to-head races, which are desirable (to Brooke).

BB:  Have been happy with process and work done, have a really good produce.  Have heard positive, negative feedback.  View this as an opportunity to make sure have the exact right mix and language so that this is the best proposal can be.  Open to taking a look at this…found himself trying to take a fresh look at this.  Thinking about the substantive issues (not about election).  There are these head-to-head matches—then everyone elected gets 50%+1—majority of city approves of the work of everyone on the council.  Will not have minority viewpoint that can create problems in the workings of the government.  Leading toward voting for district model.

RK:  had unanimous agreement that entire city council should be elected on at-large.  Had two major categories of objections:  one to keep 24 and one to keep ward councilors (24%).  They want someone accountable only to their area and want someone to run in their ward.  District councilors do not satisfy that group of people.  If want to compromise to pick up votes, need to have district people elected only within the district.  Seems to be no appetite for it—this isn’t a compromise that anyone wants.  Concern about making changes—have 1 month left to get final report revised.  Have huge concerns about trying to make huge changes—no time to get feedback on what districts would look like, how to make them.

CS:  proposal is very similar to one discussed about 3 months ago.  Argued then in favor on the grounds that is was making sure each race was made up of one-to-one, so have clear choice.  Legislator would have clear mandate.  But…agree with Rhanna with regards to being so late in process.  Have concerns with making such a substantial change—seen a pretty large of people who feel comfortable with proposal.  Not sure how would vote on proposal.

AL:  speak to the pool—given thought as feedback and fears are heard.  Did research into practice, reality with our contests and with the idea of what you get, what the value of one-on-one contests—exclusive ones.  If look back on data of our current ward councilors for past 30 years, once elected, very few challenged.  If go back 30 years, 5, 6 or 7 are not challenged.  May have a one-on-one to start, but then have seat until you want to stop.  With a pool, very high chance that there will be a challenge.  Anne ran at large, so doesn’t fear one-on-one contests, but isn’t the only way to do it.  Doesn’t mean someone is “chicken.”  Some contests have been pretty personally destructive, so some people might not want to the put the effort in.  Have basic dilemma about what is democracy—some feel it is tied to very local representation.  But hear from proponents, they see democracy as being able to vote for everyone in the city.  No right or wrong, just different views.  Looked at demographic info from census and how differences lay about ethnicity, income, etc.  Diversity if scattered—not all in one area.  There are some areas, but spread out.  Some interest groups might do better to run at-large in a pool than contained.  Having served for 16 years, voted at large but represent a ward, personally feel comfortable that people who live in the district represent them.  Not just the ward councilor, but all councilors.  At this point, is prepared to stay with what have.  Doesn’t see what gain by changing here—minor change that doesn’t make a great deal of people feel more comfortable.  Not a major impact.

KM:  Data has been helpful, but wants to speak from the heart.  Driven by instinct, first felt enthusiasm after listening to the panels and thinking about the School Committee and how balanced it seems.  Thinking about how different it would be if not elected at-large—would think only about their schools.  Understand that people have an attachment to their ward councilors.  But the high quality of newcomers would be great—no one can picture how it would actually unfold.  About slates—it is always possible, isn’t a concern among communities that have at-large pools.  Charter Commission would have suffered to have a geographic requirement.  Also will not have time to get response or feedback, though may get some enthusiasm, will lose others.  Some will never approve—don’t think that district at-large will satisfy those who treasure their ward councilors.

JF:  voting for not-the-best, but pool will be the four top vote getters. No guarantee that get the best.  Spent 20 years north of the pike and know the sense of disenfranchisement—it is a reality.  E.g.  PTOs pay for their own playground, technology in schools, each school gets same resources despite the needs.  As a perception, a school on the north side of the city that went without heat for three days in January.  Perception—people believe that this wouldn’t have happened in other parts of the city.  They want to know that they will have same representation in the city on the council—fear they will lose it and have nowhere to turn.  Councilor from Worcester admitted that at-large councilors came from wealthier parts of the city.  Concept of equal representation is important, diversity in city—economic diversity that is localized. Do risk losing representation if we have a pool.  Concern to Jane.

HH:  currently have a ward aldermen, if they can turn to that person, then conditions she talked about should not have happened.  Why keep what is not working?  Too far into process, can’t change now.  Example:  how decided what districts are—still divide the city.  Myth of ward aldermen and how much each ward values each alderman—7 of 8 seats were uncontested in last election.  In Ward 2, 731 votes cast for ward alderman-851 blanks.  If really love ward alderman, why blanks win?  In ward 3:  651 v. 815 blanks.  Ward 4:  won by a few hundred votes, two at-large people ran unopposed and got more votes than ward alderman within their ward.  In Ward 2—challenging race in at-large race, 3 out of the 4 candidates got more votes than ward aldermen.  Think that people who are elected as councilors no matter where they live have an obligation to look out for the benefit of the entire city—then don’t get elected again.  Even the people that did vote, did not put their ward alderman as their main priority in their ward.  In every race, if ward aldermen is the most critical to democracy in city, would expect them to be the top vote getter—and they are not.  Ward 7—565 votes, 329 blanks—myth that ward alderman provides better representation.  When HH has a concern, go to the alderman that best meets his needs.  Respect that no matter where they live, they should respond to that concern.  Agrees with Karen about how they were elected—people voted because they thought that they had the best interests of the city in their hearts—not because of where they live.  Some of the comments have been harmful, divisive, fearmongering.  It’s not where they live that matters, but how they work and if they care for the needs of the whole city.  We are not 13 villages—we are one city with 13 villages.  If we put the interest of the villages before the city, we are doing a disservice.  Is personally an outlier on every committee that he serves on—but what matters to people is what he does on the committee.  Data doesn’t show that people value ward aldermen more than others.

JF:  agree with what he said—data about ward aldermen does not hold up.  Have been told that running for Ward Alderman is easier to do, but 87% of ward aldermen ran unopposed.  62% of at large ran unopposed.  By no means talking about ward aldermen—talking about a part of the city that doesn’t feel embraced by the rest of us—not as wealthy as those in other parts of the city.  Alienating to many parts of the city.

JK:  State laws lays out 4 dates—2 public hearings—so that can respond to public.  Doesn’t think it’s too late.  Feedback in three categories:  one to keep ward councilors.  Does think this proposal gives each ward one councilors (just like school committee is now).  #2.  Seats at large makes it difficult to challenge—looked back at data, 2-1 rate, chose to run at-large.  People are more inclined to run at-large.  Data doesn’t show someone less inclined to run at-large.  #3.  Fear of at-large pool—need to preserve geographic diversity.  Proposal accomplish this.  Feels an obligation to hear what citizens want—think Jane’s proposal does that.  Extent that we can accommodate that concern but keep people elected at-large, strengthens proposal since we listen to voices.  Will support it.

RK:  both come from the same place—primary concern is to make people who feel marginalized feel better represented.  All repeated that job shouldn’t look any different whether elected by ward or by city. Same would apply to at-large structure.  Possible to have one at-large, one by-district, no challengers in years, and so doesn’t need to be responsive.  Intent was to have one person per ward, and then 4 people who are challenged every election to retain seat.  Think the idea of having 4 from same neighborhood/ward, optics issue.  If 7/8 of the people feel they aren’t being represented (those not in the ward) then they will be removed.  Thinks at risk trying to make major changes—recommend changes to the process, so hearing is held later.

KM:  district proposal is pretty complicated—how divided up wards into 4 groups?  If think that people wouldn’t want to weigh in that, you’re wrong.  Would need a lot of time—we didn’t do that because we didn’t want an extra layer of government—how would city staff be impacted by change?  Is not a small thing.

BL:  I know that this is a very strange timetable, but it is the one we have.  Would be irresponsible to say that stay in same issue due to time—why have a public hearing?  Still have a month.  Is willing to do whatever work it takes to complete final report.  Don’t doubt that up to the task.  Do continue to feel that there are perceptions of group think in the four at-large councilors—doesn’t think it’s a serious problem.  Have the opportunity to make a modification and not a major change—consider going toward all head-to-head races.  Doesn’t think that it is better to have a group of four that is challenged more often.

AL:  speak to pool model—if the argument is compelling, then should make the change.  Not held back by that.  What does affect her is that the product that have is the better product—don’t believe that see the issue will pools in other communities turning over all the time—constant challenging, incumbency still rules, but being challenged keeps people accountable.

RK:  Agree with Brooke, if there were compelling feedback, should make change.  Only strong compelling opposition is that people want a person who only answers to their neighborhood and who does not have to run citywide.  District model where elected by whole city doesn’t change any of this—doesn’t answer the negative feedback that they’ve gotten.  Knew there were tradeoffs with head-to-head match ups.  Do get to vote for the 4 best people, not limited in choice by geography.

BB:  made him confident that will make a good decision.  Thinking about how charter commission were elected—if just top vote getter in each ward, would have lost out on two women and one person of color—anecdotally, this is interesting.

JF:  remind that motion is district at large.  Not by district.  On Commission, no one elected by close to 50% of vote—elected by plurality, but not majority.  This is a concern.  Draws analogy to Maine governor—worries about people who get less than 50% of vote making decisions for whole city.

JK:  notion of drawing districts—should talk City Council to draw districts.  Not appropriate for charter to lay it out.

AL:  most appropriate for election Commission to draw the districts.

RK:  All agreed on the 8 at-large by ward.  Next question is how best supplement that—by adding at-large pool add something different—diversity, different way of being elected, not geographically restricted.  If add 4 representatives by district, only have the same of what we currently have—haven’t added anything different, nothing new to add to the pool.  Don’t need 12 of exactly the same thing—have different characteristics.  Only two cities who don’t have any councilors elected at large, without geographic representation—popular for a reason.

JF:  One of major concerns is that end up with less diversity. Doesn’t’ see why an at-large pool would add more diversity.  No idea where people …

RK:  Not talking about ethnic diversity.

JF:  significant move from ward councilor configuration because district councilors would be voted on at-large.  Extremely close to what have now.

Vote on motion (5-4):  in favor:  Josh, Bryan, jane, Brooke, Chris  Against:  Rhanna, Larner, Howard, Karen

Brooke:  what do we need to do?

Consultant:  a charter would put it in the transition, need a plan for the first election.

RK:  In Worcester charter, set parameters but leave it up to the Election Commission.  Would file a minority opinion if allow the City Council to draw their own boundaries.

BL:  Boundaries are currently drawn up by the City Council.  Happy have the Election Commission do it, but if proposing something different from current practice, need to spel it out.

AL:  like having a neutral party doing this—witnessed some of the redrawing of ward lines and doesn’t like the way it’s been done.

BL:  should it be the job of the election commission to draw ward lines?

JK:  legal requirements that ward lines drawn as equal as possible.

BL:  question is who draws them?

JK:  should be the same people who draw both sets of lines.

AL:  worth putting both in hands of election commission.

BL:  motion that ward and districts be drawn by election commission. Bryan seconds.

Vote:  7 in favor, Howard opposed, Karen abstaining

TERM LIMITS:

Bryan:  term limits are a bit far away from each other—8 for SC and 16 for CC.  In the end, the gap is very large, would like to try to get them closer together.  Should be 12-12.  Doesn’t have a particular proposal—discuss and see if there is a will to move them closer together.

AL:  remind folks that the last time discussed this, it took several hours and many votes to get someplace.  If want to open it up, talk it through and get a sense of people’s limits.

RK:  throw out scenarios of three limits—no pros and cons—heard them all.

BB:  Motion 8-12-12 (seconded by BL)

RK:  let’s talk first about possible options.

BB:  withdraw motion.

JK:  other sentiments

AL:  12-12-16 or 10-12-16 (SC-Mayor-CC)

BL:  willing to go along with either of Anne’s ideas.

JF:  8-12-14

RK:  10-12-12

JF:  at 10 years you become vested—what are the financial implications of vesting people—answer is that not doing anything about compensation.

JK:  in every case, Mayor is 12 years.  Runs through rest of options.

Series of votes on each…most support for keeping the current proposal.

PROHIBITION ON HOLDING COMPENSATED OFFICE (from Attorney General’s office):  issue of whether an employee who leaves their job to become an elected official is entitled to get their job back after leaving office (if the job is not longer available).  General agreement is that they are not entitled to another job

REMOVAL OF CLERK:  language is outdated—use of ballot suggests secret ballot—legal department preferred use of roll call.

CHARTER OBJECTION:  should there be language that a charter objection could not be put in place if the item would otherwise go into effect by course of law (going past a deadline.)  Added language that City Council can modify application of charter objection procedure.

CITY EMPLOYEES ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:  [Not clear what changed here—something about city employees serving on Board and Commissions.]

SCHOOL BUILDING REVIEW COMMITTEE:  whether or not to establish a design review committee—idea is to get School Committee voting membership for those that are formed.  Reference that ordinance about design review would include School Committee voting representation, as needed.—tabled for more discussion.

SPECIAL ELECTIONS BLACKOUT:  support for a blackout period for special elections in July and August?  If support, will look at appropriate language.

CITIZEN/RESIDENT:  language around citizenry v. language around resident.  Propose change preamble to change “citizenry” to “populace”; in other situations Bryan identified, remove “citizen.”

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:  have discussed at length, but Legal Department expressed concern that state law covers all municipal employees—not in favor of adding more provision that might someday be in conflict and with no way to enforce.  Attorney General did not raise any red flags about this.  Motion to remove section 11-2.  Motion fails.

LIABILITY:  feedback was that this was not needed and was best handled under statute.  People would go to state law and not to the city charter.  Consensus is to do nothing.

INITIAL DISCUSSION OF DISTRICTS:  Is this something that should be in the charter?  Some requirements (like contiguous wards?) Let the Election Commission decide?  Motion that language describes districts made up of 2 contiguous wards decided by the Election Commission.  Discussion:  what about two districts next two each other when one has a much higher voter turnout?  That isn’t fair….

HH:  not ready to vote—in a matter of a few hours, changed everything.  Doesn’t feel comfortable deciding on this tonight.  Time is an issue….if think just rush through important issue…he’s close to saying he doesn’t support charter.  Nothing he’s heard tonight has convinced him that the district model is the way to go.

JF:  need to add in the charter have 8 wards, 4 districts and leave to others to decide.

BB:  Not vote on final proposal tonight.

RK:  Also doesn’t think should vote tonight.

BL:  withdraw motion and will introduce at next meeting.

PUBLIC COMMNET:

Ann Dorfman:  still confused about committees after hearing discussion.  Against having employees on committees.

Sallee Lipshutz:  haven’t improved the charter proposal with the change to district councilors.  Still won’t vote for it.

Jen Kohl:  not the right decision—reconsider?

Frieda Dweck:  in discussion of technology equity, lots of divisive discussion; the district model will do the same.  PTOs have had this discussion for years and found it divisive.

Sue Flicop:  CC didn’t follow it’s usual process during the evening.  Took an official vote without letting the public know in advance the vote was going to happen to change to the district model; Also took the vote without hearing all the public comment.  [NOTE:  it was almost 11:00 that the meeting ended, and so very few people stayed to comment at the end of the meeting.]

Respectfully submitted by Sue Flicop.

Return to top of page