LWV Newton logo

Visit us on Facebook!

Charter Commission Meeting Observer Notes 12-9-15

Charter Commission Meeting Observer Notes December 9, 2015

December 9, 2015 @ 7:45pm
Cafeteria, Newton City Hall

PRESENT: Bryan Barash (arrived 8:00pm*), Jane Frantz, Howard Haywood, Rhanna Kidwell, Josh Krintzman (Chair), Anne Larner, Brooke Lipsitt, Karen Manning, Chris Steele. Also present: Associate City Solicitor Ouida Young (departed after her report), 4 observers.

Josh Krintzman called meeting to order at 7:46pm. Notified all present that meeting is being recorded; recordings will be posted online (City website).

*Commissioner Barash was attending to City business elsewhere in the building.

  1. Approval of draft minutes from November 23rd meeting

Going forward draft minutes will be sent to Commissioners by e-mail prior to the meeting to enable them to read in advance of the meeting.

Motion (Lipsitt) and second (Steele) to accept minutes passed.

  1. Scope of work for consultants / hired clerk (part 1)

Ouida Young reported on her discussion with City HR department to identify candidates for the hired clerk (a part-time role) and to understand salary range, estimate of required hours. Two individuals currently working for the City as part-time employees were recommended, Ouida can facilitate the interview process. Ouida also clarified a question about the Open Meeting Law–up to 4 commissioners can communicate to prepare for a meeting or collect data—and confirmed that if Commission hires a consultant, they must be paid rather than work pro bono.

  1. Commission work plan

Rhanna Kidwell distributed a draft of the Commission’s work flow plan and members discussed and edited the worksheets page-by-page. This and all other handouts will be posted online. Rhanna explained that a working session with all nine Commissioners crafting the work plan together means they all have equal input and ownership.

The sections of the work plan discussed at this meeting were:

  • Define the objectives for the outcome of the charter review
  • Define the objectives for the process of the review
  • Define the steps in reviewing each article of the charter
  • Determine the order in which the articles will be reviewed

Objectives for outcome

Commissioners discussed their vision for the outcome of the charter review process, which included: greater civic engagement as measured by higher voter turnout and more candidates, an ongoing understanding (not just at election time) on part of citizens of how our City government works, ballot clarity/ability for voters to understand the ballot, effectiveness and efficiency of our government, determining the appropriate role of government and the matching structure.

Objectives for process

Discussion focused on time management of the process and desire to incorporate the views and input of citizens at large as well as elected officials with experience working in existing government structure. Priorities were: to design the process to hear as many voices as possible, give ample opportunity for community input while understanding that the product cannot possibly represent the views of everyone. The process must include strong data collection and careful tracking of communications received from the public and a mechanism to share that data among commissioners and the public.

At this point in the discussion, the idea for the process was to go article by article, acknowledging a need to figure out when and how to add or subtract articles. There was a question about whether a consultant could help recommend another process. Must build in time to go back if changes necessitate re-working articles already worked through. Suggestion to use straw votes to reach agreement and then move on to next article.

Definition of process steps and their order

Commissioners first outlined ideas for steps to take in reviewing each article, later went back to order them: Visioning (goals for the article), Public Input, Research, Presentation, Deliberation, Straw Vote, Drafting, Presentation (2), Public Input (2), Deliberation (2).

The discussion of each step yielded detailed ideas about its components:

Visioning: List goals (an assigned Commissioner comes with a proposal so there is something to respond to); time-specified discussion on goals; reach consensus to move forward by vote or other means.

Research: Get data on the history of why article is what it is now; benchmark other communities (read charters, interview officials to see how it works in practice; use consultant input and research banked from other charter review processes); refer to the Model City Charter; use other outside experts.

Public input: Unsolicited emails; meeting testimony/public hearings; electronic surveys; invite feedback during Commission meetings on specific topics – format similar to Newton School Committee public comment format; seek opinions of current and prior elected officials.

Presentation: Posting research on website, traveling presentations.

Drafting: Discussion of paying for outside expertise versus using expertise present on the Commission. Could they draft in real time? Howard pointed out that the Everett Charter Commission learned that if they did not vote for agreement along the way, the issue kept coming up because it did not feel resolved. Consensus was that even if agreement had been reached via a vote on a section, the Commission can always go back (equivalent of motion for reconsideration).

Vision for how to reach consensus & move on

There were many ideas for how the Commission should determine when there was agreement, in order to move on to the next article. The theme of time management surfaced again. The Chair called on each Commissioner to state their vision for how to reach consensus. In the end, the Commissioners agreed on an approach that would incorporate an article-by-article consideration of the charter with Articles 2, 3, 4 & 7 considered together as a system. It was further agreed that they would begin consideration of the charter with an article that stands on its own, so as to test the process. All were reminded that they have not agreed to consider the charter in chronological order.

  1. Scope of public hearing on December 17th

There was initial discussion about ways to publicize the public hearing beyond what is legally required, and communications to the public in general. Commissioners then crafted the agenda for the public hearing, giving input to Josh on his introductory remarks and outlining an overview presentation on the charter commission objectives/vision and process before the public comments. Josh assigned Rhanna to compile the vision goals just discussed.

Motion (Steele) and second (Lipsitt) to delegate to Bryan the task of formulating the exact wording of public hearing notice. Passes 8-0.

  1. Communications Strategy

Jane Frantz and Karen Manning lead a discussion of the Commission’s communications planning document that outlined how to communicate with, engage and take in feedback from a wide variety of constituencies and groups in the City. Plan includes communications via multiple components: electronic (City website), e-mailing, social media, personal outreach, meeting with groups, attending community events and the media. Plan to send periodic notices by e-mail, will set up an e-mail program like Mail Chimp, obtain a Charter Commission e-mail address. Listing of categories of constituents to target in outreach e-mailing: City, community groups, political/political action groups, non-profits orgs, community listservs, the business community and the media.

  1. Scope of work for consultants / hired clerk (part 2)

  • Consultant: The Commission has in-hand a proposal from Collins Center for Public Management at UMass Boston, which has been engaged by Fall River Charter Commission (same timing as Newton’s commission). Josh assigned Bryan to inquire with Collins about a facilitating role and helping with research. Bryan will also talk to Fall River re: process of hiring Collins Center, e.g., did they have other candidates?
  • Paid Clerk: Do not need to rush. Jane ok to take minutes for first month. Karen wants to hang onto communications, not outsource. Outlined role/job description. Jane will initiate interviewing HR’s suggested candidate.

  1. Finances of the Commission

Agenda item tabled. Premature to discuss.

  1. Wording of e-mail auto-response

Motion (Barash) seconded (Heywood) to have Jane, Chris, Karen draft an e-mail auto response for the Commission’s e-mail address. Motion passed 8-0.

Chris Steele reported that several Commissioners met with Joe Mulvey, City of Newton CIO, who will advise and facilitate on the Commission’s web site, e-mail communications and creating City e-mail addresses for the Commission.

Motion (Lipsitt) seconded (Barash) to adjourn. Passed 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm

Upcoming Meeting Dates

  • December 16th @ 7pm, City Hall Room 211
  • Public Hearing December 17th @ 7pm, City Hall Aldermanic Chambers

Respectfully submitted,

Liz Hiser, Observer
Arrived 7:35pm, Left at 10:30pm

 

12-13-2015