RESIDENCY IS NOT REPRESENTATION...

Under the proposed charter, there is no guarantee -- not even any incentive -- for a Ward Councilor elected primarily by others to be representative of the wishes of the voters in the Ward in which the Councilor happens to reside. Residency doesn't imply representation.

An imperfect but illustrative analogy: Lt. General Thomas Gage and John Hancock were each Governors of Massachusetts -- each were required to reside in the colony. But what a difference! The former was selected externally (appointed by the Crown) while the latter was elected locally. The analogy is imperfect because these were executives, not legislators -- and being appointed by the Crown is not the same as being elected primarily by voters in other Wards of the city. But we can still learn from the comparison. Internally-selected Hancock was representative of the colony's residents, and externally-selected Gage was not.

Bruce Henderson
​52 Vaughn Ave

The Charter Commission proposal eliminates the 8 ward-elected councilors who provide us with village-level constituent service and advocacy. This is not a system that retains ward representation. If this change passes, no ward will have a councilor directly focused on, and accountable to, its residents. Vote NO on Nov. 7th. 

The current city charter is very clear with regard to defining "representation" in the context of filling of council vacancies.   Councilors at large represent and are elected by, the voters of the whole city while THE VOTERS ENTITLED TO SUCH REPRESENTATION elect the ward councilors. 

---