scope oF PROPOSED CHANGES
Newton’s current City Council has 24 councilors, with three councilors from each of Newton’s eight wards – one councilor elected only from within the ward, and two elected at-large (citywide). The Charter Commission's proposal would implement a 12-member City Council, with 1 member residing in each of the 8 wards to be elected at-large and, 4 additional at-large Councilors, with no ward residency requirement. This change would eliminate all Ward Councilors. The proposal maintains an 8-year term limit for School Committee, and adding a 16-year limit for City Councilors and 12-year limit for the Mayor. Those interested in extending service could campaign for re-election after a break in service. The charter commission's final report can be viewed here. Note that this is a political advocacy piece and not an objective summary of the changes proposed or associated data.
1. lESS lOCAL representation- ELIMINATES wARD-ELECTED cOUNCILORS |
Newton's eight wards are incredibly diverse. This diversity is currently represented in the 24-member city council, but if the position of Ward Councilor is eliminated, we may lose direct and locally accountable representation. Many Ward Councilors act as strong advocates for their neighborhood and are the first point of contact for members of the public for neighborhood issues. In the current system they provide accountable access to government. Under the proposed charter changes, all city councilors will run citywide and will therefore no longer be accountable to their neighborhood.
|
2. UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION - allows 5 of 12 COUNCILORS (42%) from one ward...
|
The proposed Charter eliminates Ward Councilors and instead proposes 12 at-large Councilors elected citywide; 1 from each ward plus 4 residing anywhere in the city. This means 1 ward may have 5 of the 12 councilors (42%), while others have just 1, chosen largely by the rest of the city. This concentration of power is made worst given that the even if a ward's 1 remaining councilor doesn't represent their neighborhood well, the councilor could still win reelection by getting a majority of the votes elsewhere.
|
3. expensive races - harder for citizens to run for city council |
Running for office is expensive and time consuming, even within a single Ward. However, to run city-wide, the challenges can be immense, especially if the candidate is not well-funded or politically connected. Several strong Ward Councilors were able to win their races by walking their ward and knocking on every door. This is just not possible citywide. Recent history has shown that unseating an at-large incumbent can require a mayoral level effort, including fundraising as much as $30,000. For citizens with young children or full-time jobs, such challenges can be overwhelming.
|
City Council Will Provide Voters the Option to Downsize the Right Way
In 1996 and 2000, a majority of Newton voters approved a nonbinding resolution to support reducing the City Council to sixteen, with eight Ward and eight At-Large seats. This is a much more sensible approach. For that reason in September, fourteen city councilors - a majority - filed a home rule petition to give Newton voters an alternative downsizing option - a “Plan B” - that would reduce the City Council in exactly that way: eight Ward and eight At Large councilors. A home rule petition changing the council composition must be passed by the State Legislature, signed by the Governor, and ratified by residents up or down in 2018. Home rule petitions are a common procedure on Beacon Hill. In fact the change in title from “Alderman” to “Councilor” was passed as a home rule petition.
This Plan B only moves forward if the Charter is voted down on 11/7.
So if you like the idea of having a smaller City Council but want to maintain Ward Councilors, vote NO on November 7. If you want the option to vote for Plan B the City Council will then move ahead for Newton voter consideration - but only if the Charter Commission’s version is voted down on November 7.
In 1996 and 2000, a majority of Newton voters approved a nonbinding resolution to support reducing the City Council to sixteen, with eight Ward and eight At-Large seats. This is a much more sensible approach. For that reason in September, fourteen city councilors - a majority - filed a home rule petition to give Newton voters an alternative downsizing option - a “Plan B” - that would reduce the City Council in exactly that way: eight Ward and eight At Large councilors. A home rule petition changing the council composition must be passed by the State Legislature, signed by the Governor, and ratified by residents up or down in 2018. Home rule petitions are a common procedure on Beacon Hill. In fact the change in title from “Alderman” to “Councilor” was passed as a home rule petition.
This Plan B only moves forward if the Charter is voted down on 11/7.
So if you like the idea of having a smaller City Council but want to maintain Ward Councilors, vote NO on November 7. If you want the option to vote for Plan B the City Council will then move ahead for Newton voter consideration - but only if the Charter Commission’s version is voted down on November 7.
frequently asked questions
Why is Newton voting on whether to change our charter?
Can we vote for only the parts of the charter change we like?
What changes are being recommended?
What is the difference between current ward vs. at-large city councilors?
Is it too late to encourage the commission to revise the approach proposed in the charter?
What is the downside of eliminating ward councilors?
What are the implications of having all councilors run city-wide?
A simple way to reduce the size of the city council would be to eliminate one at-large councilor from each ward, leaving 8 ward and 8 at-large councilors. Was that option considered?
Will 12 councilors be able to do the work of 24?
How can I help defeat the proposal to eliminate ward councilors?
Is the current council too big?
Does the current council size cause meetings to be too long?
What is the difference in resources required to run for a contested city-wide election vs. a ward election?
Are there other communities that have moved to city-wide voting for all councilors?
Are term limits necessary or a good idea?
- In November 2015, Newton voters elected a Charter Commission and 9 Commissioners to propose a revised charter for approval by voters on November 7th, 2017.
Can we vote for only the parts of the charter change we like?
- No, the entire proposal must be voted up or down by citywide vote.
What changes are being recommended?
What is the difference between current ward vs. at-large city councilors?
- Ward councilors are elected only by the residents of their ward. At-large councilors are elected city-wide, but must reside in their ward. The Charter Commission is also proposing adding four at-large councilors without ward residency requirements.
Is it too late to encourage the commission to revise the approach proposed in the charter?
- Yes, the commission has finalized their report.
What is the downside of eliminating ward councilors?
- Reduces local representation and accountability. Currently we have ward councilors that are highly accountable to the voters in their ward. With the proposed change, all councilors would be elected citywide. The councilor residing in your ward could be non-responsive to you and your neighbors, yet still be re-elected handily by voters in the rest of the city. Right now a ward councilor has every incentive to represent the voters in her ward, otherwise they may not re-elect her or him.
- Makes it harder for newcomers to run. For example, it is common for ward councilor candidates to knock on all the doors in a ward. It is extremely rare in a citywide race because the city is simply too large. It is also much more expensive to run citywide rather than within the ward. So this change will favor those with deep pockets and those already connected to the power networks in the City.
What are the implications of having all councilors run city-wide?
- Because citywide races are so expensive, this change would incentivize candidates to run as a slate, endorsed by interest groups. Independent voices and newcomers would be put at a huge disadvantage.
A simple way to reduce the size of the city council would be to eliminate one at-large councilor from each ward, leaving 8 ward and 8 at-large councilors. Was that option considered?
- That option was considered and discarded with no explanation.
Will 12 councilors be able to do the work of 24?
- It could precipitate a move toward full-time or highly-paid councilors needing to focus on retaining their role vs. taking difficult positions.
- It could limit the diversity of talent and experience available to candidates with day jobs that allow them to absorb the workload.
- It will likely shift important decision making to the administration.
How can I help defeat the proposal to eliminate ward councilors?
Is the current council too big?
- There are varied opinions on the current council size. It has worked well for 100 years. Regardless, the proposed means of reducing council size is highly flawed.
- The size and diversity of current council avoids the group-think likely with a smaller council dominated by candidates requiring establishment support for city-wide races.
Does the current council size cause meetings to be too long?
- While public hearings can run long, it is often the input from the public that consumes vast majority of the time for those meetings, not council discussion.
What is the difference in resources required to run for a contested city-wide election vs. a ward election?
- A non-incumbent seeking a contested at-large seat can require financial and time resources comparable to that required for a mayoral run in order to gain city-wide name recognition. They also likely require mailing list endorsements from incumbents and party establishment.
- Ward-elected candidates can knock on each door in their ward while being employed full time and can build their credentials through public service in their local schools and community.
- Cost for city wide can exceed $30K. Cost for ward ~$9K.
Are there other communities that have moved to city-wide voting for all councilors?
- In Lowell, where all representatives are elected at-large, although 40% of the population is people of color, every School Committee member and every City Councilor is white.
- After Worcester switched to all at-large system, every member of its City Council came from the more affluent west side.
Are term limits necessary or a good idea?
- The current council has a median tenure of 9 years without term limits driving turnover.
- Over 2/3rds of the council has a current tenure of 16 years or less without term limits.
- If term limits were enacted retroactively, they would remove 9 of the current 24 councilors in 2019 (Hess-Mahan, Harney, Lennon, Lappin, Sangiolo, Lippof, Gentile, Yates, Baker). While opinions may vary in politics of any councilor, many would agree these councilors provide key energy and experience to the current council