Picture by Michael Ryter
Contrasting Viewpoints: Is the City Council Charter Right for Newton?
Compiled by Gil Alon
As both mayoral candidates came to discuss their political views to Newton South students, Denebola takes a look at both sides of the debated city council charter that will appear on the ballot in November. The ballot proposes to eliminate the 8 ward councilors and 4 more citywide councilors to leave Newton with 12 city councilors elected across the city.
A Smaller Committee Would Increase Productivity
By Gaby Lewis
Government is well known for its red tape and bureaucracy that make people roll their eyes at government inefficiency. The Newton charter committee has been drafted to attempt to fix the lack of accountability and transparency in local government.
Newton’s charter–a document spelling out the powers and duties of government and the right of citizens– certainly needs an update. The last Charter Commission was convened in the late 1960’s and led to little change because current officeholders were involved in the committee and resisted many reforms. The new charter committee involves no current officeholders to ensure the best possible result. Not only is the current charter significantly out of date, but there are many problems with the charter itself.
First, Newton’s 24 member city council is far too large. Major cities including Los Angeles have 12 councilors while Newton has 24 city councilors.
An excessive number of city councilors makes passing policies incredibly difficult. Fairly straightforward policies can create contentious bickering among council members and prevent even menial policies from being passed. This further alienates many citizens who feel local government is ineffective, making the political process even more inaccessible and opaque.
The new proposed charter would prevent these problems by changing the size of the council from 24 members to 12. With fewer voices in the rooms, it will be easier to get reforms done in local government.
“The proposed charter would create a smaller and more effective city council and would hold every city councilor accountable to every voter,” says senior Michael Ryter.
In the status quo, Newton has a ward councilor system where each councilor represents a certain ward or district in Newton. This is problematic because each councilor then only feels responsible to those in their ward rather than the entire city.
However, the new proposed charter would have each councilor elected by the whole city, making them “at-large councilors”, instead of having specific councilors representing specific areas in Newton.
“Electing all counselors at-large would empower the council to make decisions solely on the entire city’s best interest,” said Ryter.
Those who argue against the charter cite concerns that their ward will no longer be represented. However, most citizens of Newton have similar interests for their city and ultimately having all at-large councilors will ensure that every councilor works hard to win all of Newton’s voters and better the entire city.
Therefore, the city of Newton gets more representation on the whole, and councilors would now be held responsible to benefit all of Newton.
Finally, the most important aspect of local government is productivity. The new charter increases productivity in the cleanest way possible with at-large voting, avoiding policy getting lost in gridlock with dozens of voices inputting their opinions for their ward’s best interest. The best way to see progress in our city is by voting yes on the proposed new charter.
Reducing Representation is not the Solution
by Edi Fleming
If the Newton City Council size was decreased, it would gravely hinder the ability of the council to represent the interests and concerns of the people of Newton.
The ward councilors are uniquely beneficial to the residents of Newton as different wards in Newton have different perspectives. Newton has richer and poorer areas, more urban and rural areas, and the respective populations of the different wards naturally have differing opinions on how the city should be run.
Ward council seats give these differing communities officials that can be held accountable to the neighborhoods they were elected to represent, and ensure their beliefs are heard at the city level. This provides power to political minorities that without the ward councilors would be deprived of any influence.
Therefore, under a system of all at-large councilors, different perspectives would be lost.
Additionally, the new changes would limit who could run for city council. Citywide elections require more funding to run than ward elections and with less available seats, the competition for those seats would increase, resulting in a more expensive race that pushes out candidates that can not afford to run.
Emily Norton, a Ward 2 councilor at large recalls her first time running her campaign.
“I raised a little money and knocked on the door of every voter in Ward 2. I was able to campaign and win without any institutional support, because I was running only in the ward,” said Norton.
The increased monetary requirements to campaign across a city can make at-large councilors beholden to their biggest donors, skewing representation in the legislature towards the wealthier parts of town.
One of the principal arguments for changing the charter is that our current council is too slow and a smaller gathering would be able to pass legislature far quicker, without months of debate.
However, fewer people does not necessarily mean a faster consensus, as a small group can still debate issues for months. The only way the proposed twelve person council would work more quickly than our current council is in the worst case scenario for the proposed council: A single political group was consistently able to manage a majority vote for their candidates, in complete control of the city council. A feat made easier by the smaller amount of seats.
A smaller council is more susceptible to pressure to rush legislation through the system without considering or debating it sufficiently.
“We do not suffer from groupthink,” said Norton. “With 24 people we have a diversity of opinion, which helps lead to better decisionmaking.”
Even the councilors against this change, however, recognize that 24 councilors seems a bit superfluous. Fourteen councilors have put forward an alternative solution, reducing the number of councilors to sixteen, with eight ward councilors and eight at-large councilors.
“I have also heard from many citizens that would like to see a smaller body,” says Norton. “I think 16 is large enough to avoid groupthink and still allow for a diversity of opinion and the other benefits laid out above.”
