| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2011 : 08:55:17 AM
|
EVERETT
New effort to downsize government
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent / March 6, 2011
A charter panel has proposed that Everett replace its distinctive two-branch legislature with a single body, reigniting a longstanding city debate over the idea.
The Charter Commission, which is developing a proposed new city charter to place before voters at the November city election, also recommends extending the two-year mayoral term to four years.
The nine-member elected panel recently issued a preliminary report outlining its charter plan. The group intends to vote on a final charter proposal next month after collecting feedback at a public meeting on March 30 at 7 p.m. at City Hall, and from written comments.
Everett’s City Council consists of a seven-member Board of Aldermen and an 18-member Common Council, making the city the last municipality in the country with a bicameral legislature. The proposed new charter would replace the two-branch body with a single 11-member council consisting of six ward and five at-large members, all elected citywide.
Whether to scrap the city’s bicameral system — which has been in place since 1892 — has been an oft-contentious issue in Everett. Periodic attempts to switch to a unicameral council have all failed, most recently in a 1981 referendum.
“It’s time to bring Everett into the 21st century,’’ said Paul Schlosberg, a leader of the 1981 effort and chairman of the current charter commission. “It’s time to have a more efficient, more accountable, more straightforward form of government.’’
Schlosberg said with a one-branch council, it would be easier to “pinpoint responsibility’’ for actions taken by the council.
Ward 1 Common Councilor Peter A. Napolitano is also a long-time advocate of scrapping the bicameral council format.
“It’s a very cumbersome system that really doesn’t give you the best bang for your buck,’’ he said.
But Ward 2 alderman Michael J. Mangan wants to keep the bicameral system.
Mangan said he would support reducing the size of the common council, but he said he likes having two branches because “it creates a balance in the city.’’ He said it also provides an opportunity “to bring new faces’’ into government.
Ward 5 Common Councilor Rosa DiFlorio said she would like to see the Common Council reduced to nine members, but like Mangan, she opposes scrapping the bicameral set-up.
“I think we are unique and there are a lot of checks and balances,’’ she said. “We have enough time to do a lot of homework before we pass things.’’
But Ward 6 Alderman Salvatore F. Sachetta said that in addition to streamlining the legislative process, switching to one branch would be a good cost-saving move.
“In a day and age when the city is strapped for money, we don’t need 25 representatives in a city 3.5 square miles,’’ he said.
Aldermen each earn $7,200 per year, and common councilors $5,500, and all city councilors are eligible for city health insurance and pension benefits. Under the proposed new charter, they would no longer be eligible for health coverage. According to Schlosberg, 13 councilors now receive city health insurance, which at current rates costs the city $172,000 annually.
The proposed extension of the mayor’s term to four years is also stirring debate.
Longer terms “allow better planning and financial management for the entire city administration, whereas a two-year term for mayor means that the first year is spent learning the job and the second year running for re-election,’’ Schlosberg said in a statement he presented on the commission’s behalf to a Feb. 14 joint convention held by aldermen and the common council on the charter plan.
But Napolitano said he opposed shifting to a four-year term, and was disappointed the commission included it after it had been “decisively defeated’’ by voters in 2002.
“People like to make sure their mayors are in touch and in tune with their desires,’’ he said, observing that a mayor who isn’t performing well can cause “a lot of damage’’ in four years.
Napolitano is also disappointed that the commission opted not to make the mayor a voting member of the School Committee — the new charter preserves the current system that allows the mayor to participate and offer motions at School Committee meetings but not to vote.
But because it provides for the change to a unicameral council, Napolitano said he would vote in favor of the charter plan, which will be presented to voters as one package.
“There are things I don’t agree with, but I don’t consider them deal-breakers,’’ he said, noting that if the charter passes, features such as the four-year term could be changed later.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.
|
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2011 : 3:30:30 PM
|
This is more of what I would have liked to have seen from the Everett charter commission. From what I have read, the proposed charter is favored for the mayor, with the exception of being a voting member of the school committee. None of it makes sense, but that's Everett politics. We sure could have cut some deadweight and do-nothing jobs and hired a CFO, because we certainly need one.
MALDEN
Reforming city charter
The City Council’s Charter Reform Committee on Wednesday will hold its third and final public hearing on proposed changes to the city charter. They include changes to city personnel, including creation of a chief financial officer, and clarification of the appointment and duties of treasurer/collector, controller of accounts, Board of Assessors, and city solicitor. Other changes address the method for filling vacancies of elective offices, and requirements for ballot initiative and referendum petitions. The hearing will be held at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium at the Beebe School on Pleasant Street. — Kathy McCabe
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company. |
|
|
|
socks
Member
39 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 5:38:29 PM
|
| Come to the public hearing tonight and express your concerns about the proposed charter. Council Chambers at 7:00 pm |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 09:37:59 AM
|
| God, I've missed Steve Simonelli. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 10:19:11 AM
|
| You have to say, at the very least, he's colorful and adds a type of flair to these hearings.... |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 10:25:32 AM
|
On a more serious note, as I was watching that hearing last night, I kept thinking what a waste of time. The Charter Commissions minds are already made up and the changes they came up with are set in stone. They will not take anything any speaker said into consideration.
There is a lot I like in the changes but there is one main issue that will make me vote against the new charter. I wish the changes were going to be on the ballot individually. This all or nothing vote is a mistake in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2011 : 11:18:11 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by tetris
God, I've missed Steve Simonelli.
At first, he walked up all calm and cool, but I knew it wouldn't take long. Thought to self....now there's the Stevie I know :)
Miss u buddy.... |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 11:52:43 AM
|
I think that if a large, no huge, number of people had showed up last night or had written to them to go on the record as being against a certain provision or provisions of the proposed charter, that would be the only way that the Commission would consider making any major changes at this point. But that hasn't happened and is unlikely to before they have to wrap their final version by the beginning of May. I'm not sure whether that tells us and them that most people support the proposed charter, are apothetic to the process and the result or are just afraid to go on the record with their opinions.
Because the entire charter has been rewritten, it wouldn't be practical to put every change on the ballot. I'm sure what you meant Massdee was the "larger" changes. I wish that was possible too. While I'm generally a supporter of the new charter, even though I don't agree with everything in it, I'm still unsure that I can vote for it because of the increase in the mayor's term. And if it gets voted in, I think that it will be next to impossible to repeal the change in term. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 12:13:26 PM
|
That is exactly the issue I have a problem with. If they could put that one question on the ballot separately then I would vote in favor of the Charter but would vote against a four year term for mayor. If it all remains as one vote I (and many people that I know) will be voting against the Charter.
Being against the four year term for Mayor has nothing to do with our present mayor. I don't want any mayor to have a four year term. I can only imagine the damage that could be done if we had a totally incompetent mayor for 4 years. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 12:46:04 PM
|
My issue is the charter commission did not have to entertain the four year term for mayor. It was actually shot down, then brought back up. It was brought back up when the mayor himself spoke out and said it should be a four year term. He should have stayed out of it, but then people HE employes, brings it back on the charter, then people HE employees vote on it. I don't care if it's okay in any MGL law...it's unethical!
Four year term for mayor should be on a ballot as a single question. Make it a ballot question and let the people decide, just like they did in 2002. What the charter is doing is jamming all these changes down everyone's throats all at the same time. For that, I wont support it. I don't care how many people showed up and wrote in, they were not listening to anyone and I'm not going to be bullied into supporting this. I do feel bad for all the hard work that people did to get the commission started, but the commission itself is too compromised. I question the votes back then too, the numbers just were not right. I've reported this inequity to the state and they claim that they will be watching this years elections VERY closely. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2011 : 1:42:18 PM
|
The theory is that there is recall for the totally incompetent. But even though it's there, it won't be easy. And God help if you get publically involved with a recall effort in this city and it fails.
But I'm just as concerned with the mediocre administrations and administrations that become complacement. I think that a two year term helps to keep them on their toes. Even with a two-year term, I think that complacent tendencies can develop when they don't take their responsibilities and possible opposition seriously enough. As long as a mayor and their administration are doing a good job and are staying on top of things, there should be no issue with them getting easily re-elected every two years without any serious opposition. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 08/16/2011 : 2:56:43 PM
|
| I am going to be voting against the new charter and my main reason until last night was the four year term for mayor. I now want to keep our bicameral form of government. There are 18 members of the Common Council and it appears the administration has that board stacked in it's favor. Now, at least, we have the Board of Aldermen to act as an overseer and a second chance for some of the items the CC rubber stamps. Heaven help this city if this new charter passes. If an administration can stack an 18 member board, imagine what could happen with a smaller board and no other body to take a second look. I will be encouraging everyone I know to vote against the new charter. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2011 : 9:53:34 PM
|
Massdee,
Isn't the problem really more about the people that we put into office than the number of bodies that make up the city's legislative branch? I'll readily admit that having two bodies and more seats makes it harder for one person to have a controlling faction in place over the entire city legislature. But if the votes happened to fall a certain way this November, the city could find itself in that position even with a bicameral legislature.
While I support a single branch city legislature, one of my concerns about it has always been about the legislators that will make up the new body and what they perceive their job to be. Under the current set-up, a great number of the members of the City Council, especially the members of the Common Council, appear to believe their job is that of a quasi constituent service director. We wonder sometimes why certain people who we feel have no business holding a seat in city government are able to get reelected time after time. I believe it is because they are able to deliver the results that individual voters are looking for. How do they do that? By any means necessary and therein lies a big part of the problem.
Under a smaller, single branch legislature I believe that the members would need to be more legislators than constituent service directors. Sure, there would still be a constituent services component to their job. But instead of being able to champion issues for individuals, their role would need to change to more of a support role, helping to resolve conflicts between the public and the administration when the public feels that their individual needs are not being addressed adequately by the administration.
If the voters of the city choose to accept the new charter, are they ready for this kind of change? I have my doubts about that. At least initially, I believe that local elections will continue to be the same popularity contests/name recognition events as they have been in recent memory. But the hope is that somewhere down the line, people will start to get it and choose their candidates more on their qualifications rather than other factors. No one ever said change was easy and, if the new charter does pass, I'd expect that there would be some bumps along the way, not so much with the document itself but more with the implementation of it.
Just the way I see it.
Before anyone asks, I'm still on the fence about the new charter. Although I'm currently leaning towards voting for it as I believe it contains many more positive changes than negative ones, I probably won't be able to tell you for certain how I will vote on it until I have filled in the oval on the ballot. But I can and do respect other people's opinions on the charter and how they will vote on it. |
|
|
|
Peter Napolitano
Member
11 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2011 : 10:00:29 AM
|
| Hello everyone. There seems to be too much speculation on whether I support the new City Charter or not. My latest Editorial didn't clarify my position that was primarily because I want people to make up their own minds. I have withheld my personal position because I do not want to influence the vote and I know that there will be a spin on it regardless of what I say. Just look at how many attempts on the other blog there are to put words in my mouth. I respect massdee's feelings about not voting in favor of the new Charter after all I'm constantly dealing with the very control issue massdee brings up, but keep in mind that that a Mayor controlled majority exists because most of those individuals would never have a chance of winning a city-wide elected position. Their allegiance to the administration is the only power they perceive that they will ever have and as long as they can come in third with a tiny amount of votes compared to the total amount of votes cast city-wide, they will flex to the Mayor's will and not the voters. A smaller single body City Council will be a lot harder to control because of the amount of effort it would take to outwardly support individuals like the last city election when the Mayor openly supported two candidates for Alderman. Only one got elected. That's why the administration only controls a few votes on the Board. It is too obvious to even the causal observers when a smaller group is being controlled. That's just my opinion. A single body City Council will eliminate most of the troublemakers. Now because I have a great deal of respect for Everett Average Citizen, I will tell you my position on the new City Charter. I am voting in favor of it. As much as I am against the four-year term for Mayor and have spoke out against it, I feel that abolishing the bicameral system is a greater step toward more accountability. If the four year term was put in there as a deal breaker, than we can't let them succeed in maintaining the status quo. If passed, the four year term can be addressed at the next municipal election with the right work. The majority that feels one way or another on this issue can have their voice heard without any other distractions. I will promise you this that regardless of whether the new City Charter passes or fails; I am still committed to continue working to reform Everett's city government. I will be more than happy to answer any questions you may have over the weekend. Thank you.....Peter |
Edited by - Peter Napolitano on 08/19/2011 10:01:24 AM |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2011 : 11:01:04 AM
|
There would be 11 councilors if this new charter passes. If it passes, the mayor can potentially have complete control of the entire city government, with no checks and balances. I see this as a conflict of interest. I do remember the last election when the mayor publicly supported two candidates. He openly supported candidates for a position where he himself would be putting pieces on an agenda, and those same candidates would be voting on those pieces. The mailing came from HIS campaign, where people donated to HIM, not Puleo and Mangan. That screams conflict of interest.
Although, I do feel that it backfired on them, because one did not get elected and the one that did..... did not win by a large margin. Michael Mangan probably should have, because both him and Steve represent the mayors ward. I think that mailing actually hurt their campaigns. The point is, the mayor will stop at nothing to get what HE wants.
What guarantees do we have that the 4-year term would get addressed after the fact? How many times have we sent requests to the state....and their written response back was "Refer to your charter" and they wont even entertain it? That will be the same here.
It is unfortunate that we have a mayor that plays games like this and unfortunate that "somehow" that stacked charter commission got elected, in his favor, and really did not do the citizens of this city any justice. The only option I see is going right back to the drawing board and start over. Keep the mayor and his hacks out of it.
One last comment I need to make is someone better be watching these absentee ballots and voter stations VERY CAREFULLY. I would be requesting an investigator from the state now, not wait until it's too late. We have a bad reputation with voting irregularities and I would not put anything past anyone. It sure is in the mayors favor having a family member as the registrar of voters.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Charter Review
