Charter Committee due 8/1 - What are your biggest concerns/fear about changing the charter?
medfordma.org/2022/06/30/mayor-lungo-koehn-to...
medfordma.orgPosted Jul 21, 2022, 12:21 PM UTC
821
medfordma.orgI guess my concern would be that we get a city council that is not as effective as the one we have now. I think there are plusses and minuses to a ward-based system in general, but we don't know specifically what that would look like in Medford. Doesn't mean I think something bad would happen, but it's something I'd be paying close attention to, and there are always unintended consequences. I've looked at it before, and for example, Bears and Scarpelli are in the same ward, and even though city-wide Bears got 1000 more votes than Scarpelli, in a Ward 2 election he would have lost by about 60 votes in 2021.
5
That's true of any council or even mayor. I guess it's a question of time and place and how many stops there are to prevent things you don't like but enable things you do like.
1
One advantage is it makes it easier for non incumbents and people who can't self fund an expensive campaign to run, and win. One doesn't need to canvass the entire city but to focus on the area you want to represent. This is a barrier to many folks running who know they can't compete against name recognition of someone like, say, Scarpelli (who as far as I saw at least via online channels didn't hold a single campaign event or canvass at all). Or maybe he did but not around me. I don't want councilors who think once they're in, they don't need to work to be re-elected.
5
District-based systems can make it easier for incumbents too and often favor majorities. Instead of being able to appeal to a broad range of people, you want to focus on the majority in your district and then you become the point person for that district making it hard to unseat you.
It can also create a lot of NIMBYism. Then easiest way to oust a district candidate is to become the candidate that says, "I'll fight against X in your backyard (while the incumbent is supporting what is right for the city and will also apply in other districts)" or says, "I won't support X unless my district gets something." Instead of representing a broad range of constituents, you end up representing the loudest voices (usually the whitest, oldest, richest) in your district.
One way to make it so that the name-recognition thing doesn't become an issue is to move to Single Transferrable Vote. Right now, you vote for 7 people. That hugely favors incumbents and I can see why you'd dislike it. Someone mediocre with name recognition will likely get enough votes to be elected. With Single Transferrable Vote, you rank the candidates in order of preference. In order to get elected, a candidate would need 1/8th + 1 of the total votes.
For example, if there are 14 people running, you might rank 10 of them in order. If no one gets 1/8th of the #1 votes, they eliminate the person with the least votes and re-distribute those votes to the #2 choices of those voters. If a candidate gets more than 1/8th of the votes, they re-distribute the excess votes to those voters #2 choices.
This way, a candidate can run a campaign without needing to run an expensive city-wide campaign by focusing on an area of interest - whether that be political like social housing or whether it be local like Hillside. It also means that someone mediocre might get ranked low by everyone and not re-elected - despite the name recognition. It allows new entrants to carve out a niche, but doesn't offer the same district-based-NIMBYism reward.
3
Thank you, all good points I had t thought through; that's helpful.
1
George did not campaign much last time because his Mother was very ill and eventually passed in early October of that election season. From mid summer on he spent every moment he could with her. He did hold one event which was scheduled and as it turns out occurred a few days after she passed and maybe a couple standouts - I saw one in the square on a Saturday morning in late September.
I can't speak for him, but he did exactly what he should have done during that time and was exactly where he should have been. I am sure if his personal circumstances were different he would have been out campaigning as much as he usually does. If people want to complain about that - so be it.
1
You misunderstand me; it's not a criticism of him at all and I fully support any elected official taking time off for personal reasons. There is no moral obligation to campaign. My point is that even without campaigning, he could win a seat because of his history on the council.
3
you stated that you did not see him do any campaigning and I am explaining why so that you don't think he just sat back and coasted into a seat.
Certainly being an incumbent gives him a leg up, and one with a well known name. I do believe there should be some sort of change to the charter, and maybe ward representation is it, so that lesser known and lesser funded candidates would have a better shot at a seat. I would have preferred that the top 2 candidates, who were incumbents, have been replaced by some other candidates that did not fare as well but IMO would be far better councillors pushing the interests of the residents and not a national agenda.
So in that sense, I may well support ward representation.
1
Right, by saying "he did exactly what he should have done", you're implying that I disagreed. I didn't/don't, which is what I clarified.
This "national agenda" nonsense is where we do disagree. How does pushing for zoning reform here, improving our tree canopy, and advocating for a budget that supports our schools and library tie in with a national agenda? Oh right, it doesn't. Can't wait to vote for them both again.
3
[removed]
1
[deleted]
3
Ps. Some of are collecting signatures (7000 needed) to move forward with charter review process that the 3 city councilors voted against. If you haven't yet signed yet, please do. I'll be happy to share more info.
2
My concern is losing South Medford representation now that we have some.
1
What scares me the most is the OR people having input into the charter
-1
me too. Mayor is establishing a committee to review the charter. deadline to apply to be on the committee is 8/1; if you are concerned you can sign up to be on the committee
https://medfordma.org/2022/06/30/mayor-lungo-koehn-to-establish-committee-to-study-citys-charter/
1
[removed]
1
It has to be reviewed first. No one is talking about making any changes at this point.
Changes could be made down the road, like increasing the number of city councilors, moving to a ward representation system, or getting rid of the mayor and having a town manager, etc. But I haven't heard anyone clamoring for that.
We desperately deserve a charter review. As I understand it, it’s been decades since it was even reviewed, let alone changed. Why would we not periodically look at the city’s charter and ask ourselves “is this meeting our needs well?”
Agree!
How does ward representation work? Do you have to live in a ward to be elected as a representative from that ward? I lived in Somerville for a while, which I believe has ward representation, and I can't say there's anything necessarily wrong with it. I just don't know the arguments for and against it. Couldn't it be argued that a city council elected at-large is a better representation of the city than wards where you get into issues with over/under representation and gerrymandering?
My understanding is there are ward councilors and "councilors at large". Basically, an attempt to try and make sure all your councilors aren't from just the super ritzy areas and there are actual representatives living in all the different areas of the city for their constituents.
The "councilors at large" can be from anywhere in the city. So if you are having a local issue (like something wrong on your street), you go to your ward councilor. If you have a city-wide issue, you go to the full council.
Again, this is my understanding.
Yeah, the Hillside/S.Medford (for example) is notoriously underserved--so I'm for ward representation. Things have changed a bit different since the last election!