Hey, there! Log in / Register
Councilor wants council terms extended to four years; says cost of off-year elections too burdensome
By adamg on Mon, 11/02/2015 - 1:13pm
Boston City Councilor Frank Baker (Dorchester) wants to extend city councilors' terms from two to four years.
On Wednesday, the day after what could be a council election with a record low turnout, the council will consider his request for a hearing into the idea of asking the state legislature to make the change.
Baker's hearing request states:
Having a municipal election every two years where oftentimes voter turnout is low is burdeonsome on city resources. Making the term of the office for city councilors a four year term will reduce costs in having multiple elections and will allow the city to operate in a more effective and efficient manner.
In a separate motion, Baker is also calling for a change in state law that would prohibit a councilor from running for both council and mayor, as Councilor Charles Yancey (Dorchester, Mattapan) did in 2013 (he lost in the race for mayor, but won his council seat).
Also Wednesday, the council will consider a proposal by councilors Matt O'Malley (Jamaica Plain, West Roxbury) and Ayanna Pressley (at large) to peg councilor pay to the median income in Boston, rather than requiring councilors who think they deserve more money be forced to hold public hearings on why they're worth it. Their proposal could theoretically lead to pay cuts should the local median income drop.
The council's meeting begins at noon in its fifth-floor chambers in City Hall.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Baker's four-year proposal | 39.5 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Get off your lazy asses, Boston
There's a friggin' polling place every block. Somehow, both the Taft school at Warren/Cambridge and the Mann school in Union Square are polling places, and I could walk from one to the other in six minutes. Try giving a damn. It's honestly not difficult. I promise.
Unless of course, you're an idiot, in which case, fine, stay home and watch YouTube or something.
It is great they are both
It is great they are both polling places, but if you're across Union Square from the Mann School, guess what, you get to vote at Honan Allston library instead!! Yay for Ward 22, Precincts 2 and 5!
Don't misunderstand me, I'll still vote, but having a polling place within 2 minutes of your place doesn't mean that's where you get to vote.
Indeed. I moved recently and
Indeed. I moved recently and am literally one building away from a ward border, were I on the other side of the line I'd have a two minute walk to my old polling place instead of a 15 minute walk to my new polling place. Silly me thought that since I wasn't moving that far I wouldn't have to go to a different place.
Stop blaming the voter
There is not enough positions to vote for and why vote very single year between city and state offices. We should vote every two years. Every 4 yrs for state and every for years for city and having it equal out to voting every two years. Better yet have them mail ever one a ballot like other states do!
Seriously?
you vote yourselves a $14k pay raise AND try to remove yourselves from public accountability in the same month? WTF?
and 1 will get you 10...
...that they get away with everything. Shit like this is on the lengthy list of reasons why I reluctantly moved out of the city limits to a near 'burb.
Local government is the
Local government is the government most connected to the residents of a city/town (even if many people skip the voting process) and it has the greatest impacts on the lives of residents. Elections for City Council's and legislatures every two years makes it so those who represent the residents are being held accountable on a regular basis. While City Council members do have important projects they are working on, they do not physically run the mechanisms of the city on a day to day basis so a potential turnover every two years would not be as harmful as a potential Mayor turnover every two years. In reality incumbents of all types already have a massive political advantage over challengers, making it every 4 years would just increase that advantage as the incumbent will have that much more time to build a machine and solidify their hold on the seat.
Any possible savings on the logistics side is not worth the loss of civic engagement and accountability. People are already detached enough from their local government, having them wait four years in between elections would just widen that gap.
That being said, I live in Chelsea, not Boston, so my comments are meant strictly in a general philosophical manner.
I'd agree with you, but..
people simply aren't engaged. Many don't know who their Councilperson is, let alone that there is an election tomorrow.
Candidates aren't really that engaged. I live in the South End - have not seen one candidate or volunteer. One campaign left a leaflet at my door this weekend - that's all I've seen.
I think if we lengthened the terms and held elections when we hold statewide elections, you'd see more turnout, engagement, and even more candidates on the ballot.
uncontested
I live in an uncontested area. (Which makes me really upset--I hate how our system in Boston supports incumbents way too much. Honestly, I think we need more than two parties).
That said, I have gotten a bunch of flyers from Ayanna Presley and Annissa Essaibi-George.
It is contested though
You can decide whether or not there's a new person on the city council by voting for Essaibi-George and against someone else. I'd recommend Murphy but YMMV.
Your vote will totally matter in regards to that seat.
There are no uncontested areas
We have at-large seats, and the candidates for them are on your ballot.
Umm... if you voted, you might have noticed that there are no political party affiliations in city elections.
I've written it before
And I'll write it again.
I don't see how the City Council needs longer terms than both branches of the General Court or the United States House of Representatives.
But what he heck, I'll take the cynical route. Couldn't we save money by paying them the same city councilors get paid in places like Woburn or Quincy?
EDIT- Dammit, he's right. I had Framingham listed, but it is not a city. Framingham should be a city, since it has a bigger population than many towns. I thought there was a big to do about them adopting a city charter and it being hung up by changing the name from the Town of Framingham to the City of Framingham, and sure enough, when Braintree and Weymouth became cities, they did not use the city terms, so they have Town Council, with elections every odd numbered year for members. Yes, they can afford it, but cash strapped Boston cannot.
A local civics lesson...
Framingham doesn't have councilors because it is not a city. Framingham, unlike Woburn and Quincy, is a town, meaning there are no councilors, and like all statutory towns in Massachusetts, its executive is its board of selectmen, and its legislative arm is its representative town meeting. Cities (even the several cities (Braintree, Watertown, Weymouth and Winthrop, to name a few) still refer to themselves towns are statutory cities nonetheless) have councilors and, in most cases, mayors as well.
We should also have term limits
As their retirement benefits are costly and out of line with the private industry.
Alternatively
we could simply move to a sane retirement system, in which you get x% of your salary deposited into a retirement account for every paycheck, which is yours to spend upon retirement whether you work for the city for a week or for four decades.
Or better yet
Stop paying people not to (expletive) work. Ask the Mets about their Bobby Bonilla contract.
Term limits
Let's increase the term to four years and let's put a one term limit on these lazy ass councillors.
How about moving it to even years?
Holding municipal elections in even numbered years, to align with state and federal elections, would reduce the cost of running municipal elections and improve turnout. Since neither of those outcomes would be a good thing for the patronage system or machine hacks, don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.
What does that have to do
What does that have to do with patronage? As I understand it, the reason for odd years is to allow city councilors to run for federal/state office in even years without having to give up their seat.
Effects of odd years
For one thing, holding the elections in odd numbered years discourages turnout, since you don't have the state or federal elections to draw people to the polls. Low turnout is good for the machine.
For another, holding the elections in odd numbered years means twice as many elections to run -- more jobs created, more O/T to hand out, etc.
State Law is interesting
I decided to look it up. Chapter 43, Section 15 seems to allow your option, but interestingly, the law says elections are to be held either every even or every odd year, so what I am now calling the Baker proposal to be less answerable would seem to be a harder goal to achieve.
That law does not apply to
That law does not apply to Boston.
Chapter 43 Section 2 explicitly excludes Boston.
Additionally, Boston's plan of government is not found in Chapter 43 at all, so Section 15 would again not apply as it starts "After the adoption by any city of any plan provided for by this chapter"
Baker is the Chair of Council's Special Committee on Charter Reform, whose page refers to what state laws actually govern Boston ( https://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/committees/charter.asp )
My bad
Still doesn't change the fact that Baker wants to be less answerable to the electorate than Lynch or Capuano.
Somehow every other municipality is Massachusetts (barring those without selectmen) can have elections every year, but It's too much for Boston?
Ranked voting
If the council wants to save money, drop the single-vote ballot and switch to a ranked or instant-runoff system. Then the city can drop the primary election and just have a general election with several candidates on the ballot for each office.
This has probably been said,
This has probably been said, but I'd support this just so long as it realigns council/mayoral elections to presidential election years.
I'd be surprised if turnout reaches 15% tomorrow, and that's both a shame, and something that needs to be addressed.
You can't get enough people jobs in two
years to build a machine that can withstand a challenge. Thats why you need 4 years.
Going one step further
Why do we need so many councilors? Cut the number of councilors to 7 and then just them each an extra staff member - you'll save $1 - $1.5 million each year.
Polling locations - search tool.
https://www.cityofboston.gov/elections/voter/
And let's go Anissa!
She will probably knock off
Murphy and that's why this vote shouldn't be until January 2016
Wait a minute. ......
Shouldn't they be voting on this after they are sworn in? Just in case their are a couple new councilors.
Four years?
Sure. And two terms then you're out.
A deal we can all agree on.
Combining all elections
every four years would give us a ballot that could be 6 or 7 pages long. The last pages full of ballot questions. I bet most people would give up after the federal offices and maybe the governor.
I do think that it's a good thing to have people accountable and elected to a two-year term. I can't understand how it is such a hardship to go and vote. It is a privilege and a duty. And tomorrow it will take about 3 minutes total out of the day (plus your travel time to the polls).
If your councilor is running unopposed and you don't want to vote for the person, leave it blank. Future candidates will certainly take note of the blank ballots in evaluating their own candidacy. Either way you vote, you do send a message.
Hold your horses there
I'm just after reading the Globe. So, a guy facing opposition wants to only face reelection every 4 years?
I will tell my district councilor this much- if he votes for this, I will not vote for him.
Then you must love the
Then you must love the government throwing your tax dollars away for frequent useless elections.
Not as much as you love
The City Council wasting our tax dollars every day by their existence. Make them part time, halve the salaries, and we are spending the same amount of money.
Of course, I might be missing something. Are you calling democracy "useless?"
When the incumbent wins all
When the incumbent wins all the time that's not democracy.
Yes, it is
Representative democracy means that elected officials are answerable to the voters. Just ask Charles Yancey. And yes, incumbent city councilors have lost reelection. It's rare, but it happens.
Incumbents get reelected because they don't screw up. Think what you want about most incumbents, but in the end that is what the voters think.
How do you fill out the Ballot in the Cambridge Election today?
How do you fill out the Ballot in the Cambridge Election today Tuesday 3 November 2015 ?
Any better video?... besides
at
"...explains the system of Proportional Representation voting in Cambridge"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALKkQb_AO4U
Double your term? Halve your
Double your term? Halve your yearly pay. I'll support the former if you support the latter.