Charter Commission Article 4: February 7th, 2017 Valerie W. Mulvey, Chair Dennis W. Cardiff, Vice-Chair Adam S. Blumer, Clerk Teri S. Banerjee Dennis L. Giombetti George P. King, Jr. Janet E. Leombruno Jason A. Smith John A. Stefanini Article 4: February 7th, 2017

Seven beliefs that drove our work Framingham is a great community in which to live, learn, work and play! Our current system of government is disorganized and inefficient, and needs to be improved in order to better meet the needs of our community The work of the Charter Commission should be done in an open and participatory manner, reaching out to a variety of stakeholders and getting feedback from the public throughout the process

Seven beliefs that drove our work The new Charter should create a strong, accountable executive to advocate on our behalf with leaders in industry, government and society The new Charter should create a legislative branch elected by all parts of our diverse community; it must provide effective checks and balances on the executive branch The new Charter should include mechanisms that ensure that municipal leaders work collaboratively with the School Department The new Charter must have clear ways for public to participate

What’s new in our Charter? It focuses elections on our neighborhoods, creating accountable leaders selected through a more competitive process It establishes a system of strong checks and balances between various segments of government It creates a first ever strategic plan and master plan for our community

What’s new in our Charter? It requires elected and appointed leaders to report their financial interests, follow state’s ethics laws and prohibits self- dealing It provides residents with relief measures such as ability to recall elected officials, petition Council & School Committee, and place initiatives and referendums on the ballot It gives timely information to the public by requiring budget information and ordinances be posted online

What’s new in our Charter? It gives the Council the right to approve all mayoral appointments (as opposed to current limited approvals of Selectmen) It creates a Citizen Participation Officer, to develop strategies to maximize public engagement It establishes a Strategic Initiative & Finance Oversight Committee, a 9 member citizen watchdog group providing input and oversight into our long-term municipal finances

What’s new in our Charter? Establishes a Traffic Commission to address traffic congestion It requires that all council meetings are broadcast live and recorded for future viewing by the public Adopts strictest state reporting and oversight of campaign activity.

How does Framingham compare How does Framingham compare? 27 most populous communities in Massachusetts Municipality Land Area (Square Miles) 2015 Total Assessed Value 2015 Actual Expenditures 2010 Population City or Town Legislative Body Chief Execuive Incorporation or Founding Converted to city form Pop. when converted to city BOSTON 48.43 $128,047,080,703 $2,422,486,726 617,594 City Council Mayor 1630 1822 43,298 (1820) WORCESTER 37.56 $11,236,881,245 $501,794,480 181,045 Mayor-Manager 1684 1848 17,049 (1850) SPRINGFIELD 32.1 $7,276,422,130 $610,438,372 153,060 1641 1852 11,766 (1850) LOWELL 13.77 $6,683,928,991 $315,812,152 106,519 1826 1836 20,796 (1840) CAMBRIDGE 6.43 $34,680,060,680 $499,142,760 105,162 1631 1846 15,215 (1850) NEW BEDFORD 20.12 $5,334,989,630 $250,531,810 95,072 1786 1847 16,443 (1850) BROCKTON 21.47 $6,104,303,935 $282,026,326 93,810 1812 1881 13,608 (1880) QUINCY 16.78 $12,019,197,110 $283,850,033 92,271 1791 1889 16,723 (1890) LYNN 10.82 $6,396,561,177 $290,209,498 90,329 1850 14,257 (1850) FALL RIVER 31.02 $5,211,516,417 $209,046,484 88,857 1802 1854 11,524 (1850) NEWTON 18.05 $24,321,818,000 $301,527,464 85,146 1691 1873 12,825 (1870) LAWRENCE 6.96 $3,191,934,330 $268,627,309 76,377 1853 8,282 (1850) SOMERVILLE 4.11 $11,198,774,270 $201,387,380 75,754 1842 1871 14,685 (1870) FRAMINGHAM 25.12 $7,945,015,743 $238,310,192 68,318 Town RTM Manager 1700 n/a HAVERHILL 33.33 $5,432,039,234 $165,704,510 60,879 1869 13,092 (1870) WALTHAM 12.7 $9,946,294,086 $167,773,598 60,632 1737/8 1884 11,712 (1880) MALDEN 5.07 $5,831,500,580 $144,920,554 59,450 1649 12,017 (1880) BROOKLINE 6.79 $19,691,528,576 $220,155,606 58,732 1705 PLYMOUTH 96.46 $9,128,500,223 $161,300,426 56,468 1620 MEDFORD 8.14 $8,086,569,270 $137,269,774 56,173 1892 11,079 (1890) TAUNTON 46.61 $4,514,347,120 $173,775,080 55,874 1639 1864 15,376 (1860) CHICOPEE 22.87 $3,729,040,780 $157,142,169 55,298 1890 14,050 (1890) WEYMOUTH 17.01 $6,683,708,920 $121,612,682 53,743 1999 53,988 (2000) REVERE 5.91 $4,606,033,831 $154,902,362 51,755 1914 18,219 (1910) PEABODY 16.4 $6,750,057,897 $153,580,514 51,251 1855 1916 19,552 (1920) METHUEN 22.4 $4,804,659,354 $130,427,701 47,255 1725/6 1972 35,456 (1970) BARNSTABLE 60.04 $13,142,891,360 $132,697,958 45,193 1638 1989 40,949 (1990)

Misconceptions about Charter Criticism: the structure is extreme and unusual in way it gives power to Mayor, the number of councilors, etc. People will lose their “voice” As you’ll see, what we propose is not extreme, is very similar to other cities, with more balance & protections than most. Many cities in the area use similar structures successfully while maintaining meaningful citizen participation

Misconception #1 : Too Few Councilors The proposal of 11 is in the norm Most cities have between 9-13 councilors No city other than Newton has more than 15. City Approximate Population* # Councilors Braintree 37,497 9 Weymouth 55,957 11 Waltham 63,378 15 Framingham 71,209 Newton (current) 24 Newton (proposed)** 88,817 12 *US Census 2015 estimate **Newton’s Charter Commission voted in Nov 2016 to reduce Council from 24-12.

But…why not 18 Councilors? Lessons from Newton Quotes from Newton League of Women Voters position paper on reducing their council size reinforce our view that 18 would be too large to work well: “The unusually large size of Newton’s City Council means a diffusion of responsibility and low accountability…. A smaller Council would offer the opportunity for a more engaged electorate and more accountability for councilors.” ‘The size of the City Council costs our legislators and our residents untold wasted hours.” “Just finding the time for all 24 councilors to speak on a topic and ask questions extends the process of governing substantially, with meetings often running so late that even highly interested members of the public leave before the discussion is over.”

Misconception #2: Districts too big for one councilor to represent Again, data shows that Framingham is right in the norm for our comparably sized communities City Approximate Population* # District Councilors Residents per District Councilor Braintree 37,497 6 6,250 Weymouth 55,957 9,326 Waltham 63,378 9 7,043 Framingham 71,209 7,912 Newton 88,817 8 11,102 *US Census 2015 estimate

Misconception #3: Mayor will be all powerful The Mayor will have power: same day to day power as Town Manager, but accountable to voters The Council has some approval over almost all Mayoral appointments, with 95%+ of appointments needing majority Council approval Council approval requirements are equal or higher than most cities (far more than Selectman now) Mayor cannot be chair of School Committee, limiting direct influence on that important board Term limits for Mayor and Council

Misconception #4: Becoming a city automatically means more development Framingham boards right now are very pro- development in a town structure Whether we stay pro-development, or become more/less development-oriented depends on who is elected to council and Mayor Would expect that focus to ebb and flow over the years depending on Framingham’s needs

Misconception #5: Too hard for citizens’ voices to be heard Short 2 year terms for most positions give voters lots of power Any 1 person can bring issue to Council or School Committee, 100 signatures guarantees a formal hearing- not in our government now “Goal for citizen relief is “just right” levels: Balance giving citizens a “last resort” if they are not being listened to without making process so easy it is used for silly proposals As you can see on next slide, Framingham’s levels are equal or easier to reach than most comparable communities

Citizen relief measures Community Proposing a rule via referendum Cancelling rule passed via referendum Recall Braintree 10% with 5% more needed in 60 days if council rejects idea 15% in 30 days 10% in 21 days Weymouth 10% with 5% more needed in 60 days Waltham 15% 12% in 20 days none Framingham 10% with 3% more needed in 90 days 10% in 30 days Newton 10% with 5% more needed in 45 days 5% in 20 days None Cambridge

Elections: Trusting the Voters Data suggests that at large-council election costs will be similar to Selectman’s races District elections cost should be far lower since since area is smaller No doubt that Mayors races will be more expensive than now. That’s why we require monthly reporting of campaign finance activity to state campaign finance office so that information is readily available to public. The current standard is to do only yearly locally. Critics claim the better financed candidates will always win, and voters will somehow be convinced to vote for candidates working for “special interests” We believe that Framingham has rich, informed political culture…and that voters had made and will continue to choose leaders with Framingham’s best interests at heart

A Big Change, but not a Total Change Our government structures will change… …but the basic building block of our community will remain the dedicated, hard-working volunteers and professionals who work to make Framingham all it can be It is our hope that these new structures will allow us to better reach our goals, solve our challenges, and plan proactively for the future

Framingham: a great place to live, learn, work and play

We would be happy to answer any questions