1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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)

10. 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

11. 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

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.”

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

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

21. We would be happy to answer any questions