4‑Year Terms OK’d For November Ballot

One ballot question? Ludicrous because there is literally zero desire for 4 year alder terms. Another UNITE power grab.

Amen. I can understand the rationale with the Mayoral term and support it given we're moving some items out of the charter but have yet to hear a convincing argument for 4 year Alder term.

It's a shame that we may have to wait another 10 years to make a slew of good changes to the Charter just because we want to have an all or nothing vote include a controversial item.

NO 4-year Alder term! NO!

I do consider this a power grab, because it's no secret that 4 year mayoral terms are more popular than 4 year alder terms. Especially when a couple of our alders aren't even showing up to meetings

I'm not sure what the hubbub is over 4-year terms. I'm agnostic either way. Two-thirds of cities around the country have four-year terms:
https://www.nlc.org/city-councils/

I agree that the current system allows for a number of unprofessional/absentee Alders, and that's a problem. However, keeping the term at 2 years doesn't seem to be solving it. A better solution is to attract more and better candidates by decreasing the number of seats and increasing the pay to a reasonable rate. (And, while 2-year terms do improve accountability, 4-year terms are likely more attractive to serious public servants. Who wants to be constantly campaigning?)

I've previously suggested there should be 15 Alders, with 12 districts and 3 At-Large, each compensated $10k/year. No budget increase from what is proposed here, but my guess is that it would substantially improve the average quality of representation in each ward.

My real gripe here is: why would Alders need more than 60 days to appoint someone to a commission?

Oh well.

Asking the voters to approve all the charter revisions under a single ballot question “Shall Charter changes as recommended by the Charter Revision Commission and adopted by the Board of Alders be approved and adopted?” is unacceptable.
The voters should be given the chance to approve each proposed change individually. A voter might agree with one item change but but not another item change.
Saying that “ you’re trying to keep things simple” by bundling everything under a yes or no for one option with everything involved is treating voters like children who can’t be trusted to make nuanced decisions.
Shame on the alders for trying to push all these changes through a single question.
I hope all the voters object strenuously to their alders and demand the alders revise the ballot question so that each charter revision is listed separately for the voters to be able to vote on each individual proposed charter change item. If they do not, I don’t see how any voter can vote for this question and feel good about it.

Wow- this is shocking. Bundling all these changes under one ballot measure is transparently an act of bad faith.

Robn, I agree with you and Josh that lumping everything in one ballot item is a bad idea. But if it is meant to be a power-grab, it is ill-designed. I suspect more people will vote against the proposal because of the four-year alder term provision than will vote for based on the other provisions.

At the state level, the Office of Legislative Research (my old workplace) provides a neutral, plain English summary of referendum questions. I suspect the city’s Office of Legislative Services has the capacity to do the same for charter revision questions. I think the Board of Alders should direct OLS to do this. People should know what they are voting on.

Now we know what the ruling class wants - and it's nothing for the People.
An easy "NO".

The Board of Alders has given a gift to the voters of New Haven by combining all the changes into one question. At every other level of government there is a system of voter checks and balances every two years. As I understand the question, the Mayor and Alders would be elected concurrently meaning that there would be no city election for 4 years after November of 2027. The entire U.S. House of Representatives, one third of the U.S. Senate, and the entire Connecticut legislature is elected every two years in part to serve as a check on the executive. This proposal does away with any form of citizen oversight and will hopefully be rejected by the voters.

Throughout my lifetime members of only one party have held the office of Mayor in New Haven. Apparently the voters have been quite content with that situation. Nevertheless there is always the opportunity to vote elected officials out of office if voters decide that it is wise to do so. To limit the right of voters to do this in the future to only once every four years is a disaster in the making. I would urge a no vote on this question.

It is also quite telling that only 23 members of the 30 person Board of Alders were present to vote on this matter. I would hope that the New Haven Independent will publish the names of the Alders who did not vote on this proposal so that they may be held accountable.

Guess we'll have to say NO to both.

Doesn’t need to be this simple for voters. We do have the ability to read and answer multiple questions. I find this insulating !

Anyone know the procedure to override the Alders’ decision to group these changes under one question? I would volunteer to collect as many voter signatures as needed to have this referendum changed to reflect a vote on each question, because this one item vote is deceptive and quite frankly, undermines democracy.

Well, well, well this might be the best job of obfuscation ever thought up by mankind. First place snow job if there ever was one. Nobody is ever going to remember all of these garbage changes on election day standing in the privacy booth for two minutes, and you know it, hence the obfuscation. Please vote NO, NO, NO & NO
This is so bad I think even my ghost would show up to vote against it.
Dear BOA you did not earn the trust of the people with this idea and as far as the mayor goes thats a sure NO!

Elicker is 💯 behind this — he’s now indebted to the UNITE Here backed board of alders and this is their wish. If this is not true then he ought to come out and say so.

We have had alders in Fair Haven who are non-existent under 2-year terms, imagine 4 years?!

Rolling up all of these proposals into one yes/no question is pretty insulting to the voter. We don’t need anything “simplified” for us.
This certainly would work out well for the union controlled alders, but it robs choices from the citizens.
The only response is to vote NO on all of it. The alders can try again to get it right 10 years from now.

As proposed as a single question, my vote is a BIG NO!!!!!!
Pretty Simple!!!!!

VR,
Misunderstood your prior post... here is a better response...
Of the 8 missing alders who did not vote on this, does anyone have any idea what their 'predilection' was with regards to this Charter Reform Proposal...
In other words, was this VOTE a 'false' show of UNANIMOUS UNITY?

I favor a 4 year term for mayor. I'm not sure I want the same for aldermen. The 28 aldermen who voted for the omnibus charter proposal that combines several different items in a single referendum that must be passed or rejected as a whole have deprived many New Haven residents of the right to choose between 4 years for mayor or 4 years for aldermen.
A colleague of mine used to say about simple things made unnecessarily complicated: "It's not rocket science. It's not brain surgery."
Oversimplifying this referendum by combining choices does not sit well with many voters. A referendum can easily have several line items in which voters can vote yes or no.
Question 1. Do you favor a 4 year term for mayor? YES or NO.
Question 2. Do you favor 4 yr terms for aldermen? YES or NO.
Question 3. Do you favor a raise for aldermen? YES or NO.
It's just that simple to do. No confusion. Straightforward. Common sense!
Government and media have the responsibility to inform and educate the people about the content, intent and meaning of every referendum, so that the people can make informed and educated decisions.
As this thing now stands, those who support 4 yrs for mayor, but not for aldermen, and vice versa WILL VOTE AGAINST THE REFERENDUM!
It is very important that we smash the MYTH that New Haven has to wait every 10 years to reform the CHARTER. That makes no sense at all! That's an unnecessary delay tactic that is not in our CONSTITUTION!
The power of a democracy lies in the hands of the voters, IF THEY SEIZE IT. We will always deserve the government we settle for. Just because 28 people who were elected to represent the people made a decision about this referendum, does not mean this is the end of the story!
Often politicians prefer that the people sleep so that matters slip by.
Most people here can walk and chew gum simultaneously. A 3 or 4 question referendum can be easily handled by most people. Explain it to those who need explanation. It's not difficult at all!
Redo it!

Those who feel that a simplified omnibus referendum is unacceptable, and who believe each proposed change should be VOTED ON SEPARATELY, call, text or email your alderman and register your complaint and opposition to the referendum format that the BOA approved.
If there is no change in the format, and the people reject the referendum in November as it as written, then the whole process of charter revision regarding these important matters will have to start all over again at a future date.
When the people lead, the politicians will have no choice BUT to follow!

The way this ballot has been set up will result in a landslide defeat.

Would you like to see a smaller city council, with more accountability and more professional alders?

That’s my charter question.

I am shocked that folks are shocked. When the unions endorsed Elicker, it was pretty clear that several deals had been struck. I am sure this and other promises will be the cementing of the relationship as Elicker looks to higher office.

Not allowing the people to decide on the changes individually should get them all thrown out of office.

Putting aside the kneejerk reaction and applying logic (I know that's not popular here) four-term terms makes sense. There are 30 Alders. They meet 24 times per term. That isn't time for each Alder to propose one, just one, main agenda item that would consume a significant part of a meeting. Things that are wrong and stay wrong because of it. Thar's just dumb.

The Mayor spends 40% of the term campaigning. If there was competition for Aldermanic seats, they also spend 40% of their terms campaigning. Thar's just dumb.

About 14% of voters vote. I'm not aware of comparative data but it is reasonable to assume that voter turnout would be higher if elections are twice as significant,

You may return to jerking your knees.

Correction to above - I meant per year, not per term.

This is about the consolidation of Yale Union political power. I've no problem with Yale's desires, requiring City approval, being held hostage for a Quid Pro Quo benefit.
Unfortunately this proposal ensures the benefits will flow to the Yale Unions in their contract negotiations, NOT to the citizens of New Haven. Vote NO.

Einstein is quoted as saying “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler". I think a single question is too simple. The commission surely should have known the controversial nature of the 4 year terms issue, and they thus should have carved the alder and mayor and clerk terms separately as stand alone questions and then bundled the rest. THAT would have been “as simple as possible but not simpler.”

I will still vote yes but with a modestly furrowed brow.

“Shall Charter changes as recommended by the Charter Revision Commission and adopted by the Board of Alders be approved and adopted?” NO!

Any attempt to get 4-year terms for ALL municipal politicians without allowing the voters to decide which ones they approve of and which they do not is disrespectful to the voters’ intelligence and the hard work of the Charter Review Commission. The aldermanic council tried to ramrod voters in 2002 into choosing all because they may have agreed with some (or one) office getting four years. The voters rightly voted down the entire charter then and should do the same this time.

If the Mayoral position, which I believe should be voted a four-year term, and the Alders positions can’t receive favorable votes on their own, then neither should get it.

The Rev. Mr. Samuel T. Ross-Lee

It might be better to split up the question as many voters may want a 4 year term for Mayor but not Alders or the other way around. Change is hard and there will always be those who will automatically say NO without thinking to hard about the question. The voters will decide eventually and the majority will speak.

Very significant; thank you for the reporting on this. I agree with those who believe that the questions on terms for Mayor and Alder could have and should have been separated. The fact that it will be compressed to a single ballot question that requires additional research and information on the specific ramifications is disturbing and undemocratic. I understand that the Charter Revision Commission held public meetings, but the most significant decision was that all revisions should be voted up-or-down in a single line. There needed to be more outreach on this; does not make it easier for voters to "understand what's going on." I am voting NO on the revisions, which is unfortunate, because I support 4-year Mayoral terms. And, as suggested here, I am writing my Alder.

It’s amazing that our elected officials think we’re too dumb to answer 4 separate questions.

According to the TRUE VOTE POLL, 30.5% of those polled favor a 4 year term for the mayor ONLY, 1.95% favor 4 year terms for aldermen ONLY, 24 % want 4 year terms for both, and 38.62% want no term increases at all.
There is no widespread public support for lengthening the terms of aldermen. None.
Could this be a factor in the decision made this week by the BOA?
Whatever the actual reason, many people who are aware of the repercussions of this 28 person decision imposed upon them are not happy about it, and continue to express their dissent.
The right to chose is so very important in a democracy. In this case, a choice of all or nothing at all is an unacceptable and insufficient choice.

@Samuel T Ross-Lee - it seems so! Getting worse lately with Paul on special assignment and Breen in charge.

The other thing that is going to happen here, is that on Election Day, there will Democratic Machine Heads out there passing out a propaganda sheet that glosses over 'the real issues'....

I remember one year, where the questions weren't even posted in my polling place, as required by law! But you better believe Tyisha Walker-Myers was out there passing out the propaganda sheet, beyond the 75 foot limit, of course!