Thomas Breen file photo
Ex-Downtown Alder Abby Roth.
The following opinion essay was submitted by former Ward 7 Alder Abby Roth.
I am voting “No” on the charter revision ballot question because I care deeply about good governance, including transparency and accountability.
It is ironic that leaders asking people to vote “Yes” frame a “No” vote as being anti-governance, when bundling all the proposed charter changes into one vague voting item is antithetical to good governance. Moreover, the arguments for why we should vote “Yes” are disappointedly misleading.
I testified before the Charter Commission in support of four-year terms for mayor, and against four-year terms for alders. Others similarly spoke in favor of lengthening the mayoral term, but against the increased alder term. The results of a NHI survey with 1,118 respondents show nearly 70 percent oppose a four-year term for alders, while a slight majority support a four-year term for mayor, reflecting a significant split opinion on these two issues.
Bundled, Vague Language
The decision of the Board of Alders to bundle all the charter revision items together (mayoral and alder terms being the most significant) and taking away the right of voters to make individualized decisions — in the face of the obvious split viewpoint on these two major issues — is a poor use of power.
Making matters worse, the alders chose to use totally vague language on the ballot to describe the many proposed changes. The alder majority leader’s statement that this formatting “makes it easier for voters to understand what’s going on” is nonsensical.
Formatting the ballot question as they did reflects how entrenched the alders’ power already is; four-year terms will worsen this concerning situation, which is not good for thoughtful decision-making or governance.
The mayor’s claim in a fundraising email that this is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to shift to four-year terms for elected officials feels like a disingenuous tactic to get people who support lengthening the mayor term, but oppose lengthening the alder term, to vote yes, and accept the bad with the good.
However, this is a false choice. As some NHI commenters helpfully have pointed out, Article XIV, section 1 of the charter (“Mandatory Decennial Charter Review”), simply requires charter revision at least once every ten years, but there is no limit whatsoever on more frequent revisions. (In fact, section 7 – 188 of the CT Code appears to allow voters to petition for a charter review, if 10 percent of the electorate signs the petition.) A “No” vote can be revisited well before the “next generation.”
4-Year Alder Terms
I have not heard any valid argument for how we’d benefit from four-year alder terms; meanwhile, there are multiple reasons I believe they will harm the governance of our city.
Unlike executive positions, which commonly have four-year terms at the local, state, and federal level — in part because these individuals hire teams, lead organizations and programs, and campaign in relatively large geographic areas— legislative positions typically have two-year terms, which is not surprising, because these same conditions don’t apply.
For example, the legislatures in Bridgeport, Waterbury, Danbury, New Britain, Hamden, West Hartford, Greenwich, Meriden, and Wallingford, to provide a few examples, all have two-year terms. (The claim on the vote “Yes” fact sheet that New Haven is the only major city in Connecticut without four-year terms is misleading.) And of course, our U.S. representative and state reps and senators all have two-year terms.
Critically in my view, a two-year term improves accountability. The 23 – 0 vote, with seven alders missing, for the charter bundling/vague language ballot measure is emblematic of the problem. Four-year terms do not allow voters, who are not being adequately represented by their alder, to make a timely change at the ballot box. Some have celebrated that typically about 80 percent of alders are present. This is not something to celebrate. Rather, the significant numbers of alders missing at many meetings (as many as eight or nine have missed five of 17 meetings this year) is highly concerning; they represent thousands and thousands of constituents whose interests are not being represented when our Board of Alders is voting on critical issues facing our city.
I completely disagree with the argument that we need four-year alder terms because it is challenging to effectively serve as alder and campaign at the same time. For one, it should require work to serve as an elected official representing lots of constituents. Moreover, I ran for alder while serving as alder, and if you are doing your job (e.g., keeping constituents informed, responding to questions, and attending meetings), it just isn’t that much more work to campaign. Yes, it takes time to knock on doors, but this engagement improves democracy. It is very helpful to hear from a broader set of constituents than you routinely do, improving your ability to represent them effectively.
And unlike the mayor, who has to run city-wide, alders just have to campaign in one-thirtieth of the city. (What really needs amending in the charter is the excessive number of wards/creating a few at-large alder positions.)
Additionally, sitting alders have the backing of the local Democratic Party, which makes phone calls and knocks on doors for them, typically in concert with the powerful UNITE HERE union. Alders without competition are asked to help their colleagues with competition. I have run for alder against an incumbent, and can attest that running as an outsider is much harder than running as the incumbent.
Furthermore, most alder elections, unfortunately, are uncontested, and so many alders don’t have to spend any time campaigning every two years.
Additionally, four alders resigned during the current alder cycle. It is not surprising that people leave the role mid-term, because people’s lives change unexpectedly and the alder role is not their actual job. One might say it is not a big deal for alders to change mid-stream, but it is disruptive and not good for democracy.
For one, constituents have no representative for a period of time. Special elections are held at odd times and typically have low turnouts. And it is hard to start as an alder mid-term, something I experienced in 2014, becoming an alder in mid-March.
As a registered Democrat, it is disappointing that party leadership is pushing a misleading narrative about a poorly structured ballot question that takes away voter choice and, far from promoting democracy, favors those in power and further entrenches an already fully entrenched machine. It does a disservice to the values I hope our party will live up to going forward. If you care about effective governance, transparency, and accountability, I encourage you to vote “No” on the charter revision measure.
Abby Roth - always a voice of reason!!