Framingham City Council Elections Will Be Unjust for 8 More Years

As the Framingham Charter Review Committee wraps up its work, one thing stands out.

The fundamental inequity in At-Large City Councilor positions will almost certainly remain unaddressed, despite compelling evidence that this has produced a northside bias in At-Large City Councilor representation, and despite a clear message from the community that it is interested changing the structure of the City Council.

It is well worth first quickly reviewing that bias, following an approach advocated by Joel Winnet, former Town Moderator.

The key point is that although districts are by law very much the same in population size, they are very different in their number of registered voters, and in election turnout.

The bottom line is that there are many more registered voters in any northside district than in a southside district. That is what causes the bias.

The data from 3 elections which involved At-Large City Councilors show this clearly:

2017 At-Large City Council Election

2019 At-Large City Council Election

2023 At-Large City Council Election

It is patently obvious that no candidate running from the southside districts 7-9 has any prospect for election in an At-Large City Councilor race.

That is the bias baked into the current City Charter.

An attractive solution, advocated by Joel Winett, is to replace the current inequitable At-Large positions, with 3 ‘tri-district’ City Councilors who each would live in and run from one of the tri-districts: District 1-3, District 4-6 or District 7-9.

This election data reinforces the arguments made in a prior article, where the fundamental problem inherent in At-Large City Council positions was explained at length, and arguments made for allowing city voters to weigh in on changing the City Council size and composition, with the ‘tri-district’ option or ‘no change’ as the two obvious choices.

See:

How Framingham's Charter Almost Fixed the Representation Imbalance

The Charter Review Committee is perfectly aware of the electoral bias in At-Large City Council positions, as they have received and reviewed multiple submissions on the matter.

It did make some promising attempts to address the issue, despite being warned off making changes to the City Council size and composition by George King, a former Charter Commission member and current sitting At-Large City Councilor.

The Charter Review Committee ran a poll on the issue, which showed only 36% of respondents supported no change and that the most favored change was the ‘tri-district’ variant, which got 32% support compared to 13% for each of two other complicated changes.

Nonetheless, at its January 11, 2024 meeting the Charter Review Committee voted narrowly 5-4 against making any City Council changes. The minutes reflect some member confusion on their role, which is to put recommendations before the voters for them to make decisions of such import.

Here are some of the comments made by members who voted for no change, as reported in the minutes:

• “Ms. Craighead mentioned that she had spoken to many current councilors who believe the system works as is.”
• “Mr. Brown noted that this is too big a change to make without clear consensus.”
• “Ms. Connaughton: Charter was voted by the public and is hesitant to change, supports no change.”

This is very perplexing, as the whole idea of the Charter Review Committee is not to follow City Council directions, nor is it to act as the final arbiter of proposed changes.

It is to put a sound set of proposed changes before voters.

This is especially true when there is clear voter interest in change, but there is no obvious consensus.

It cannot be emphasized enough that it is the job of the Charter Review Committee to respect the obvious desire of voters for change, and decide on some sound options to put before voters.

The simplest way to do that would be to provide the following 2 options for City Council size and composition for voters to choose between:

1. No change.
2. The ‘tri-district’ option: 3 City Councilors, each resident in one of Districts 1-3, 4-6, 7-9 and being voted for by just the residents of those ‘tri-districts’, replacing the 2 At-Large City Councilors.

As an aside, as I am being critical of one Charter Review Committee vote, I should say that I have a great deal of respect for all of its members. I have watched hours and hours of their meetings, and it is obvious that they are very well run by Adam Blumer, and the general quality and scope of the discussion is excellent, as are the outcomes.

However, I think a mistake has been made on this one City Council issue,

I think the issue of City Council size and composition is special, as the Charter Review Committee is well aware that the City Council could technically block recommendations as it sees fit, although the City Council should be aware that it could step on an electoral landmine if it is seen to interfere with a sound democratic process.

The City Council should especially tread carefully with any ideas it might have to block voters’ ability to make changes to City Council structure.

The best course of action for the Charter Review Committee would be to bravely submit its complete recommendations for charter change, including that for City Council size and composition, to the City Council and then for the City Council to transmit those recommendations to the voters without interference.

Let Framingham voters make the decisions about City Charter change.

The City Charter created and controls the City Council. The City Council should not be controlling the City Charter.

When the City Charter was voted in 7 years ago, one of the promises made to the community was that there would be a full citizen review of the charter. Quoting from the current City Charter:

“What if Charter changes are needed in the future?

It would be foolish to imagine that this document is perfect. It will need to evolve over time, as Framingham’s needs change. As such, the Charter has a built in automatic citizen review after five years and one every ten years after that. This gives Framingham the opportunity to review and propose changes for all voters to consider.”

There was no caveat that the City Council could block changes.

The next charter review will likely occur in 6 years, as the Charter Review Committee is recommending that the next Charter Review commence in 2030. So, if the City Council changes suggested above are deferred till then, Framingham will wait close to 8 years to see fair representation finally arrive in the City Council.

Why wait?

What would be different at the next charter review?

There is no question that the Charter Review Committee has the authority to include the above City Council changes in their recommendations.

What would be lost by putting the City Council size and composition change options directly to the voters?

It is understandable that fatigue is setting in for the Charter Review Committee, after almost a year engaged on a difficult task. But it seems well worth it including a recommendation to allow voters a choice on structural changes to the City Council, to fully respect the democratic principles we all hold dear.

Given that the original City Charter was adopted with just a 100 vote margin, it seems even more compelling that critical changes, to make the City Council elections truly unbiased, reach voters in the community for their decision on what change makes sense.