The 20% Rule: My Take On Last Week’s Election

OK – we’re a week out from our Town election, so I better get my thoughts down before too much time passes and life moves on. (OK…it already has. But still…)

Let’s take the clearest message from this year’s Town election: when it comes to representative democracy, the Bay State’s tradition of springtime local elections are not a positive force: putting significant political power in the hands of a small minority of voters.

20% Turnout?! Must be April! 🤨

Take last Tuesday’s election: just 3,989 of Belmont’s more than 19,275 registered voters turned out to vote. That’s just 20 percent of the voter population – one in five registered voters in town. And it marks a drop from last year’s town election, when 4,481 voters turned out – 23.6% of registered voters.

Does the vote count? Of course. Would 30% or 40% or – crazy – 70% voter turnout have yielded different results? My guess is: “Yes. Almost certainly.”

But that rarely happens in Belmont or other towns – especially without a major, vote drawing measure on the ballot. Looking at turnout in April town elections versus November elections, the startling gap in participation is easy to see. The average turnout in Belmont for April races for the past 16 years was 28%, while the average turnout for November elections was almost three times as high: 74%.

An election…without races

But that’s not what we got – in part because very few of the races on the ballot were even contested. In fact, just one town wide race had a challenger: Adam Dash, who ran successfully to unseat Mike Crowley, who had been elected just a year prior. Select Board, School Committee, Board of Health, Trustees of the Public Library – none saw a challenger. And then there’s Town Meeting, where just three of the 8 precincts had more than 12 candidates competing for the 12 open slots. In fact, a number fell far short of the 12 candidate number, requiring last-minute write ins for some seats, while leaving others blank. (More on that later.)

Our 100 Year-Old Government Needs a Makeover

How do we fix this? Well – how about we modernize our 100+ year old New England Town Government – a quaint little creation run by volunteer committees and a massive Town Meeting. It was designed to serve a semi-rural community with a small population and hardly any resources and assets to speak of. What we live in now is a small, 21st century semi-urban community. We have 30,000 residents, multiple business districts, significant physical assets, hundreds of employees – union and non-union – a vast array of state and federal regulations to abide by and a more than $160 million annual budget that is under constant strain. Belmont is in the 21st century?! Crazy idea..I know. But our government needs to reflect that in order for this community to function well and meet (and exceed) our goals.

Moderator: Order > Democracy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Back to last week’s election: given the challenges of a lack of voter turnout, how did Belmont’s progressive cause do?

Let’s start with the race for Town Moderator – the only contested town-wide office on the ballot. As you know, I endorsed the incumbent, Moderator Mike Crowley – a committed progressive with what I thought was a persuasive argument. In less than a year in office, Mike did a great job empowering our democracy. He restored virtual Town Meetings, created a Moderator’s Advisory Committee to make things like committee appointments more transparent.

And, behind the scenes, Mike took big steps to support the rights of rank and file Town Meeting members. Select Board members, Warrant Committee members and other VIPs no longer got open access to the microphone to swing debates in the direction they (and the Town’s power elite) wanted to see them go. I fondly remember seeing Select Board member Matt Taylor standing at the back of the line to Mic B behind other Town Meeting members waiting to speak. That was awesome – and something I’ve never seen before at Belmont’s Town Meeting.

Lots happened behind the scenes to shore up our democracy that you weren’t aware of, either. In the lead up to the heated debate on the Belmont Center overlay, for example, former moderator Mike Widmer was pushing Moderator Crowley hard in opposition to the overlay plan – multiple emails and phone calls. He demanded equal footing in the Town Meeting debate with our Town’s Planning Board which had submitted the overlay article based on years of work. That would have given Mr. Widmer – who had no special stake in the overlay plan, and no special expertise in urban planning, zoning or the like – 10 minutes or more at the podium to rail against the Belmont Center overlay. What justified that special treatment? Well…because he was an important person!

What Widmer got from our Moderator was what he was entitled to: 3 minutes at Mic A or Mic B to voice his opposition (or support) or ask questions, just like every other Town Meeting member. Fairness. Under Moderator Crowley there was no red carpet in our town’s legislature. We all benefitted.

And Crowley paid the price. As I wrote during the campaign, our town’s power elite were outraged by this shift towards a more fair and grassroots democracy in our town that did not grant them a louder voice and special treatment. They put their money and voices and resources behind Adam Dash to oppose Moderator Crowley. And Dash ran a campaign that trumpeted the notion of order, protocol and authority over fairness and democracy.

And, guess what? That won! With just one in five voters turning out to the polls – consistently an older and more conservative electorate- and with a small minority of residents still outraged by their loss over the Belmont zoning overlay vote at the April special town meeting, Mr. Dash’s challenge to Moderator Crowley won at the polls. I should note – this wasn’t just Belmont’s old guard. In addition to backing by Belmont’s power elite like Liz Allison, Ralph Jones and Mike Widmer, Dash enjoyed the backing of a significant number of residents I would consider progressive Belmontonians. Was I surprised? No. (See also: Civil Service.)

In the end, Dash’s campaign to impose order and authority on Town Meeting won at the polls by about 300 votes: 2090 (10% of voters) vs. Crowley’s 1781 (9% of voters). He won five Town Meeting precincts (1, 2, 5, 6, & 7) compared to 3 for Moderator Crowley (3, 4 & 8). And that..was…that.

I want to thank Mike Crowley for his service to this town and the hard work he did to improve Town Meeting and make our legislature a fair and empowered elected body. You’ll be missed!

Rubber Stampification

The consequences are yet to be seen. I’m sure Mr. Dash will do a fine job leading Town Meeting as moderator in terms of following protocols and such. I worry that our Town Meeting will start our journey back to the “rubber stampism” that has been the norm over the past five or more decades. That would be: polished and orderly, but lacking independence – a rubber stamp for our Select Board and Town Administrator who look at the body as a necessary vote to get what they want – but mostly a formality.

What to look for?

• Sidelining of those voices that disagree with the Town’s power elite or are advocating for needed changes to the ca. 1980’s status quo. Belmont needs to change. Town Meeting members and other residents with a vision for modernizing our Town government and addressing some of the structural issues that will weaken Belmont should be given a priority over the Belmont “No!” and “Change is bad!” crowd.
• The restoration of that Town Meeting red carpet where Select Board members and other VIPs (Warrant Committee, Capital Budget Committee, etc.) get multiple bites at the apple when it comes to speaking to matters before Town Meeting and batting down voices the power elite disagree with. No more Select Board members waiting in line behind rank and file Town Meeting members to speak.
• Committee appointments. Crowley was in the midst of a (long) process of unseating the old guard who have held sway our town committees – Warrant Committee, building committees, etc. – for decades. Does Dash continue that and maintain Crowley’s open and transparent process of interviewing and considering appointments? Or is it back to the “friends of the Moderator” / “power elite” model that our Town has defaulted to for decades?

Stay tuned! We’ll see what happens.

Town Meeting: It’s all about the write-ins!

Races for Town Meeting were mostly uncontested. If you were a Town Meeting member and got your paperwork in to the Town Clerk on time, you basically got yourself re-elected. There were, however, competitive races in three Town Meeting precincts: 2, 6 and 8, in which there were more candidates than open slots.

With such depopulated ballots it is hard to read too much into these results. Incumbents had a huge advantage in the contested precincts essentially all got re-elected, with a few new faces added to Town Meeting.

Much more progress was made in the precincts that didn’t put forward enough candidates on the ballot to fill the open spots. There, write-in candidates that Blogging Belmont endorsed did quite well. So let’s look there to see how “progressives” (aka: those endorsed by Blogging Belmont 🙂 ) did.

Precinct 1

In Precinct 1, there were just 10 candidates for 12 open spots. The two write in candidates we endorsed, James Zimkus and Jessica Bennett ,were both elected by a significant margin over the two other write in candidates.

Precinct 2

Precinct 2 – the area around Belmont Hill – had the most competitive Town Meeting race with 15 candidates seeking 12 open slots. Blogging Belmont endorsed seven of those candidates for election:

Ed Barker, Jeff Levin-Scherz, Barry Lubarsky, David Zipkin, Alice Kaanta, Laurie Schenkel & Frank French, as well as two write-in candidates for 1 year slots: Maria Bolletino, and Tony Barnes.

All got elected except for Mr. Zipkin and Ms. Bollettino (a write in cadidate). Not too bad! David absolutely deserved a spot on Town Meeting. I wonder if having a last name starting with “Z” played a part on a ballot stacked first by incumbents and then alphabetically.

Precinct 3

In Precinct 3 there were just 9 candidates for 12 slots. We endorsed six candidates who all were elected:

David Chase, Sarah Griffith, Rachel Heller, Martha Moore. Jung Yueh & Alexandra Machado.

In addition, we endorsed four write-in candidates of which three were elected: Jay Heller, Michael Etkind, and Cassandra Page. Only Dan Eldridge fell short. Not too bad!

Precinct 6

There were 14 candidates for 12 spots in Precinct 6. We endorsed nine of those and all were re-elected:

Karen Bauerle, Laura Burnes, Roger Colton, Elizabeth Gibson, Marcie Hirsch, Suzanne Johannet, Caroline Light, Erin Rowland, Joel Semuels. Congratulations P6!

Precinct 7

In Precinct 7 there were nine candidates running for 12 slots. We endorsed eight of those: Claudia Albert, John Avilla, Paul Gormisky, Anne Mahon, Benjamin Meshoulam, Heather Rubeski, Aisha Traish and John Kuterbach. All were re-elected. We also endorsed two write-in candidates: David Green and Scott Brinker. Scott was elected and David fell short by five votes.  

Precinct 8

There were 13 candidates for 12 spots in Precinct 8. We endorsed 9 and 8 got elected: Angus Abercrombie, Katherine Dilawari, Bill Hees, Alexandra Houck, Caitlin Madevu-Matson, Lisa Starobin, Ted Tieken, and Meenal Bagla. Only Kara Morin fell short of getting elected by just 12 votes.

Thanks to everyone for running! If you didn’t get elected to Town Meeting, my advice: put your papers in next year. You’ll almost certainly make it!