City Charter newest draft calls for ward representation

The Medford City Council on March 4 had voted in favor of changing the composition of the Council from seven at-large members to a 5-4 model of five at-large and four district members, who would each represent two wards. However, the mayor’s next round of proposed edits reversed that in favor of ward-based representation.

The March 4 vote was just one step in the larger City Charter review process. On the agenda that evening was a review of all the most recently proposed edits to the draft Charter, but a motion was made, and passed, to take up the issue of the composition separately.   

The previous draft had an 8-3, ward-based system that was proposed by the Charter Review Committee and would have seen the Council composed of one representative from each ward (eight total) and three at-large members. The mayor proposed restoring that in what she considers to be a compromise version of the Charter.

Over the course of the nearly 3.5-hour meeting on March 4, many local residents weighed in via Zoom and in person, and councilors argued the merits of the two systems.

Council Vice President Kit Collins said that having one councilor from each ward could result in non-competitive races and parochialism.

However, she said, “My belief is no matter how we go forward, Medford will enjoy more localized representation on the City Council than it has before and that is what the residents deserve.”

Councilor George Scarpelli advocated passionately for the ward-based, 8-3 model. Scarpelli said that he was against Charter review for a long time but going through the process of examining it was one factor that changed his thinking. It helped him, he said, “understand the importance of equity and what that meant.”

Running for an at-large seat is expensive, Scarpelli said, but “looking at ward representation opens up the avenue for so many of the underprivileged that would never, ever, ever, have the opportunity.”

Scarpelli said to his fellow councilors, “You’re just not listening to all of our residents.”

He also made the case that after two years of hard work and some 200 meetings, the Charter Review Committee presented “what this community is crying for.” That, he said, is the 8-3 model.

“I beg my fellow councilors,” Scarpelli said. “I know we don’t see eye to eye, on a lot of things. But, I know for sure the base that voted you in, that are reaching out to me, they want the 8 ward representation. They want the 11 members.”

Councilor Justin Tseng said, “Let’s talk about equity.”

There’s concern that there’s only one elected person of color in the city, Tseng said, and he said he sees that every morning when he looks in the mirror.

“I ran on a platform not just to take the easy answer when it comes to equity, but to examine policies through the lens of equity, and that’s a much richer, much deeper, much more complicated conversation,” he said.

Tseng made the case that it is easy to say smaller districts will mean everyone will get represented. However, the research shows, he said, that drawing majority-minority districts means politicians are not accountable to as many different groups of people.

Callahan said while there is no way to know what “the community, as monolith” feels about the proposals, the data shows 60% of voters want a mix of ward and at-large representation. She said the Council should take everything into consideration, including the research, the statistics that have been gathered, and the opinions of experts.

“I think what’s important for this City Council, what feels important to me as a councilor,” Callahan said, “is to focus on what we can know for certain, which is that what residents want out of this procsess is a governance structure that works better than before and gets us closer to what we can know will be better for this community, which is more localized representation.”

Council President Isaac Bears countered the argument that councilors are not listening. It is not that councilors aren’t listening, he said, it’s that they don’t all agree.

Bears expressed faith in the Charter review process, the debate that comes with democracy, and the councilors’ ability to work together. In general, he said, both proposals reflect a consensus of the people that includes keeping a mayor/council form of government and having a balance of power between the mayor and the Council.

A downside of the 5-4 model, Bears said, is that an incumbent could stay in office for many years and go unchallenged during elections. However, he said he believes the 5-4 model minimizes the costs of more localized representation and maximizes the benefits in terms of fostering equity.

The City Council meeting begins at 7pm tonight at City Hall. The agenda includes four ways to attend or watch: in person, via Zoom, on Comcast and Verizon channels, and via YouTube.