Voters have three ballot questions to vote on in this year's municipal election. Two of them are binding ballot questions, so it's critical that everyone know what they're voting on when they fill out their ballot. (You can view your sample ballot here.)

Here's a breakdown of all three ballot questions:

Question 1: New City Charter

Somerville has been replacing components of our sewer system that date back to the 19th century. Unfortunately, our current city charter – the constitution for our city – is equally obsolete. The last thorough revision of our charter happened in 1899, such that it still states that “each ward [shall have] an equal number of male voters.”

The new proposed charter is a modern document written in plain language that is accessible to the average person without a law degree. Based on best practices throughout the Commonwealth, the proposed charter is the product of years of work – first by the Charter Review Committee, then by the City Council, and eventually negotiation between the Mayor’s Office and the council.

It doesn’t do some of the things that many of us wanted to see it do when we started this process. Like resident voting, powers of reallocation for the City Council, and . But it’s a massive step forward for our city and a great example of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Lastly, I understand the frustration from some folks over the lack of an official explanation of what the new charter does. I agree it would be good to have this and support implementing this requirement of ballot questions in future elections. Unfortunately, there wasn’t sufficient time to do this for the charter ballot question because of the rush job that had to be done just to get the charter on the ballot after it sat on the Mayor’s desk for 14 months. But don’t hold that against the charter. Let's give our city the modern charter it deserves.

For an in-depth explanation of the proposed new charter, including a side-by-side comparison with the current charter, please visit this website from Yes on 1.

Therefore, I strongly endorse a Yes vote on Question 1.

Question 2: Mayoral Term Length

When negotiations between the Mayor’s Office and City Council reached a stalemate over mayoral term length, the compromise was to put the question to the voters to decide. Consequently, Question 2 asks whether the mayor’s term should increase from two years to four years beginning with the 2027 election.

There are legitimate balance of power questions around giving the Mayor a four-year term while keeping other elected offices to two years. However, voters also seem to subconsciously favor a four-year term for the mayor, given the track record of mayors winning re-election the first time after being in office for just one full year.

Personally, I pushed for every elected office having a four-year term the first time someone is elected, with a two-year term for anyone up for re-election. However, during the charter review process with the council, we were unable to find another municipality that had taken this approach, so I dropped the proposal.

If the Mayor does receive a four-year term, I like the idea of a recall provision with a high bar – say, 10,000 signatures plus a supermajority of the City Council – to force a recall election. But this would require an amendment to the charter, so for now we're just left to vote on a two- versus a four-year term for the mayor.

Since this is really about the will and psychology of the voters and given the major conflict of interest I have in this decision as a mayoral candidate, I won’t formally endorse this one. I do personally plan to vote Yes because I believe having a mayor divert their attention from governing to campaign every other year is worse than having it happen every four years.

Question 3: BDS Israel (Non-Binding)

Ironically, it’s the non-binding question that has garnered the most attention and sparked the most discussion this election cycle. Question 3 asks: 

Shall the Mayor of Somerville and all Somerville elected leaders be instructed to end all current city business and prohibit future city investments and contracts with companies as long as such companies engage in business that sustains Israel's apartheid, genocide, and illegal occupation of Palestine?

I hear constituents wondering why we are talking about an issue halfway around the world in a municipal election, and I take their point. But I also know the constituents who brought this forward were inspired to think globally and act locally, and badly want to feel like they’re doing something. We are a deeply civically-engaged community, and there is much hurt and fear and pain from both our Jewish and Palestinian constituents. Here in Somerville, we are all eager for peace in this horrific conflict. But this question ultimately doesn't do what it sets out to do. 

The ballot question’s central ask of boycotting vendors doing business with Israel isn’t compatible with state public procurement law. Chapter 30B of Massachusetts General Law clearly spells out what bid awards can be based on: quality of supply or service, and cost.

Given the non-binding status of the ballot question and the illegality of its main demand, we’re left with a symbolic ballot question that guarantees one group in our community will end up feeling alienated from their city, no matter the outcome. At a time when we need to be pulling together as a community to fight the threat of masked, unidentified federal agents in our city, this feels unnecessarily divisive with no real upside. So I can’t support this ballot question as written.