While there are typically many candidate forums and debates around the city prior to election day, the forum co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters Newton and NewTV is arguably the most important, given that it’s not only shown on NewTV many times but because NewTV makes it available to Village 14 and anyone else who wants to share it.
So it struck me as both puzzling and shortsighted when the LWVN announced last night that two candidates in contested races — Cyrus Vaghar, running for Ward 2 School Committee, and Allan Ciccone Sr., running for Ward 1 Ward Alderman — both declined invitations to participate.
The League says both Alison Leary (Ward 1 Ward Alderman) and Margaret Albright (Ward 2 School Committee) were willing to participate but because LWVN policy prohibits having “empty seat” candidates’ events, there will be no Candidates’ Forums for Ward 1 Ward Alderman and Ward 2 School Committee.
It’s hard to imagine what Vaghar and Ciccone were thinking.
Meanwhile here’s the schedule for the forums that will happening.
October 7: Ward 5 Aldermen-at-Large, 5:30 p.m.
October 8: Ward 5 School Committee, 6:00 p.m.
Ward 3 Aldermen-at-Large, 7:00 p.m.
Ward 2 Aldermen-at-Large, 8:00 p.m.
October 22: Ward 8 Aldermen-at-Large, 7 p.m.
Send your questions for the candidates to [email protected] The LWVN asks that they be relevant to all the candidates in a particular race and be as short as possible.
Both willing candidates could hold a town hall meeting so that residents can ask questions about timely topics.
I dont’ agree. If a candidate doesn’t have the initiative to debate, that is a powerful statement of their candidacy and commitment.
Why would I vote for someone who does not make themselves available for a public forum? Speaking is one thing (weather on the web or a prepared statement); however a public debate of voters??? How am I to see how each candidate will do in a non-prepared setting? I agree with Dan. This speaks volumes and how committed they are to the office.
The only times a candidate can ever afford to refuse to debate is 1) s/he has virtually no chance of losing the election, or 2) s/he has no virtually chance of winning the election.
I will make arrangements to hold a town hall type meeting to make myself available for questions.
I am disappointed that my opponent declined the invitation to debate.
Good idea Colleen. I’ll see if I can find a date/location to meet and talk with voters.
Very disappointed in LWVN’s policy. It’s a shame not to get to see candidates at a forum just because their opponents don’t want to participate. I certainly have no intention of voting for any candidate who’s unwilling to take part in a public debate.
Perhaps both of the men will agree to attend a town hall meeting. They may feel uncomfortable in a debate setting.
I don’t necessarily agree with Mr Ciccone’s choice, but do understand his concern due to Leary’s strong ties to to the LWVN. He must genuinely feel that the debate will be slanted against him. I am confident Ciccone is on top of the issues facing the City of Newton. Ciccone is a life-long resident of Newton, and has raised 3 generations of Newtonians, as well as being a veteran of the Vietnam War. His strengths lie in representing the needs of the voters of Ward 1 (Nonantum and Newton Corner) and can advocate for us with his knowledge of the city, its history and with his former service as Aldeman-at-large from Ward 2.
My reason for not debating the incumbent candidate is because she has a connection to the LWN. I respect the LWV and have nothing against them, but I just don’t want to be in a forum that has the potential to not be impartial.
I understand some people might not agree with me on this, but so far support and understanding from voters has been very positive. The good news is that I plan to have a (unofficial) event at Newton North on Saturday October 3 in the early evening. I will answer any question(s) that are asked to me there. Hopefully V14 posts about it as it gets closer but I will post the details on Twitter.
Sorry Cyrus but that’s a major cop-out, especially for someone who has presented himself as eager to challenge the status quo.
If you’ve watched the recent Ward 2 forum, you’d know that these presenters bend over backwards to be balanced, with strict rules about equal time, no followup questions to one candidate, etc.
Also, half the questions are asked by Jenn Adams or another NewTV journalist, who are as fair and even handed as there is.
Being an elected representative requires one to spend a lot of time interacting with people who may not be “impartial.” Being able to withstand challenges on the campaign trail is pretty much the only way voters get to evaluate how a candidate gets along with others, and yes, maybe even copes with an unfair hand.
You just flunked this test.
I hate that policy!!! If the league was smart they’d change the policy, it would make people think twice about not participating. Let the league come up with the questions and let the remaining candidates answer those questions.
When I ran for Governor’s Council in 2014 my opponent refused to debate me when she was first asked, She waited until the last minute and refused to debate me in both Lexington and Newton. I didn’t have the money to take advantage of this as I thought it was a very cowardly thing to do, but maybe smart on her end. She never had to answer from me some of the issues that came up over the past two years, very discouraging.
I support Vaghar’s move completely. Anyone who watched the first Republican debate on FoxNews saw that they had an obvious agenda: to embarrass Donald Trump with weighted questions. Although this created a wildly entertaining evening, it provoked more discussion of petty issues than any actual impartial debate ever would have had . I’m sure I will get some backlash for comparing the League of Women’s Voters to FoxNews, but that reaction is exactly what I would be afraid of if I were Vaghar. The LWVN is a trusted organization by many of Newton’s own, so what would prevent them from lobbing meatball questions to Albright while they threw metaphorical 99 MPH fastballs at Vaghar’s head? Nothing, because no one would ever think to question their objectivity. The exact same thing happened just the other day with the Wall Street Journal, who published an article about how Bernie Sanders’ economic policies would cost $18 trillion over 10 years. This number is purely a scare tactic, because in the current system, Americans would spend roughly $15 trillion on healthcare over those 10 years anyway. Here is an actual example of a trusted economic source that is skewing information to achieve a political agenda, so I ask you, why is everyone so certain that the LWVN would be different? I applaud Vaghar for standing up to a potentially biased debate and I hope he continues to spread the scathing truth about media. ALMOST ALL SOURCES OF INFORMATION, NO MATTER HOW BIG OR HOW SMALL, ARE BIASED IN SOME WAY. Stay informed, viva Vaghar!
@NNHS Local: In these LWVN debates both candidates get the exact same questions and the League person who asks the questions alongside a NewTV journalist, doesn’t even live in Newton.
@Cyrus
Your opponent never had any ties to the LWVN in the past. Her ties now appear to be with the incumbents who never stood up for her the 2 times she ran against incumbents when she ran for School Committee in 2009 (against Reenie Murphy) and 2011 (against Jonathan Yeo). She was blackballed by the local media and most of the incumbents until she finally won against Andrea Steenstrup in 2013 by 522 votes. The LWVN debates are typically a total snooze-fest (not real debates, just boring Q+A sessions among the candidates). In the end, Margaret Albright will be endorsed by every incumbent from here to the Mason-Dixie line! That’s how the game is played. 😀
The league does not moderate the forums and the questions are submitted by voters. Candidates aren’t given favorable treatment by the moderators, new tv or the league. Voters want to see candidates answer their questions.
I agree with those who said that if a candidate can’t be bothered to attend and answer questions then I don’t know why they think anyone would vote for them.
NNHS Local, when is the last time you have watched a forum on New TV or in Newton that was anything like that debate. The comparison is cumquats and pineapples.
No need to apologize Greg, I get your opinion.
Just to be clear: I am more than willing to debate, but I will not let the only one of the season be sponsored by the LWV.
Many people were looking forward to my debate. Even many of the people helping out with my campaign wanted it to happen. This was not an easy decision, but many voters and even some the students I know, understood the decision. The good news is that anyone who was concerned that I would not address questions from the public has the opportunity to do so on OCT 5. Plus, I will likely put out more days to come and meet me soon.
@Marti. Relax. I am not equating the LWVN to FoxNews, I am simply using FoxNews as a bloated example of how the moderator can greatly affect the outcome of a debate. In this case with voter submitted questions, the bias is not in the writing of the questions but the selection of them. The person who is choosing which questions get read to the candidates has a huge amount of power, and I really have trouble believing that the person in charge of this debate will be a completely objective source.
As for Greg, first of all I want to say that Village 14 is one of the few sites that I consider to be completely transparent and therefore trustworthy. To address your point of candidates being asked the same question, I will refer you to the first question that was posed to all candidates at the republican debate in August. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXXYhv-a5K0) This first question was of the format that you referenced in your post (addressed to all candidates), however it goes to show that even a question in this format can be used to single out a candidate in a bad way.
Here is a modest proposal for the first Village 14 debate. Both candidates write 6 questions that are submitted in a sealed envelope to Greg. Greg opens the envelopes in the full view of the audience. He reads each question, first to the person who wrote it, and then to the other candidate. Each candidate has 3 minutes per question. This can be done, and videotaped, via Skype. It will be totally unbiased. I get 20% of all revenue.
Anyone who compares a LWV/NewTV debate to the Republican show last night obviously has not watched a single Newton candidate’s debate. Lets not cloud our thinking with fuzzy imagination but look at what really happens: Jenn Adams of NewTV is has historically been one of the moderators. The other moderator is always a LWV member from another town – sometimes from a community several miles away who has no skin in the game (unless you want to make the absurd presumption that a LWV moderator will automatically be biased in favor of a female candidate.) The questions are not only submitted in advance by voters but they also come in via live stream through Twitter and a couple of other channels. The questions are presented equally to both candidates to answer, and they are not controlled by the local league. This is a lame excuse not to debate that just doesn’t fly.
P.S. I think the Globe was on the right track when they skipped mention of Mr. Vaghar’s candidacy.
Just to clarify, the LWVN policy is from the national level of the League of Women Voters. We don’t hold an “empty seat” forums because that would give one candidate an advantage over the other, and we try to be scrupulously non-partisan when it comes to candidates.
I also want to note that we call these events are called “candidates’ forums” and NOT debates, because there is none of the untimed back-and-forth that you see in the national debates. Each candidates is allowed the same amount of time, and it really IS timed–we have a volunteer with a stopwatch and the moderators will stop candidates when they go too long. Each candidate is asked the same question, and those questions are submitted by the public. Shortly before the event, LWVN question sorters go through them, consolidate some, shorten others, and use some just as is. In the last Ward 2 preliminary forum, we received 41 questions, and ended up asking no more than 12–so our volunteers work hard to touch on every topic asked and get to the main parts of the questions submitted.
I strongly object to any attack on the integrity of LWVN when it comes to Candidates’ Forums. In no way do any of the candidates get an advantage. Just because someone is a member doesn’t mean they get special treatment. NO ONE knows the questions ahead of time, since they are compiled sometimes minutes before the event. I gather all the questions beforehand, and hand them out only to the question sorters about an hour before the event. We bend over backwards to be fair and evenhanded to all the candidates, and even encourage them to submit questions they would like to answer.
I might add that any complaints about the integrity of LWVN seem to appear on blogs, but no one with concerns ever seems to call me directly and ask questions about our process. I think it would be hard to come up with a more fair process.
Wow. I can’t believe what I am reading about people’s views against the LWVN!!!!! The group sponsoring the forum is local and they aren’t going to throw easy questions to one candidate and not the other. Mr. Vaghar, the only way I can see how you interact with others during a meeting, is watching a forum like the one LWVN is sponsoring. I don’t like watching candidates speak at an event that they have prepared the speech. I want to see interaction. Mr. Vaghar has communicated that he wants to change things – now, but I am not sure how he would work in a collaborative fashion in the school committee. It makes me very nervous that educated voters don’t be able to watch a discussion between two candidates.
I have viewed the past forums very educational (and I can watch from my house, while my kids are doing homework or are sleeping).
Very disappointed voter here.
@Cyrus. I’ve had my differences with the Newton LWV in recent years, but there is no organization I know of that could possibly be any more open and transparent in the way they organize, promote and conduct election debates in this City.
I was actually lo0king forward to hearing what you had to say in an open forum simply because you are a recent graduate of NNHS and probably have a slant on things that older folks in the community may not be aware of or see as priorities. I hope you will reconsider this decision while there is still time. Otherwise, you are blowing a golden opportunity to speak to the public without filters or obstructions. No other NNHS student or recent graduate is in a position to do so.
That said, I’m a big Margaret Albright supporter and I suspect most other voters are, as well. But that doesn’t mean we won’t listen to what you say and learn from the very unique insights you could bring to this debate.
@SueF
I know how hard you and the LWVN work at putting together these forums. No matter how scrupulous one is in their quest, I understand the trepidation of an underdog (in this case Vaghar and Ciccone) against an incumbent. Running against incumbents for city-wide office in a city with over 85,000 residents is one of the most admirable quests anyone can endure. We know it took a sustained multi-year effort to obtain signatures representing 15% of electorate to get Charter Reform on the ballot. Yet, will anyone be surprised if most Newton residents have no idea what Charter Reform is when they go to the polls in November?
Newton exists in the world with the reputation of multi-million dollar homes, good public schools, liberal values and low crime. When established organizations such as the LWVN offer challengers the possibility of participating in a public forum under their rules, not acknowledging trepidation (and in the case of the editor of this blog admonishing these concerns) is distressing.
Let the incumbents and challengers run their races in the way they see fit. Vaghar with his October 3rd Newton North forum and Alison with her proposed Ward 1 town hall meeting. Until we capture the interest of the public on any subject there is no reason to insist these established forums are the best use of anyone’s time when challengers have no interest in participating and most residents aren’t taking the time to observe them.
Truthfully, most of the people annoyed with my decision here are all supporters of my opponent I’ve seen from previous threads. However, I understand your concerns.
What people are forgetting is that i’m open to debate, just not the LWV one. Does that mean I have something against the LWV? No, not at all. But I fear the debate could become biased due to certain rules, specifically the questions being submitted ahead of time. The true issues of our city; drugs, later start times, financial literacy need to be discussed and since this is the only debate of the year, I will not risk those issues not coming up.
I’ve already said twice, you can come talk to me on OCT 3 time TBD. Any question is on limits. I would love to see some of the people here show up. I will have more dates assuming this one is successful.
@Cyrus: That statement sounds like you turned down the LWVN debate because you want control over the questions being asked. That’s not a debate. You can create many opportunities throughout the campaign to address the issues that you think are most important. Even during the debate, you have control over your answers. If a question is asked about something that you think isn’t top priority, you could say so.
Truthfully I’m annoyed by your decision because (a) with my busy schedule a debate on NewTV that streams online would probably be the only chance I’d have to see you interacting with others just as you would need to do if elected and (b) your decision and reasons for not participating reflect an immaturity that is already one reason why many people would not vote for you.
Cyrus, are you willing to consent to the unbiased debate that I proposed above?
Cyrus, Gail has hit the button and so as you fall into the water, reflect on the reactions of the commenters instead of just saying what you will do repeatedly and ignoring their reasoning.
Wanting to hang out in the high school, where you feel comfortable with your friends and talking points is understandable, but it is not a debate or a substitution for a debate (or the forum) so when you say repeatedly “What you are forgetting is that I’m open to debate.” or “I’m willing to debate” and then say “you can come talk to me,” you are either being disingenuous or do not know anything about the LWV forums held on New TV.
“I fear … bias due … specifically the questions being submitted ahead of time.” and “Any question is on limits.” (Which I think means no question is off limits but I’m not sure.) are contradictory. Last minute questions could be just as biased as any others. Plus you need to be well versed in all of the main issues concerning the schools, not just your own, and be open to what others have to say rather than being consistently contentious.
“I will not risk those issues not coming up.”
1. I guarantee that “later start times” will come up as a question in the forum.
2. Your expertise on drugs in the schools and your suggested solutions would be valuable for the voters to better understand the issue.
3. Financial literacy is truly important for all high school graduates to understand whether they are weighing taking out loans to attend college, deciding to enter an expensive college from the start or a community college and then transferring, entering the job force where they will need to know everything from balancing a checkbook to how much rent they can afford. All graduates need to know the consequences of not living within their means.
The shame is that you will have missed your opportunity to present these important issues to the audience, specifically to the high TV audience (voters, including those who might be grassroots supporters, the foundation members who issue grants for innovative programs, PTO members who determine what school programs to subsidize, parents and students). And shown yourself to be a bit of a conspiracy nut in the process.
And what Greg said while I was typing.
It would be hard to find someone who is more questioning and skeptical about candidate media than me, but the LWV forums (I fully agree they are NOT actual debates) are the fairest and the most even handed events you will ever see happening.
If anything, they are sooooo fair that the moderators never even follow up on what a candidate says and just let them speak for themselves.
If a candidate doesn’t show up, I would still have the forum. Since it’s not a debate anyway, you’re still providing the structure. If/when a candidate doesn’t show up to take advantage of that structure that in itself speaks volumes.
@marti It took you an hour to write that? Also fall into what water? This is A school committee election. My biggest priority is to get my issues heard and so far I’ve already won in that front. And @jeff besides the 20% pay I would but something tells me v14 wouldn’t be interested.
Not putting things in candidates mouth’s however, I don’t see why those topics would be avoided in a LWVN forum . . . . . again, the control issue. To me this looks like you don’t want to play ball, so you are taking your ball, and the game ends. The game is on all the time. . . . . . especially if you are elected. You will need to cover topics all over the spectrum (budget, special education, start time, busses, fees, etc). No topic will be off subject if you are elected.
I just went to Mr. Vaghar’s webpage to read his views. . . . I am very concerned that if he is elected, he will continue his take his ball and leave. From the tone of the web page he doesn’t want to work with the elected school committee , he wants to RUN it. He doesn’t say he will collaborate with the other members. Very scary stuff to me, as a vote.
I wish a debate could happen because this is the only way to see two candidates speak at at the same time. Mr. Vaghar, who do you want to sponsor/run the candidates forum?
The LWV in Newton has burnished the reputation of the League as one of the nation’s most important civil-society institutions. The LWVN coordinators were transparent, professional, and rigorously neutral in regards to the Ward 2 forum, and they have my utmost confidence in advance of the October 8th forum.
@Cyrus– For reasons I’ve made abundantly clear, I wouldn’t vote for any of the School Committee incumbents including your opponent. But you made a significant blunder opting not to participate in the League of Women Voters “debate.” It was the wrong thing for your candidacy, and more importantly the wrong thing for Newton voters.
Obviously I recommend both candidates to participate in the debate. As an option, in a one time thing, I am willing to host the debate(s). I have hosted before and I am willing to host this year. 2 years ago, I hosted a debate between Ms Leary and Mr Ciccone… I have to admit things got out of hand which was my fault. But I learned. Audience was just yelling questions and follow ups on the questions and I had trouble, I learned. Given all that information, I am still willing to host the two debates.