The Globe’s John Hilliard reports.
Calls for Trump’s impeachment have extended into the city’s race for mayor, as mayoral candidates Ruthanne Fuller and Amy Sangiolo were among the city councilors who backed the measure Wednesday.
The proposed measure also has the support of Mayor Setti Warren, a Democratic candidate for governor, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.
Wow, I wish Newton would always act this quickly on other matters which are important to Newton.
They acted real quick on this and the welcoming of illegal immigrants. How about acting quickly on:
– affordable housing
– school budget deficit
– environmental issues for Newton
– reducing crime in Newton (burglaries in general)
– keeping Newton on a secure fiscal path for the future
??
Silly, feel-good venting. Sorry… that was snarky.
But I’d say the exact same thing if it were a bunch of Republicans rallying to call for the impeachment of a President H.R. Clinton. President Trump could indeed end up being impeached, but it will have nothing to do with Newton (or Brookline or Cambridge or anywhere else) passing a worthless piece of paper on to Rep. Kennedy. It will be because Democrats take control of the House in the 2018 elections.
I was at graduation and then working, so I wasn’t at City Hall last night. But from what I have heard Jake Auchincloss was the lone voice of reason.
@Andy: It would be interesting to know if a Wicked Local reporter has asked Congressman Kennedy if the City Council’s (or Brookline’s) input would influence any decision he might make regarding impeaching the president.
Doing substantive, nuanced things is hard.
Useless posturing and rampant banning is easy.
By and large,Newton’s elected officials and by extension the majority of Newton’s electorate are much better at the latter than the former.
agree with all of the above
This is no business for Newton and a waste of the councilors’ time. I am disappointed to hear that two of the mayoral candidates supported this madness. Surely less likely to vote for them now.
Can I give @AndyLevin two thumbs up?
This is the 2nd or 3rd federal issue that the Council has taken up in the last couple of years I believe. I support citizen petition and initiatives and their right to be heard. But the appropriate vote out of committee should have been “no action necessary”. This type of partisan grandstanding (and I’m a #nevertrump GOPer) is not for the Council chamber. Trump haters can picket, protest, phone and write letters to our state delegation …but our city council should not be the venue for their hatred and political venting.
I agree. This should have been a “No Action Necessary.” It means nothing.
The only time this would be effective is if other cities pick up the slack and also vote for impeachment and congress notices. Just having Brookline and Newton support ot is futile. I could almost argue that if Brookline and Newton are the only ones in support of impeachment is an argument against impeachment since only 2 out of the 351 cities and towns support it. It almost works in reverse.
What Gloria has stated so well.
This resolution has been put together in a rushed manner, without input from the larger community outside of its core supporters. I don’t have confidence that it’s been properly vetted.
I have a number of unanswered questions. How will this resolution be used? By whom? Is there a possibility that the city could lose federal funding, either directly or indirectly (the more likely possibility), as a result of the city council taking this action? Could this resolution present a problem for the city in some way in the coming 3 years? We’re living in a new age and simply can’t count on past precedents to predict the future. I don’t hear anyone asking questions as we rush headlong into this process and that worries me.
Our current charter allows in Section 10-2 found here: http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/45807 allows for the City Council and the School Committee to hold a public hearing and take action. I support this resolution and have been a consistent about supporting resolutions like this – such as the resolution on the Clean Air Act and the resolution to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020.
I could not disagree more with all of you (save Amy).
Councilors who went into the chamber planning to vote no, ended up voting yes, because of the public comments that were delivered. So I would recommend watching the hearing on NewTV before making up your mind.
(Though I understand it’s more time consuming to listen to evidence before coming to a conclusion)
The City Council is required by our charter to respond to a petition by 50 or more registered voters and hold a public hearing on the matter. It is never a waste of the City Councils time to hold a public hearing when requested. It is a core part of our democratic process.
It would truly be meaningless to hold a public hearing on impeachment and then vote “no action necessary”. The actions of the President are deeply concerning to me and to many Newton residents who contacted the City Council on this issue. This is not about hatred or political venting. This should not be a partisan issue. Anyone who cares about the rule of law and the integrity of our Constitution should care deeply about what is going at the highest level of our government.
Newton residents made it clear that they do not want their elected officials to sit silently on the sidelines in the face of growing constitutional abuses, corruption, and the flouting of our laws by the President. As one resident wrote; “the refusal to condemn corruption at the highest levels is tantamount to endorsing it in the political system generally, including here in Newton”.
The actions of the President are deeply destructive to our core principles of democracy. There is evidence that the President has violated the emoluments clause of the US Constitution, obstructed justice and compromised U.S. Intelligence. The President has known financial ties with Russia and China, owes millions to foreign banks and has refused to adequately insulate himself from his complicated business dealings that create a clear conflict of interest.
Impeachment is a non-partisan call to action for serious violations of the Constitution by the President. Members of Congress need to demonstrate political courage and set aside partisan differences and hold the President accountable for his actions. The goal behind this local government action, though it is true that we have no direct authority in the matter, is to send a message to Congress to do their job and launch the investigation necessary to determine if impeachment charges are warranted. It does preclude Newton residents from contacting their Congressional delegation.
I support Resolution # 82-17 and intend to vote in favor of it when it comes before the full City Council for a vote.
I meant to say it does NOT preclude Newton residents from contacting their members of Congress.
Donald trump’s illegal, unconstitutional attempt at a Muslim Ban has invited hate into every community in our nation. What happened in Portland, Oregon could just as easily have happened on the D line in Newton. The idea that his criminal presidency is not a local matter is an insult to every Muslim resident of Newton and their allies and everyone who supports the constitutional protection of freedom of religion. His attack on freedom of the press is an an attack not just on the Washington Post but on the Newton Tab. His bragging about (criminally) grabbing women emboldens sexual predators everywhere, including Newton. I call for impeachment of trump not just at the gates of the White House and the DC Trump Hotel where he illegally conducts his business deals, but at Terminal E at Logan Airport, City Hall in Newton, Auburndale Square and to my neighbors on Charles Street. I will use every fibre of my being at every level of government to put a stop to a man who still employs Nazi Gorka, warmly welcomes self-professed murderer Duterte into the White House, and practices open nepotism every bit as corrupt as Sadaam Hussein & Uday and Usay.
Since we have no leadership and only corruption in the national executive branch, Newton’s kids are looking to us to show leadership and make a stand here against trump’s assault on decency and the rule of law.
sometimes ’tis better to not be drawn and quartered into anothers’ emotional stance..
Per the City Charter, which governs the City Council’s actions:
“Sec. 10-2. Group Petitions; Action Required.
The city council or the school committee shall hold a public hearing and act with respect to every petition which is addressed to it, which is signed by at least 50 voters, and which seeks the passage of a measure. The hearing shall be held by the city council or the school committee or, in either case, by a committee or subcommittee of either the city council or school committee and the action by the city council or school committee shall be taken not later than 3 months after the petition is filed with the city clerk.”
I generally agree with those who believe that the Council’s time could and should be better used. However, the express text of Newton’s governing document is clear and unambiguous. Enough residents followed the written process, which triggered their right to have a public hearing. Per the express language of the Charter, action is necessary. For individuals like Jake to proclaim that we should ignore the process which we are obligated to followed because of his own personal opinion goes against the very foundation of which our entire system is supposed to stand.
This provision in the Charter clearly exists for a reason as it allows the minority voice to be heard so long as it follows the rules. In my opinion, those who call for “no action necessary” threaten the entire premise of such democracy. As such, that Andy Levin called Jake the “lone voice of reason” is concerning.
Tom Davis, a newly minted lawyer, is spot on. Congratulations, Tom, for passing the bar.
Not only does our City Charter mandate that we hold a public hearing and take action on a citizens’ petition, but the First Amendment, made applicable to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects the rights of citizens to petition their government to address grievances. Anyone who argues that we should not take action on the merits of this petition, therefore, is on shaky ground to say the least.
This resolution has been thoroughly vetted by experience attorneys and others, including constitutional law scholar, Lawrence Tribe, of Harvard Law School. Ben Clements, who chairs the board of the nonpartisan, non-profit, Free Speech for People, which is behind this effort, laid out the history, intention and purpose of the Emoluments Clause and impeachment provisions of the United States Constitution in his presentation to the Programs & Services Committee, in support of the resolution. Many other citizens spoke passionately and articulately about the reasons for this extraordinary measure.
Although this resolution has no independent legal effect, the audience for this petition is our congressional delegation, including Senators Markey and Warren, as well as Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, III. It is a call to action. Ten other communities, including Cambridge and Brookline, have adopted this resolution, which is supported by at least two mayoral candidates and Mayor Setti Warren, who himself is a candidate for Governor. People look to Newton, as a leading community in this Commonwealth, to take a stand on important issues. This is one.
Nothing less than holding the President of the Unites States accountable under the law is at stake. As the speakers at the public hearing explained, the Trump organization has defied governmental requirements for disclosing income from foreign governments through its hotels and golf clubs owned by the President and his family. Just yesterday, former FBI Director James Comey gave extraordinary testimony concerning the President’s efforts, in private one-on-one meetings, to get the FBI to drop its investigation of possible wrongdoing by a former senior governmental official, Michael Flynn, involving Russia interference with the last election.
For those of us who lived through Watergate, and watched hour after hour of testimony and astonishing revelations of corruption and obstruction of justice, this all has an eerily familiar ring to it. President Nixon was ultimately forced to resign, not for the crime–a third rate burglary–but instead for the coverup. As the secretly recorded tapes of conversations in the Oval Office revealed, Nixon sought to ward off the FBI’s investigation of the activities of CREEP (the Committee to Re-Elect the President), during the 1972 presidential campaign, which included among other things breaking into and bugging a DNC office in the Watergate complex.
President Nixon’s utter disregard–indeed, his contempt–for the separation of powers under the Constitution and the law, led to a constitutional crisis that this country had never seen before. In an extraordinary series of interviews with David Frost, former President Nixon, when asked if he had done anything illegal, made the astonishing statement that “if the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” The lesson learned from Watergate, if any, is that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.
I therefore proudly and unapologetically support this resolution, and will vote for it when it comes to the floor of the City Council.
The City Council is required to hold a hearing on citizen petitions with the appropriate number of signatures regardless of whether it seems like a waste of their time. That is what they did. After such hearing, a vote is needed.
Would you have the CC not follow the rules of our charter while calling on Congress to start an investigation into the impeachment of Trump for violating the Constitution?
It doesn’t matter what we think about the petition, it matters that the rule of law is followed.
The city charter clearly sets out the process for a citizen’s initiative and I fully support the right of citizens to address grievances. It does not require the city council to approve the initiative.
I fully support everything that posters have said about the current state of affairs in Washington and hope that the impeachment process moves forward. That is not my concern with this matter.
There is no doubt that he law should be followed. If Aldm. Hess-Mahan states that the Constitution requires it, then who am I (any of us really) to doubt the statements of such a learned barrister?
No, the issue then is not with the role of our city government. It is with the citizens themselves. It is a shame that there are people in our community who actually believe that this is a suitable use of the time of our Aldermen. We hear rather consistently about how burdened these our representatives are with the vast responsibilities of city government. Why then would any responsible member of our fair city deem it necessary to further add to the workload by requiring action on a matter of no substance to Newton itself? Oh, yes, I recall now. It will make these people FEEL better. In Newton it is all about how we feel and not getting things done.
Whether or not you think it was a good move for the people to petition for this resolution, the fact is, the people did and the city council had to act. The city council would be making a grave mistake to vote no on this resolution, welcoming news articles saying that even liberal Newton doesn’t support impeaching the President for his likely unconstitutional actions.
It is 100% false that this is a meaningless gesture. We are helping to build momentum behind a local groundswell for impeachment, happening in cities and towns across the country. Yes, as always, we are going to be one of the first. But we won’t be the last and passing this resolution is an important step.
Keep reminding yourself: These are not normal times, the President of the United States is essentially a grifter, and all good people of conscience from every political persuasion need to put politics aside and stand up for our constitutional democracy.
Ironically, it is out of touch, feel good stunts like this that were partly responsible for the outcome of the election in the 1st place. But of course that would never be understood by the wicked “smaht” academics and intelligentsia living in their bubbles in the northeast and west coast safe spaces and worship at the altar of the NY Times, Boston Globe etc… Facts being what they are, you may disagree with the current administration’s policies, attitude, and direction but there are no legal grounds for impeachment. I know there are several professional lawyer types on this board who probably could comment on the “facts” objectively and leave emotion out of it. There is a large USA out there so would be a good idea to go out of the bubble and see the rest of the country to get a better view of the bigger picture. But much easier to hold your breath, turn blue, stomp your feet, and pray for the next 4 (or 8) years to be over so President Warren can take over…
I get that this was a petition and process is process. Still, with about 16 percent of the workforce employed by government, this is a reminder of the bloat and waste. Our local government should be hyper focused on important local impact efforts.
@Ted: As I have tremendous respect for both your service to our community and your fierce legal intellect, I really appreciate the kind words. Thank you.
@Jane: You and I are in full agreement that the City Council’s time could be better invested on any number of issues. However, you’re misunderstanding my point as it relates to process. Because the requisite number of voters signed the petition, the express language of the Charter entitles them to 1) a public hearing and 2) action. As such, a vote of “no action necessary” violates the mandate set forth via the petition clause. And as I said in my previous post, in my opinion, it also violates the spirit of the petition clause, which I believe would set a dangerous precedent. (That’s especially true if the Charter proposal passes.)
Regardless of our personal opinions, because the rules were followed, the aforementioned rights were triggered. To attempt to step on those rights because we disagree with them is wrong and (in my opinion) dangerous. As such, at this point in the process, we need trust our elected officials to use their good judgment and do their job. For better or worse, that’s the system we’ve created.
Jane, I’m surprised at your comment agreeing that the councilors should have voted “no action necessary” as well as your accusations of improper vetting. As a member of the Charter Commission you were involved in discussions and voted on increasing the number of signatures required, to 200 from 50, on a petition to guarantee a hearing followed by action. It seems you would understand the process thoroughly.
As a point of clarification, I agreed with the overall sentiment of Gloria Gavris’ statement, but not the details. For starters, I’m not a member of the GOP; rather I’m a member of the Democratic City Committee. More importantly, I don’t think this item should have been NAN’d. However, I do support a no vote when the full city council deals with the issue.
Marti – I understand the process completely, as I was one of the leaders for the article related to citizen’s initiatives and referendums, and believe the city council should follow the process as it’s laid out in the charter. That doesn’t mean that I can’t oppose a particular initiative.
Thank you to all of the Councilors excepting Auchinchloss who voted ‘yes’ on this resolution. With the news all of us can see everywhere, every day, on virtually every news medium, about the actions of the President, it is hard to fathom why this is at all controversial. There’s no reason to hesitate at this time of danger to our constitutional democracy. Mayor Warren is on record supporting the resolution. In fact, articles of impeachment have already been introduced in Congress. We should encourage more federal officials to sign on. I hope the full City Council will pass this unanimously when it comes up later this month as a way for our municipality to send a clear message to federal elected officials.
FYI, the Attorneys General of the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia are going to bring a lawsuit based on the President’s alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. They allege the Trump is benefiting from the exclusive use of his hotels and country clubs for hosting representatives of foreign governments, which has damaged the local economy and the publicly owned convention center. I think this reinforces the argument that an investigation into the alleged constitutional violations is not just a matter for the federal government.
Regarding the Mayoral Forum (April 30) referred to in previous comments: There is some misinformation floating around and I’d like to clarify. I was the chief organizer of the Forum, so you are getting this straight from the horse’s mouth.
The Forum was organized by Neighbors for a Better Newtonville. NBN’s primary concern has been to moderate the pace and intensity of real-estate development in Newton. In particular, we have been very active in opposing upzoning of the Orr Block in Newtonville.
We organized the Forum so that we and other people who shared our concerns about housing and development could talk with the candidates about their views and intentions regarding those subjects. Other topics (such as ward representation) also came up, but the primary focus was housing and real estate development.
The audience was mostly our own NBN members and others who shared our views. We did not invite the general public; this wasn’t meant as a public event. The candidates understood this, and we give all three of them a huge amount of credit and thanks for being willing to be at the event.
We gave the candidates the main questions in advance. We weren’t seeking a ‘gotcha’ debate; we wanted to know their stances on the questions that concerned us.
You can see a video of the event on our website, http://www.betternewtonville.org/mayoral-forum-2017/ . (The video comes in four segments, but it’s easy to go from one to the next.)
If you watch the video, you will probably agree that of the three candidates, Amy Sangiolo was most in sync with our concerns and views. That is why I personally and probably a lot of other people in the audience support her above the other two candidates.
But we did not create the Forum in order to benefit a particular candidate; in fact, when we first proposed it, only Scott Lennon and Ruthanne Fuller had announced; Amy was invited later, after she had announced.
Best to all,
Fred