After spending much of my Labor Day watching videos of candidate forums, I’ve got a lot of thoughts and one big question: why in the world are the four non-councilor candidates running for mayor?
There is absolutely no reason our next mayor has to come from the (admittedly large) population of city councilors. Mayor of a small city like ours is not something that has a particular set of job pre-requisites. See, Warren, S. (2009-2017). And, this particular set of councilor/insider candidates is hardly unbeatable by a good, focused outsider campaign. Each has her/his vulnerability.
But, Eli Katzoff, Rich Saunders, Geoffrey Woodward, and Al Cecchinelli hardly bring a good, focused outsider game.
Three of them — Katzoff, Saunders, and Woodward — consistently demonstrate an unfathomable ignorance of the state of the city for mayoral candidates. None of them has articulated compelling, serious takes on the spectrum of issues that face the city. And, none of them rises to the level of a quality single-issue protest candidate, running with no hope of winning, but to stake out and popularize an important alternative position from the mainstream candidates’, with the hope of shaping the agenda.
Katzoff seems like a bright, pleasant young man who has some hazy, well-intended notions of bringing the city closer together that is absolutely detached from any of the actual responsibilities of being mayor. Woodward seems like a very smart, very interesting guy with no knack for politics and no serious policy interests, aside from a narrow focus on stemming natural gas leaks, which, to be sure, is an important problem, but one on which he doesn’t have much interesting to say. Saunders thinks that voluntary taxes and the internet of things are going to solve Newton’s fiscal problems. Nuff said.
Cecchinelli, to his credit, has a few real thoughts about real policy issues, notably an interesting proposal for a community health clinic. And, he has a long and admirable record of public service to our city. But, he seems to be running, as he has in the past, as if running for office is a necessary part of civic engagement, not because he has any particular interest in or qualification for the office he’s seeking. It’s just something that the engaged gentleman just does without thinking too hard about it.
Most frustrating, Cecchinelli is running as The Republican in the race, without setting forth any coherent vision of what Republican governance would look like in Newton and how it would differ from that of his Democratic opponents (besides aiding and abetting the morally corrupt enterprise which is ICE).
What’s frustrating (galling?) is that these four guys have been soaking up valuable candidate forum time that could have been used to let us get to know the three serious candidates better. They have not added anything important to the dialogue.
Thankfully, as of Tuesday, they’ll be ex-candidates, but one of the serious candidates will also be out, having been denied a better opportunity to make his or her case.
That’s too bad.
What a bunch of elitist BS… Might as well have said “I disagree with these candidates so they shouldn’t have a voice”. Either purposely and successfully provocative or extremely closed minded and exclusive. These candidates followed the law and are on the ballot so you don’t get to decide who is a “legitimate” candidate. The 3 councilors have had ample time to make their positions known and the reality of the situation is probably 70% of eligible voters in the city will stay home and not vote anyway…
There’s a process in place for getting your name on the ballot for any office; every registered voter has the right to participate in the process; these four people went through the process. End of story. Why in the world would anyone demean people who stick their necks out to run for office?
Sean, if you don’t know the insiders by now, whether your engaged in the community or not, there is something very, very wrong. The idea that any of the 4 outsiders are taking up time from them is seriously flawed. They have had decades to be in front of people. Just sayin’.
Leopold,
To disagree with the four outsiders would require their having discernible positions with which I could disagree.
Jane,
I don’t deny the four outsiders the right to run. But, gathering signatures is just the beginning, not the end of the story. It’s a public process. The candidates invite us to judge their candidacies. It’s the very point of the process. I find these four guys seriously lacking.
Tom,
LOL.
And yet, when they count the votes on September 12, each of them will have some. They won’t have *your* vote, Sean, because *you* found them lacking, and *you* thought they didn’t add anything to the dialogue. Great. That’s how it works.
Tricia,
Yup. And getting criticized by some elitist is also how it works.
By the way, will you be voting for one of the four of them? If so, why?
Simple, “I was a candidate for Mayor of Newton’ looks terrific on a resume.
Ran into Eli last week at Tues. farmer market – didn’t recognize him with his clothes on. ‘If Trump can do it, why can’t I’ in a heavily conjugated Dem city.
unfortunately the Barnum & Bailey circus disbanded; Newton PC frowns on any type of animal husbandry, let the (2 legged) animals run free for bread & circus.
oh such sport, but it will be over on the 13th- then on to serious discussion on municipality futures.
Sean, whether I would vote for any of them, or even think any of them should be in the race, is irrelevant. There will always be candidates that I will find lacking, and who I think have no business running for office, let alone serving. I vote for someone else, and hope a majority of others will too. It doesn’t always work. (see November 2016)
Why does it matter to you? They acquired the number of signatures needed to run, so they’re running. You don’t need to vote for them. They don’t need to meet your criteria.
Also, Harry Sanders, don’t be a jerk.
Sean is right.
Sure, they complied with all the legal qualifications to put them on the ballot. And yes, I like that a younger player like Eli is involved. I would like to see him remain involved in other ways.
But none have brought anything significant to the debate. None are even pushing the other candidates to defend their positions. None are helping add to the conversation in any meaningful way.
And @Tom, it’s great that you feel people here are engaged enough to understand the positions and histories of each individual counselor. But it’s just not true. People live here, but they often don’t engage here. The readers of this blog are the rare exception. I’ve had people approach me from all aspects of Newton life asking me to explain the candidates, or even guide them to some way to understand them. People don’t know where to look. We no longer have strong, local reporting.
I sometimes joke that the local paper in Newton is the New York Times.
Gee Chuck,
I spoke to probably half a dozen people the pastfew weeks who approached me, out of the blue – at the supermarket, at the JCC swimming pool, at synagogue, among other places – to tell me they appreciate the TAB. These were people I didn’t know. I also get at least two or three emails a week asking for delivery.
With all due respect, there is more to “engagement” in a community than opining on a blog or getting into the weeds of local politics.
Andy,
Yes, engagement can mean many things. For a lot of the people I run into that’s around schools and their children. There are plenty of ways to engage.
Given the context, we were talking about political engagement and I still believe that people aren’t interested in, nor do they fully understand, the nuance and history of what goes on.
As for appreciating the TAB, yes, we all appreciate it. But are you really given the resources to cover the city adequately? This isn’t your fault or the fault of any local paper, it’s the nature of local news today. If people want to engage locally they have to work at it.