Congratulations and thanks to Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan for daring to go where none of his elected colleagues would by challenging a very popular sitting incumbent mayor. You allowed for our city to have a conversation that we would not have had otherwise. No doubt this meant giving up your weekends in Maine and sacrificing political capital and friendships in the process. Take a couple well-earned days off and then get blogging!
Hear, hear! Many thanks Mr Hess Mahan for your efforts to bring to light what might have been unnoticed in the dark. I continue to feel your key strength in gov’t is a legislative strength so why not make the bring to light what is hidden on Beacon Hill? Best of luck!
ps- I read each and every link you provided on HUD related housing and learned a lot.
Yes! Thank you, Ted.
The only “silver lining” is that West Newton gets to keep you as our Alderman! Keep questioning and keep fighting….your supporters will, as well.
While I would love to throw a candidate a boo-ya for a constructive engagement on the larger issues, Hess-Mahan’s campaign was, at best, a missed opportunity.
There is a lot more going on in this City than Engine 6. Distorting facts regarding OPEB and employee turnover is to nobody’s benefit. And frankly, as Hess-Mahan has spent his career passively voting many of these issues forward, it took a great deal of , er, nerve for him to assail anyone over his own decisions.
Clearly, for him, this campaign was personal. For us, it was a large waste of time.
My congratulations goes to the Mayor — and not just for his commanding victory — but for his family and his friends who demonstrated great restraint in dealing with this nonsense. I would hope that responsible folks in this community would not encourage Hess-Mahan or anyone else from pursuing another exhibition of this sort of politics.
I think it’s easy to see how the employee turnover numbers are subject to information that isn’t public. For example, we don’t know how many of the employees who are no longer there were managed out for poor performance.
But if the OPEB numbers Hess-Mahan touted were “distorted,” the administration needs to do more than “demonstrate restraint” It’s still not to late too set the record straight.
Ted, you did a fantastic job!!!
Bill,
You sound just like Setti. I am sure he kept saying that all of his opponents are just “jealous” of him. lol. Good Luck.
The photo is self-explanatory. Ted stands next to a sign with the worst president in the history of the US, whose only credit in some people’s eyes is that he promises to steal from some to give to others. In all other respects, his presidency has been a total failure, filled with incompetence, lies and deceit, and laziness.
We should be thankful that we didn’t bring that mentality to City Hall. Even though I know that Setti is a strong supporter of Obama, I think it’s more because he sees Obama as an avenue to his political future. Ted pretty much espouses the Robin Hood philosophy of BHO.
I don’t think I agree with Ted on 90% of the issues. Sometimes his position on issues don’t go far enough for me.
Ted is a public figure and some heat comes with the territory.
But…
Bill, your comments were harsh. Ted’s efforts were anything but a “waste of time” and “nonsense”.
Bad form, sir.
What Bill said.
Wow, the arrogance of his team. WOW.
So Bill and Jane support no challengers for the Mayors job. That we should continue to allow him to screw this city. Good for you. WOW.
THM received 30% of the preliminary vote on Sept. 17th. Six weeks later he received the same 30% of the vote, though there were only two candidates. Yet he implies that had he had more time, he would have been able to catch up and even pass Mayor Warren in votes. ( “I know that when I got a chance to speak to people I was able to get their votes…I just didn’t have enough time to meet with every person in the city…”) THM may have gotten more raw votes with more time, but would his numbers have increased proportionally? Percentage-wise? There’s absolutely nothing to indicate this. A good example of the type of obfuscation the voters of Newton rejected. The vote was a clear referendum on voters’ satisfaction with Mayor Warren’s leadership.
Thanks, Greg.
When I called Mayor Warren on election night to congratulate him after the results were in, he asked if we could sit down and talk about ways to collaborate on addressing the issues that divide us and I agreed. Despite our differences, we have been able to work together effectively on a number of things including adoption of the Green Communities Act, and bringing economic development, revenue and jobs to Newton through the Chestnut Hill Square and Station at Riverside developments.
I feel privileged and honored to be re-elected to serve as Alderman-at-Large in Ward 3 for another two years, and will do my best to continue to earn the faith and trust that have been placed in me by Newton voters over the past ten years. There are important matters to address, and I want to be a constructive part of the solutions to the issues, challenges and opportunities Newton faces.
If I am appointed to serve as Chairman of the Land Use Committee again, the Mayor and I will need to work together to ensure that the special permit process for the proposed redevelopment of Austin Street in Newtonville will allow sufficient public participation and result in the best possible project for that location. I am proud of the way that I have led this process over the past four years, but I am always seeking ways to improve. One of the ways I seek to improve is with public engagement, and I expect to make some substantive and procedural changes in the way the Land Use committee conducts the special permit process that are intended to achieve that goal.
While I will continue to fight for the causes I believe in–and fair housing and affordable housing in particular–I also know the value in being able to work collaboratively with this administration. I am proud of the campaign I waged, and have no regrets. But I am ready to move on, and I invite everyone to join me, regardless of whom they supported in this past election.
I am grateful that you will continue to serve the city Ted. Thank you.
Still amazes me that anyone in the city wants to take credit for Chestnut Hill Square. Yes, there is more development, jobs, and tax revenue. But, the credit for initiating the project is due to the developer. The city’s opportunity was to shape what the developer initiated to make it better for the city. Is it better? Meh. Is it good? No.
Without question, there are legal limits to what the city can do to shape the development. But, if that’s the case, what are the mayor and the distinguished Chairman of Land Use taking credit for exactly?
How wonderful that Setti’s supporters exhibit the same blind arrogance as he does. Bill, I don’t know you but I somehow am grateful for that.
I think contested election are a good thing, and so I’m supportive of Ted’s desireto run.
I would only say though that I wish it were clearer it was a fully serious run.
Getting in at the last minute [4+ months to me is last minute], against an established and solidly successful mayor, seemed like a recipe for the kind of result produced. And keeping himself in the ward 3 race [irrespective of Ted’s arguments for doing so], led many folks to not take this run seriously.
It’s hard for me to see a 30-70 result as any kind of “win,” moral or otherwise. We’ll never know whether it would have been better had Ted had more time, but in my view that one issue Ted had control over; he chose to enter relatively late.
Tough crowd. How does one know the outcome without getting in the game? Sure, the outcome was virtually certain on primary day but what does one do when they “win” a place on the ballot with just 20% support? You keep up the message and if someone makes the headline with their pants down, you just might have a new job.
Part of the tactical error for me was Ted’s outlining of City Hall mistakes without pointing to the source of many of those mistakes — the law dept. Everything from the Yeo issues, publicly firing a professional under contract, lack of effective settlements, certain Affordable Housing issues, etc points to in-house legal council. Why didn’t he go there?
Bill said:
“Distorting facts regarding OPEB and employee turnover is to nobody’s benefit.”
Please explain. Ted’s numbers are accurate.
Bill, here’s another piece of accurate information. Once the city contracts are up, the police get step bonus’s, which technically puts the city employees over the so-called cap of 2.5%.
Sorry for the triple post:
So Bill, who is playing with the truth now?????
Atleast when I say it, I have proof.
The distortion in the OPEB talk was where Ted kept putting quotes around the would “saved” with respect to the $40mm negotiated out w the new contracts. He said reducing the trajectory of growth isn’t saving anything. Of course it is.
He also said the $500k seed money in the irrevocable trust was chicken feed but didn’t mention it grows quickly to $10mm without asking for any taxpayer contribution.
tomsheff — If your still convinced that the $40mm just a change in the present value interest rate it would be helpful to tell us the source of that info so we can see it
Greg, the unfunded liability for OPEB went down by almost $40M in FY2013 because of health plan design changes and an increased premium share paid by city and school employees. In FY2013, it crept back up to nearly $602M.
As I hope was clear from my responses to the questions from both the Newton TAB and the League of Women Voters of Newton, further changes are essential in order to continue providing quality benefits and offering sustainable compensation packages to Newton’s employees. Governor Patrick has filed legislation that would change state laws to allow the state and municipalities to address over $20 billion in unfunded OPEB liabilities. I support the Governor’s legislation, even though some, including the Massachusetts Municipal Association, do not think it goes far enough. For the record, it would affect the eligibility requirements and non-pension retiree benefits for both myself, as an alderman and my wife, who is a public school teacher in another community.
A weekend in Maine, alas, will have to wait. This weekend my wife and I will be volunteering along with some youth from our church to work with homeless people.
@Alderman Hess-Mahan: I think your perspective is quite clear. My comment was directed at Bill Brandel who has suggested that your facts were distorted but that the mayor, his family and friends restrained from detailing why.
Bill, with 76% of the voters not expressing a choice for either mayoral candidate, I would not say any split of the votes was a commanding victory for the city of Newton. Call it satisfaction with the status quo if it makes you feel better; a major segment of the voters did not see a candidate that motivated them to express support. Celebrate if you wish; there are issues to address.
Patrick –
Even in the 2009 preliminary when no incumbent was running and voters had a choice between five not-so-similar candidates (at least there were major differences between some of them), only 29 percent of registered voters showed up. Wouldn’t your logic suggest that 71 percent of registered voters stayed home then because they didn’t see a candidate who motivated them to express support?
Patrick- exactly.
Hoss-If I normally purchase a new car ($50,000) every 3 years and this year I can’t afford to do so, did I save $50,000?
This is what the Mayor is claiming, that he saved the city $170 million. It’s not true. As I didn’t save $50,000 when not purchasing something I couldn’t afford, the Mayor didn’t save money when the city couldn’t afford, either.
Gail, I was commenting on Bill considering the mayorial contest results as a “commanding victory” with only 24% of the voters expressing an opinion. The mayor has the acknowledged support of one out of six registered voters in the city.
The voters might be staying home because of a loss of overall faith and/or satisfaction with our present government, and not with the resumes of individual candidates. Many people have stated that multiple excellent potential candidates choose not to run for public office because of the current environment. Hopefully Emily Norton, Margaret Albright, Jim Cote and other new electees will have success, and show people that individuals can make a positive difference in the culture of Newton’s government.
tomsheff — If you were contractually committed to do it and someone helped you out of it — Yes.
Hoss-?
If I were contractually obligated to do it and I didn’t do it then I broke the contract…illegal.
No one was contractually obligated to spend money regarding the city. The city and the unions were not under a contract they were negotiating a new contract. So, the answer is NO.
You can believe the Mayor’s rhetoric, but thats all it is…rhetoric.
tomsheff — Respectfully, the $601mm that is OPEB comes from the City financials (for FY12, see Note 12). The calculation starts with current contracts, current populations, etc. Positive change to contracts represents a reduction to the base amount. The “rhetoric” is calling that positive change a savings. If the word is confusing the public, I can’t see how.
Bill: Congratulations, you managed to make me wish I’d actually voted for Ted. Bad form sir indeed.
A little graciousness goes a long way. Sorry that THM put you and the mayor out by not allowing him to run unopposed.
Sheesh.
Hoss-
The savings the Mayor refers to is the cost trajectory (future spending) that he claims we saved through negotiations. By not giving the unions the contracts that the city normally gives, they cut back on that trajectory. In other words, they didnt spend what they didn’t have. It’s obviously a step in the right direction, but I would never call it cost savings. He wasn’t obliged or “contracted” in giving out those contracts.
Mark: Yes, perhaps I should have been more gentle in my tone of message. But, to be fair, neither Ted or Greg are strangers to gloating or goading after an election. Why, a keen observer might note that while Greg fawns over Ted over here, he is questioning Margaret Albright’s demeanor for SC over there. This, after she ran a good campaign,*and won.* Bad form? Please.
Fig: Another iteration of bad form is putting words in someone else’s mouth. Put another way, it is lying. I don’t care for lying. And it is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that I would not support the constructive engagement of incumbents. Why, I’ve actually done it, myself. And I do agree with you that graciousness does go a long way. Not so much, irony.
Patrick: Voters decide elections. I’m not really sure what else there is to say about that.
Bill, voters do decide elections. And attitudes and comments such as yours can impact future elections. I’m not really sure what else there is to say about that.
I wish THM had more conviction in his campaign and had sat out the alderman election.
I agree with Bill. It was a campaign looking for issues.
Patrick: I’ve run for office, both successfully and not so. I’ve worked on campaigns. And one thing I can assure you: Nothing — absolutely nothing said on this blog will impact any election here in Newton. Not this one. Not the next one. See any serious candidates or elected officials on these threads? Don’t expect to any time soon. This is noise.
In the meantime, while the Mayor was resoundingly re-elected by a 40 pt. margin, I can assure you that he has not spent much time thinking about that. He is out there working to make this a much better City than the one he inherited. That matters. And what he does in his next term will determine how voters feel about him and his performance. Not this.
And btw, while a 24% turnout should be disappointing for any democracy, it is actually a pretty decent turnout for a mayoral re-election race.
Have a great weekend!
Bill – what do you mean, asking “See any serious candidates or elected officials on these threads?”
The answer is a definite yes – Margaret, Ted, Amy, Geoff and Steve have all been posting here, as well as some I’ve probably forgotten.
Just when I thought I was out….
mgwa: Yes, Ted spends a great deal of time here. The rest are pretty infrequent, if not rare.
Bill, you are so much more experienced and knowledgeable of election dynamics than I, so I tip my hat to you. I will say that what you have said on this (and other) blogs does have an impact on me. Whether it will have an impact on other people voting is yet to be seen.
And I wish you a great weekend too.
I guess I just don’t get here enough. : (
Bill – I don’t care if they’re on the blog most of the time. What I appreciated was the ones who took time to answer questions here during the campaign. Margaret did that regularly, and it did make a difference.
Bill, I think you are proving my point. You were the one that entered a pretty harmless thread with a brash and ungracious post. You might learn to recognize sarcasm as well instead of accusing me of calling you a liar (not quite sure how you got there, but hey, if you feel like being aggrieved, knock yourself out).
Look, you were the one that caused the very act of Ted’s campaign “nonsense” that the poor mayor and his faithful supporters (such as you) had to put up with. As for me, I’m glad there was a campaign. I listened and I learned a bit more about our mayor. With a different candidate and a different campaign, I may not vote for him next time. And my neighbors might not as well.
I think that you are right that this blog, and pretty much all such community blogs, are a background noise in the larger scheme of things. But I think you underestimate how important that noise can be. For instance, Setti’s leadership style and decisions tend to lend themselves to an accusation of arrogance. I like a strong leader, so thus far I’m ok with it. But when his supporters show the same, the noise begins to get just a little bit louder. You do your candidate no favors Bill.
Enjoy the weekend. Congrats on enduring the “nonsense”.
Brandel is right. You may not like it but he is correct. He isn’t saying that the Mayor should go unchallenged, he is saying that Ted’s platform wasn’t strong. He’s right. The election proved it. Throw as many barbs out as you want but Bill is correct.
Kim:
I took issue with his tone and his calling the THM campaign “nonsense” that Setti had to put up with. Ted’s platform has some legs (does anyone think that Engine 6 or the Austin Street Project or the Police lawsuits or the staff turnover are not issues?)
Look, as stated before, I voted for Setti, not Ted. I still think the positives outweigh the negatives. But I’m glad Ted pointed out the negatives, and I hope Setti (and his supporters like Bill) have the humility to recognize that the first term wasn’t perfect, that there are things to improve upon in the second term, and that opposing viewpoints might have some value.
It helps us to come together after an election. I think Greg was trying to do with this post. I think Bill was still in bulldog election mode…
Y’Know, I have to agree with Greg when he said “thanks to Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan for daring to go where none of his elected colleagues would by challenging a very popular sitting incumbent mayor. He allowed Newton to have a conversation that we would not have had otherwise. No doubt this meant sacrificing political capital and friendships in the process.”
And I have to agree with Ed Prisby when he said that Ted could be a viable candidate for mayor. Maybe not necessarily this year but who knows.
http://edprisby.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/post-election-analysis-part-ii-winners-and-losers/
When Setti moves on to bigger things, the only person on my radar as the next great mayor for Newton is Ruthanne Fuller.
It’s never too soon to start talking about the next mayoral election! 🙂
Ted Hess-Mahan is a hero. We should all be thanking him for speaking truth to power
(and I’m not surprised he’s spending the weekend working with homeless people).
He’s got more guts than any other alderman.
Karen,
Ruthanne would make a great Mayor!!!