The Newton Charter Commission has not even finished its work and and the vote on any proposed new charter won’t take place until November of 2017. But that’s not stopping the Newton Villages Alliance’s blog “Newton Forum” from running paid Facebook ads this weekend in opposition to possibly eliminated ward city councilors. (Click on image, left, to enlarge)
Also sounding the alarm against the Commission’s straw vote to eliminate ward councilors is Charlie Shapiro who devoted the most recent edition of his ‘Newton Newsmakers’ program to exploring the motives behind the vote, saying it’s the “most important program we’ve done in more than five years.”
Councilor Emily Norton, Councilor Dick Blazar, Fmr MA State Rep AND Alderman Peter Harrington, and war 6 voter and community activist Lisa Gordon are the guests on the new Newton Newsmakers.
Watch Sunday morning 830am or on demand at http://www.Facebook.com/newtonnewsmakers
Thank you to Greg for the Post.
Seriously, Charlie, is this what you consider a balanced panel?
@Adam- No. I also do not consider the commission’s 9-0 to be balanced either.
This was intended to present the side that had not yet been presented, and I think it succeeds in that mission.
It was like watching FOX News, except without commercials or a breaking news graphic. All the panelists agreed with each other and each others’ conspiracy theories.
@Greg,
It would’ve great if you could provide a link to the Charter Commissions discussions on this subject. I have tried but drawn a blank.
@Greg Seems you think there is too much intensity around this issue so early in process? Isn’t the purpose of a straw vote (Which by the way isn’t allowed using Roberts rules) to float an idea and see where people stand?
Is the Charter Commission going to articulate the reasoning behind this? Did I miss it?
Greg Reibman – the Matt Drudge of Newton calls Charlie’s show Fox News! I dont know who is the pot and who is the kettle here.
I am glad NVA (not a member) is starting the education outreach. Very soon the charter commission will bring in paid political consultants and the databases that show how we voted for last many election. I know it happened for the override vote, and have no doubt will happen now.
@Neil P: At least on this blog, folks representing all positions are encouraged to participate. It’s unfortunate that Charlie didn’t strive to do the same when he assembled the guests for his usually engaging TV program.
@Mike: I dig intensity. I just believe Charlie erred by not inviting a diversity of views onto his show. If nothing else, echo chambers make for dull viewing.
As for the NVA buying Facebook ads 20 months before any vote, well that’s just strikes me as curious.
You can find the audio, documentation, agendas, and minutes for each meeting on the Charter Commission webpage on the City of Newton website (http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/chartercommission). In addition, the first 20 minutes of each meeting is set aside for public comment. We will meet on Wednesday, May 11 to review Article 1.
It looks more like the intent of the ad is to promote the NewtonForum site rather than in issue ad.
Jerry, I think you’re both right. The ad is promoting the site, but it’s hard to separate the NewtonForum from its political agenda, especially when this particular post is highlighted.
Perhaps the NVA has purchased ads to promote other threads on their blog and I’ve missed them. (Two people told me that they saw this particular ad.) But the particular thread they were advertising yesterday is the one from nearly one month ago that originally had the shooting targets over the faces of eight aldermen and espouses the conspiracy theory that the “white gloved, hatted, League Ladies” are running the Commission.
Since the commission is taking straw votes on each issue as they go along, which to me seems to have happened too early in the process, it’s certainly reasonable for residents who disagree with the outcome to try to pursuade others to agree with them instead of the commission.
The Ward Councilors and residents who want to keep their representation will fight this part to the end.
I am beginning to think the commission got it right on this issue.
Agree with Marti.
If the ads foster greater awareness and interaction between residents andCharter Commission members on this and other issues under consideration, all the better.
The worst outcome is one where reforms get rejected by the voters because their preferences are determined too late in the process to make appropriate changes. There are no right answers here, and I’m sure the Commission would rather know now if there is broad opposition to a particular proposal– that’s presumably one of the points of the strawvotes and transparency.
Charter Commission members can correct me if I don’t have that right.
It’s important to note that the charter review process is different from that of other boards and commissions because the timeline is governed by Mass. state law. We have to send the draft of a revised charter to the Attorney General for a review that takes about 6 months. So the straw votes serve several purposes. First, each article deserves close attention and with this approach, we’re able to devote time to specific issues and make preliminary decisions and still remain within the timeline. Then at a certain point at a later date (I don’t have the dates off the top of my head), we’ll put the pieces of the governmental puzzle back together and study it to ensure that it works as an integrated whole. If it needs adjustments, we’ll make them.
Secondly, while it appears that no one believes us, we don’t communicate with one another between meetings. That means I enter Room 211 without knowing where anyone stands on a particular issue unless someone has stated the position publicly, and even those stances have changed over time. We then proceed in our discussion and take a straw vote. At the following meeting, we may decide to revisit an issue at a later date for a variety of reasons.
Paul is on the mark – there are no right answers so we talk to people who hold a wide range of opinions. Anyone who speaks to me personally in any format – via email, the phone, over coffee, in the produce department of Star Market – has my ear. And now I’m off to enjoy Mother’s Day with my family and a happy one to everyone to all the mothers who live in V14!
@Jane-
Are you saying that a 9-0 staw vote should not be taken as representative of what the commission’s collective feeling is now and what a later vote might be? Uhmmm.
@Paul-
You make some very valid points, although I think that eliminating a voter’s most localized representative is, in fact, a wrong answer.
About a third to halfway into the Newsmakers program, Peter Harrington makes a credible speculation on why some might wish to eliminate Ward Councilors.
Meanwhile…..Happy Mothers Day to all! 🙂
I never said that. If you’d like to discuss the issue, Charlie, you know how to get in touch with me.
I tried posting a comment on the NVA newtonforum.org blog, but apparently they are now moderating comments so I do not see them posted. I used my real name and I was polite and everything! What gives, NVA?b
Same thing happened to me, Tef.
@Jane-
Happy to chat 1-1 anytime, but since this blog reaches many more people, it’s good to have clarity presented in a public fashion.
When you have time, please clarify what you were trying to say? I’m sorry if I mis-read the context. It came across as kind of like a pat on the head….. “..don’t worry… this is just an initial discussion, things could change later.”
But then there’s that 9-0 straw vote. Sends up huge red flags.
Better yet, why not invite a charter commissioner to appear on Newton Newsmakers?
Great, Charlie. I’m trying to contact you to set up a time to chat.
Greg has a great idea. A charter commissioner should appear on Newton Newsmakers with people who think ward Councilors should continue.
Jane, the 98% of the voting public does not want to watch CC meetings. The good news is (I think) the public supports term limits and reducing the board size. The bad news is that everyone I know (except people on the CC) disagrees with eliminating the ward councilors.
Maybe term limits and a reduction in size is enough to convince the public to vote affirmatively for the revised charter, but why risk it? No significant change will get councilor support. If the CC wants to play it safe, they will either forget eliminating ward councilors or make a strong, articulate case to the voters.
I’m very open to the idea of having one or more Charter Commissioners on a future program.
@Jeffrey- You’re right on target. I think one of the reasons the Ward Councilor elimination idea is so shocking to people is the lack of any well-stated logic surrounding it. It puts judgement and motive into question. That should never be the case and it’s not fair to the individuals involved nor the voters of Newton.
I think the Newton Forum blog is now blocking comments they don’t agree with. That’s ok, it’s their blog. But it does reinforce the fact that it is a blog seeking a certain point of view….
As for Charlie’s program, I view it the same way. Charlie has an agenda, he’s honest about it on this blog and he clearly believes that it is a big mistake to eliminate or change ward councilors. That’s ok too in my mind. But I also don’t view Charlie as an impartial journalist, more like an editorialist or opinion writer. So I wouldn’t expect a balanced panel.
I will say that I like discussion, not echo chambers. If everyone agrees, kinda boring. But there is certainly time for more discussions on all this.
@fignewtonville, I agree. It is their blog, but if they want to be taken seriously, they will have to acknowledge and allow dissenting points of view.
Jeffrey-Please be assured that we listen to all perspectives. In my many conversations with people from a variety of constituencies, I’ve heard a wide range of opinions on this topic, from those who want the Council to remain as it is to those who want 8 Councilors all at-large. I don’t hear a prevailing opinion on this issue at this point.
I spoke to Chris Pitts yesterday. He said that they have been having some problem on NewtonForum that he’s been trying to track down. He mentioned that Ted, Jane and a few others were having sporadic problems getting their comments on the site but he was clear that none of that had anything to do with filtering content or views but was a technical issue that he was hoping to figure out soon.
… he also said that those Facebook ads were indeed intended to just promote the site in general rather than being “issue ads”.
My comments on V14 were filtered for several months last year- Greg sometimes put them through, sometimes didn’t. He also pointed to system issues.
@ Ted:
Well now you know how it feels. The Newton Tab not only moderated my comments when Greg and Gail were there on occassion, but Andy Levine stopped publishing them all together( until his blog went bust), and would never even have the courtesy to explain why. The comments were polite and all, just dissenting.
Just a few weeks ago, Village14 moderated my comments for a few hours.
It is pretty lame if you ask me, but these are the type of people you are dealing with.
Can only tolerate dissent when it is abstract, when it hits home to their views, it suddenly is intolerable for them.
@Neal:
I’m sorry to hear that Andy Levin is meaner to you than I was.
@Charlie: I can remember during a previous school committee debate on a new high school, when people would bring up a particular concern, they were told it was premature; when they brought it up again later, they were told it was too late, the discussion on that point had passed.
If the commission is taking a straw vote at the end of discussion of a matter, it should be considered a strong indicator of how they plan to proceed. There is very little reason to expect them to suddenly change course, unless public sentiment appears to be resistant to the idea.
I have read a member of the Commission being dismissive of the opinions on this Blog, suggesting it was a tiny sampling, and not necessarily representative of the greater community. It seems any comments could be construed in this manner.
Yes Village 14 has been mean to both Paul and Neal.
How blessed the readers of this blog are that they continue to grace your presence in spite of our transgressions.
Neil-I apologize if I came across as dismissive. It wasn’t my intent. I meant to convey that no one constituency or group of individuals represents the community. The Charter Commission need to listen to all perspectives.
@Greg Reibman – I think you just pinned the needle on the Village 14 snarkometer
I think I’ve had a comments delayed a few times over the years on Village 14, but I do think it was technical issues, once with my email address. Considering the level of back and forth here, I think in general this has been the most wide open blog I’ve seen. Definitely more open to opposing opinion than the Newton Forum. I think I’ve seen a few folks here post in both places, but mostly it is folks agreeing with each other.
Can’t speak towards the Tab Blog, I post here instead.
And as for Paul/Neal, I hope they continue to post. Considering how often they both post, the blocking can’t be that effective… 😉
@Gail-
You just weren’t trying hard enough 🙂
@Greg and Gail: It isn’t a question of being mean, it is about being unwilling to face up to criticism. When any of you refuse to publish a comment, solely because you don’t like it, or more importantly, it questions your level of “fairness” it exposes something in you. Even now, you don’t want to face it. I am happy to discuss either public or privately, we can pull up all my comments, and you can explain what the rationale was for moderating it. The assumption by many is that a “journalist” would be more inclined to be protective of everyone’s “free speech”, but in practice it doesn’t seem to hold.
I don’t remove comments because I disagree with the views expressed there and neither do the other moderators here. In fact, the whole point of this blog is to present a platform where people can discuss and debate issues related to Newton. Eliminating deserting views makes no sense.
We do remove comments that don’t follow our commenting rules and Neal there have been times when your comments have crossed the line.
For the record, there have been times when my comments have crossed the line too and one of my fellow Village 14 bloggers have removed them, unless I’ve done so first.
Neal, clearly you do not appreciate or agree with the way this site operates (or perhaps you just don’t like Gail and me). Either way, it does lead me to wonder why you contribute to something you find so “lame”?
Neal – I would like to hear more about these times that you say Village 14 or the Tab refused your comment because they disagreed with it. I see lots of dissenting opinions on both blogs and even some just wrong things stated by some as facts. Yet they are published. But I would believe you would be censored for not including a valid email or if you made a personally derogatory comment.
@Greg:
In every case you placed me on “moderation” you eventually posted my comment, so your logic you present does not make sense.
This blog is more than just you, Greg, I participate for the interaction with my neighbors, despite the lame actions taken by those that abuse what “power” they have to control publishing comments.
@Alicia:
If you like I would be happy to forward you the exchange I had with Andy Levin, over not publishing my comments. You are simply wrong, in your belief that comments are only censored for violating published rules.
I have no idea which withheld comments Neal is talking about. But as many participants here know (including folks who agree and disagree with me) sometimes comments go into moderation for known or unknown reasons. (Certain keywords can trigger it; my favorite example from years ago was when we couldn’t figure out why someone couldn’t post a comment about the blues guitarist John Lee Hooker and Sallee Lipshutz can tell you about her experiences.) I do see that Neal recently changed his IP address and comments submitted under a new IP address will always be held up.
But really, this is a silly conversation, given that it seems Neal is really mad at Andy Levin, not Village 14, first saying he has no idea why Andy blocked him from the TAB Blog and then offering to send Alicia emails from Andy explaining why he was blocked.
Over and out.
I certainly haven’t seen all the comments that have been pulled. The ones that I have though did seem like clear violations of our commenting rules … at least to my censorious eyes 😉
BTW you wouldn’t believe a few of the ones that have fortunately never seen the light of day.
@Greg
“I don’t remove comments because I disagree with the views expressed there and neither do the other moderators here.”
Greg– you did remove a post of mine last year that was decrying your behavior on the blog, and you asked me to reach out to you directly to resolve the matter.
Last February or April vacation. That also began the several month period that I could not post at all without a moderation filter.
For the record.
Sounds to me like Greg was offering to explain his thoughts on your post, Paul. Did you contact him personally?
He removed the post Gail. There wasn’t an excuse for that.
BTW – in regard to the headline above, I do think you have it wrong.
NewtonForum has a lot of people contributing to it. Without a doubt some number of the writers are members of the NVA. Also without a doubt some number are not, including Sallee Lipshutz who contributes to both Village14 and NewtonForum (a switchhitter).
NewtonForum is Chris Pitts’ personal project much like Village14 was Greg Reibman and Sean Roches personal project. Just like Greg and Sean, Chris certainly has personal opinions on all manners of Newton issues and cares deeply about the city.
So yes there’s plenty of folks sympathetic to the NVA, especially Chris, but I think its wrong to label it as the NVA blog, particularly for the contributors who have no affiliation with the NVA.
@Jerry: I respect your perspective and going forward will no longer refer to NewtonForum as the NVA blog.
@Paul: If you were being forthright with the readers of this blog, you would acknowledge that your comments were removed because they violated our commenting rules.
Regardless, no one forces you to participate here but if you do choose to continue to participate here, I’d respectfully ask you to move on.
This thread is closed.
I agree with Jerry. If the ad says “Newton Forum,” call it “Newton Forum.” If it says “NVA” call it “NVA.” Are we going to call V14 the “Newton-Needham Chamber blog?”
I notice the title of this thread still says “NVA runs paid Facebook ads to oppose eliminating ward councilors” even tho Jerry Reilly reported 15 hours ago that Chris Pitts told him the ads were designed merely to promote NewtonForum.