According to City Clerk David Olson, the unofficial count for yesterday’s municipal election shows 6,154 out of 54,972 registered voters cast ballots. That makes the unofficial voter turnout 11.2 percent.
Yesterday’s voter turnout
by Nathan Phillips | Sep 18, 2013 | Elections | 46 comments
The election in Nov. will be similar. People who don’t vote feel their vote is meaningless. I am one of those people. A narrow slice of the electorate in Newton control tax increases and how money is allocated. The majority of voters feel their needs are neglected.
Of those 6,000 voters who vote I would say most of them directly benefit from city spending. The rest do not and are quickly selling their homes and leaving the city and many are leaving the state as well.
Unless you never leave your house and then refuse to use the city’s water and sewer system, then you do in fact benefit from city spending. And actually, as public safety services exist for the possibility that you or your neighbors may need assistance, you would still then benefit from city spending. And obviously, if you do leave your house, walk on a sidewalk and proceed to drive on a street, then you would be a power-user of city services and spending.
And if you did opt to sell your home, you would benefit from the high valuation that is in large part driven by the motivation of house buyers who want to move to Newton to leverage the school system as well as other city services.
It would seem that everyone benefits from City spending. But obviously, many just did not bother to vote.
If it’s true that “A narrow slice of the electorate in Newton control tax increases and how money is allocated” then the solution is to get the rest of the electorate out to vote. If less than a majority of the Newton electorate approves of tax increases, such as overrides, then they’ll lose override elections.
Election fatigue.
Colleen,
Just because you don’t feel like your one vote counts, it does!
In addition, our country has had many people die in the name of freedom, the right to vote, etc. I vote in every election, because I want to make sure that I exercise my right to vote. People DIED so that I could vote. This is important to me.
Even more important to me, is that women can vote. My grandmother remembered the time before women could vote! I am equal to any man, and my vote counts. Women have the power. . . we can be mom’s, we can be mayors, we can be president of the United States and WE CAN VOTE.
One last thing, before I get off my soap box 🙂
Back in 2002, when the vote for Newton North took place, I was pregnant, and I was concerned that I could be in labor on the day of the election (yes, I take my right to vote VERY seriously). I asked for an absentee ballot and cast my vote. As I recall, the vote was very tight (200 votes separated the two sides). AND, I went into labor early, and was in the hospital on election day. I had voted, and felt good that I got my vote in, especially since that was the tightest race I had ever voted in before (or since).
Your vote counts.
I understand that you might not like the people running, and you have to choose between two not great choices (I have done that before Silber vs Weld), but I still voted. I still cast my vote.
If people don’t vote, aren’t they in effect “voting” for the status quo?
Like Newton Mom, I’ve always voted, even when it’s not convenient. BUT, I didn’t pay close attention to local politics, until the Newton North fiasco. That mobilized me, and a bunch of others, to get involved beyond just voting, and we worked hard to deny the then mayor the opportunity to spend more money unwisely [by helping defeat that override].
When things are going well, folks are perhaps more cavalier about voting, I guess on that theory that “it’s only one vote.” But change can and does occur when there’s a lot of “I’m only one vote” folks getting together to multiply their effect.
Newton Mom, unfortunately Dan worked hard to give this mayor the opportunity to spend more money unwisely instead of enacting real fiscal reforms.
Because Dan Fahey did everything he could to see the 2013 override pass, Newton’s general fund spending growth will be higher under Setti Warren than under David Cohen.
David Cohen:
FY 2002: $204.2M
FY 2010: $287.5M
Spending Increase $83.3M
Setti Warren:
FY 2010: $287.5M
FY 2018: $379.3M (Projected)
Spending Increase $91.8M
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/47016
In David Cohen’s last eight years, he only had one year (FY 2009) in which general fund expenditures exceeded revenues. Setti Warren had three years (FY 2010, 2011 & 2012). Newton CFO Maureen Lemieux explained to me how a city can comply with the requirement for a balanced budget even when expenditures exceed revenues by drawing down accumulated reserves. Furthermore, Newton is projected to rack up a $10M deficit in FY 2018 even with the $11.4M/year from the override package.
Voter turnout has been on a steady decline for a number of years and left alone this trend will continue on its downward slope. A newcomer on the Newton campaign trail, I feel that there is a lot of work that can be done to change this direction. The theme has always been that if you want to win you have to deliver the vote, and the assumption was that people would come out to vote. Interestingly enough a good number of residents don’t understand our local governance practices such as the candidate signature gathering process, and the structure of our city government. The time is now to realize that more effort has to be put into this and that work must be done by both government and community groups to inform the voters and entice them back to the polls. There are simple things that could be implemented such as the Mayor’s office asking businesses that own outdoor digital signs to start displaying the election date ahead of time, and then on election day asking them to display “Vote Today;” reverse 911 calls as an election day reminder (would eliminate a lot pre-election nuisance calls); notices through the school communications networks; possible creative polling locations in well-travelled destinations to include retailers, are amongst some ideas. Newton has a highly educated and concerned state and national voting block, and we need to channel this energy into local politics. Just think, take out the party committees, and active voter groups, and probably no one would show up. It’s time to reinvigorate the electorate!!!!
Great points Jim!
I’m so glad that you are running for Ward 3 Alderman At-Large instead of Gerry Chervinsky!
http://village14.com/netwon-ma/2013/07/just-in-chervinsky-backs-out-of-ward-3-alderman-at-large-race/#comment-35100
Joshua,
Excuse me for asking…..after reading your response…..I don’t understand it. I was writing that voters should vote and your response is to give me numbers and figures. I realize you didn’t like the candidates….but I assume you voted? Right? Were you part of the 11%? If so, then I am fine with you casting your vote….I am not fine with people telling me they didn’t vote because no one was good enough for their vote. If you don’t like the candidates, we all have the opportunity to run for office.
Of course I voted Newton mom.
The response I gave you was comparing and contrasting Dan Fahey’s active support for the 2013 override with his rhetoric about how he worked hard to defeat the 2008 override.
Dan Fahey, Jeff Seideman and Newton for Fiscal Responsibility worked hard to deny David Cohen the opportunity to spend more money unwisely by helping defeat the 2008 override.
Dan Fahey then went on to form his own activist group Newton 20/20 and Newton 20/20 raised the following issues during the 2009 municipal general election:
Municipal Compensation (Fahey felt the wage freeze didn’t go far enough and wanted cuts to benefit spending)
The School Budget (Fahey demanded that the Newton School Committee produce a markedly different and leaner budget)
Special Education (Fahey was concerned that SPED spending increased by 6.8% and that Jeff Young and the School Committee had blinders on regarding SPED)
OPEB (Fahey was alarmed that Newton had a $400+ million OPEB liability)
Despite the fact that Fahey and Jeff Seideman served on Setti’s transition team, it didn’t change anything as the things Fahey complained about only got worse in 2012-13, when he & Jeff Seideman gave their hechsher to Rob Gifford and Setti Warren’s override:
Municipal Compensation grew by $30M annually in Setti’s first term
The School Budget (Fahey demanded that the Newton School Committee produce a markedly different and leaner budget yet it grew by $24.4M in Setti’s first term)
Special Education (Fahey was concerned that SPED spending increased by 6.8% and that Jeff Young and the School Committee had blinders on regarding SPED. Yet SPED spending increased by another $10M/year during Setti’s first term)
OPEB (Fahey was alarmed that Newton had a $400+ million OPEB liability. Yet OPEB has increased by $71M in Setti Warren’s first term and $170M since he wrote his article expressing alarm about OPEB).
I emphatically disagree with Dan Fahey’s rhetoric about how Setti Warren put Newton’s fiscal house in order. Fortunately for me, the data in Newton’s financial and operating reports backs up my thesis and concludes that Dan Fahey is 100% wrong.
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1890063597/Newton-residents-form-pro-override-campaign
I can conclude that because Dan Fahey did everything he could to see the 2013 override pass, it resulted in Mayor Warren getting the greenlight to spend more money unwisely instead of reforming Newton’s fiscal sacred cows.
I was out of town and missed this vote. Like Newton Mom, I take voting pretty seriously as a civic duty. Given the field of candidates I’m not surprised how the vote went, and I’m not opposed to Mayor Warren being re-elected. I just wish that the overrides had been voted down.
Isnt it ironic that Seidman supported this override and then sells his house and moves to Waltham where the taxes are reasonable and they pick up ALL your trash. Obviously he supported the Mayor and his override because he knew he would not have to be paying this increase in taxes.
What is ironic is that someone would choose to live here in Newton and then spend every moment on this blog complaining about it.
I am sure that I am not the only one who is tired of hearing these lame, ad hominem comments regarding Dan Fahey and Jeff Seideman. I don’t know the latter well, but I do know Dan, and he is a stand-up guy and class act. When he led the opposition to the override in 2008, it was based on a principle, that the current administration should not be provided more revenue as it had mis-managed the NNHS project. It was not “no taxes should ever be raised under any circumstances.”
You may disagree with that principle, which places you in a minority position in this City; but that is your prerogative. However, it does not entitle any of you to carry on with these personal rants against Dan or anyone else. He is not a public figure. He is a citizen, who has stood up for what he believed in. So, in the name of decency: Can it. And if you can not do that, I would ask that Greg or the other members of Village14 to consider a policy that would end this nonsense.
Dan Fahey not being a candidate or public person should put a stop to this himself w some simple legal letters. Tricia should have done more.. visit the police station with a stalker report.
No Bill, some of us long-time Newton residents are tired of left-wing extremists moving in to our community and voting to raise taxes in order to underwrite wasteful spending. We’re tired of people moving into our community, taking whatever they need and sticking long-time Newton residents with the bill. They don’t have to pay the full costs of the decisions they make. Why did you move here from Michigan?
http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/negative-externality.php
My above remarks about Dan Fahey were not ad hominem. Disproving Dan Fahey’s thesis about about things changing through verifiable data is not ad hominem. Your remarks are either grossly inaccurate or willfully deceptive.
During this override campaign, I proposed $11.5 million in annual revenue inflow alternatives instead of raising taxes:
Full Reimbursement for Out-of-District students: $7 million annually (Jeff Seideman gave lip service to this one)
Naming rights: $2.1 million annually
Ending CPA Tax Surcharge in exchange for the Angier & Cabot debt exclusions: $2.5 million (Jeff Seideman actually gave lip service to this one too)
When you were on the Board of Alderman, what exactly did you do to move these initiatives forward? These reforms would have brought in $11.5 million annually and underwritten the recent override without raising taxes, which effectively serves to push up rents and mortgage payments.
Your rhetoric about “no taxes should ever be raised under any circumstances.” is either grossly inaccurate or willfully deceptive. Newton’s property taxes increase by nearly 4% annually through the basic 2.5% levy growth plus new growth, which lately has come primarily from the tear down and redevelopment of northside homes. Why is Proposition 4 a constraint in Newton’s budget? Why isn’t COMPETITION the constraint? Newton’s structural spending problem and $1 BILLION of interest bearing liabilities would be solved the minute we introduce COMPETITION into city government and in particular the schools.
No personal rants against Dan here. I disagree with his conclusions and I back up my thesis with verifiable data from city and state reports. As for Dan not being a public figure, Bill Heck would disagree with that thesis. As for Dan being a citizen who stood up for what he believed in, I’m following his lead. Only difference is that I’m more consistent in advocating for fiscal reform, responsibility and stewardship than he is.
Asking for consistency and accountability is not ad hominem. You ran against Christine Samuelson because you felt she was unaccountable. Why are you taking issue with me for asking for the same accountability that you demanded in your first aldermanic run?
I don’t know why I bother to dignify “Hoss’s” posts.
As for “Tricia”, I was doing the same thing Jeff Seideman did with Gerry Chervinsky.
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/newton/2011/11/11/chervinsky-comes-clean-about-his-newton-tab-identities/#axzz2fIniIijb
As for Dan Fahey, he believes that he has grievances with me and I definitely have grievances with him. I have no problem sitting down with him either individually or with Bill and Suzanne joining us in order to hash them out via a platform of mutual engagement. Since he has things he’d want to address and there are things I need addressed, we’d at least be on an even playing field. Maybe it would open up a meaningful dialogue?
For what it’s worth, I’ve made it abundantly clear both on the blog before and in a private communication that I will not engage with Joshua until/unless he learns to be respectful [to me and others].
For what it’s worth, I offered to communicate with Dan Fahey in a peaceable, constructive, mutually engaging level playing field in order to solve our differences in the hopes of building a mutual respect and understanding and he arrogantly brushed me off.
I was more than willing to listen to him express his grievances to me and more than willing to solve them. The only thing I wanted was to express my grievances to him and have them solved.
Joshua,
“We’re tired of people moving into our community, taking whatever they need and sticking long-time Newton residents with the bill. ”
I believe that is an “I” statement. Because I have a totally different opinion, and I am open to listening to what a leader (mayor/alderman) is proposing before I decide on how I think of it. I believe you hear “spend money” and you are against the idea.
I moved here in 1997, and I believe I am staying for the long haul (married a Newton guy), but I don’t have a problem paying for things that I believe are important to me. . . . and each of us can have an individual opinion.
Newton Mom,
I disagree with your assessment of my statement. Bill Heck and others have raised that issue.
I have no problem with the city spending money. I have a problem with rents and mortgage payments going up due to higher taxes in excess of the Proposition 2.5 limits.
I have a problem with a mayor and his acolytes pushing for $11.4M/year in new taxes when he increased compensation spending by $30M/year in his first term. If he increased compensation by $18.6M/year, it would have funded the override package without raising taxes.
Bill Brandel challenged me to focus on the future options with my research report on the pensions and I stepped up and delivered big time. There are a number of ways that Newton can fund its future school building projects (Ward, Williams and Pierce) without raising taxes or cutting jobs, programs, services and compensation:
Future compensation growth at 2% vs. 2.5% for the next two 3-year union contracts. This also eases pension liability growth (~$7M/year run rate savings by year 5)
Increased reimbursement for out-of-district students (~$7M/year annual inflows)
Naming rights ($2.1M/year annual inflows)
Reforming accessory apartments ($1M/year annual inflows)
I have a problem with a mayor and his acolytes pushing for a $11.4M/year tax package to deal with overcrowding in schools when Newton has 500+ students from outside Newton, which Newton taxpayers fund at more than $7M net of state aid. This seems nuts when Newton pays ~$13M to send ~200 students out of district, costing ~$65K per student. Newton taxpayers pay both ways; it was very unfair to have an override. Let Boston have the override.
I question the rhetoric about Newton having its financial house in order when it has $1B in interest-bearing liabilities yet it has poor infrastructure.
I have a problem with being criticized for asking for accountability and consistency from city government.
You may not have a problem paying for things that you believe are important to you. However, you’re not paying the full cost of the programs and services that you prioritize. You’re getting the full benefit, but other people are paying most of the cost.
Oh my.
Sorry folks. Been busy with my day job.
I agree Josh Norman’s stalker-like infatuation with non-public figure citizens is disturbing and, well, creepy. I’m also aware that it likely stifles public comment from every day folks — and perhaps elected officials — who probably are reluctant to comment for fear of being badgered.
As I’ve said before, moderating this volunteer blog is a challenge because of the time constraints of our team of hosts.
So yes we could (a) block all of Josh Norman’s comments (b) have them all go into moderation until someone here reads them and approves them one by one (c) leave it the way it is and grit our teeth or (d) Josh could knock it off and just limit his comments to discussions of issues and his brilliant analytical skills.
I’m open to other suggestions.
P.S. Now is the part where Josh comes on and complains about how I’m the one that does the attacking, how I’ve been seen having coffee with Rob Gifford, how I used to work for a company that is now in bankruptcy, blah, blah, blah.
Greg Reibman, no stalking here.
All I do is ask for accountability and consistency. I ask that people’s rhetoric matches up with their record.
Why are elected officials and community activists afraid of being held accountable when their campaign rhetoric doesn’t match up with their record of results?
I sought a truce with Dan Fahey and to address any issues and grievances that he had. If Dan Fahey wants to reject my overtures for conflict resolution on an engaging level playing field to facilitate solving our differences in the hopes of building a mutual respect and understanding, I’ll manage.
I wasn’t expecting you to serve up a few dishonest ad hominems and red herrings but no matter.
Somewhere along the line, I don’t know exactly when, too many Americans started thinking of themselves first as consumers rather than as citizens.
You see it in the way so many Americans can’t name even two supreme court justices, but know almost every judge on American Idol.
You see it in the number of people who have told me they don’t have even a minute to discuss a particular candidate I may be canvassing for. The sad thing is that I think a lot of powerful people, in commerce, government and the media prefer it this way.
You see it in the small number of people who turn out to vote in municipal elections and how little most of them know about issues and policies affecting them and their families.
A lot of ink has been spilled questioning why Tom, Jackie and even Ted decided to challenge a popular and successful mayor and some of the things they might have said or done differently in the campaign. I’m a strong supporter of the Mayor’s reelection, but I have nothing but admiration for any citizen that will step forward and do something like this. It takes real courage to put yourself in a public fishbowl under these circumstances and all three candidates, whether you agree with them or not, have shown real courage in the past for unpopular or controversial issues they have championed. They have worked and advocated the way good citizens should for what they see as the public good.
I agree wholeheartedly with Bob Burke’s post.
Brian Yates once mentioned to me how although there were folks who at least knew who the high profile elected officials were (President, Senator, Governor and Congressional Rep) very few people knew who Newton’s elected officials were. Fortunately for Brian and all Newtonites, he has a solid, long-term record of constituent service for Newton’s residents.
I know who the Mayor and my ward representatives are, plus some of the higher profile aldermen and school committee members are. With 24 aldermen, there’s no way I’m going to keep track of every one of them.
I grew up in New York City, which is two orders of magnitude larger than Newton, and only had 7 elected city officials to be aware: Mayor, Comptroller and 5 borough presidents!
Greetings from beautiful, sunny Waltham.
Yes, Joanne, I’ve moved out of Newton and now live in Waltham. Nearly everything else you and Josh have said is utter houey.
When I was still living in Newton I stopped wasting my time trying to explain to Josh how city finances, human nature, journalism and the political process work. To no avail. I finally gave up trying.
Just to set the record straight, here’s my personal situation. Long before I knew I was moving I was supporting Setti’s override request. Dan and I were opposed to Cohen’s override request for a whole host of reasons, but the most significant is that he wasn’t managing the city’s finance well. He didn’t deserve another penny. When Cohen was in office, city comptroller Dave Wilkinson told everyone who would listen that Cohen’s financial trend (revenue minus expenditures) would require an override EVERY YEAR to close the gap. (And Josh tries to tell us that the financial picture under Cohen versus Warren was a rosy one!)
Setti, on the other hand, with the cojones to renegotiate all the city’s labor contracts (which account for more than 80% of city expenses) saved Newton $178 million over five years as compared to where we’d be under Cohen’s policies.
If we didn’t pass an override in 2011, we’d have to pay for all the extra teachers to educate all the extra kids, and pay for all the capital expenses by taking the money out of the operating budget and laying off employees or cutting programs. Remember, under Cohen and Mann before him, the city failed to maintain schools and buildings in favor of supplying extra services. But you can only delay a leaky roof for so long before it needs major repairs. Under Concannon we found out that savings from long delayed maintenance cost six times as much when repairs have to be made. (Others say the multiple is closer to 25:1.)
My personal situation is that my wife and I were empty nesters. There were two of us in a five bedroom house. Some aspects of my personal life changed, we had an attractive offer to buy our house as is, without a real estate agent, and the housing market was finally improving. So we moved. We first looked all over Newton for a condo that was right for us, but we couldn’t afford them. Finally we found what we were looking for in Waltham…at least $100,000 less that what a similar home would cost us in Newton.
The difference in taxes alone between our condo and what we were paying in Newton is about $8,000 per year. As our kids were out of the school system and more than half of all taxes goes to the school system, by staying in Newton I was donating about $7,000 per year to the schools. (Every homeowner without kids in the schools makes a similar donation.) That’s $35,000 over five years. (Also, when we left we donated a $4,000 baby grand piano to the Newton school system. It sits in Newton South now.) So I don’t think I have to apologize to anyone for making the fiscally wise decision to move.
It’s your right to live in Josh’s fiscal lala land. But just understand that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. As I said, I long ago gave up trying to help him understand.
You are fortunate to have sane, publicly spirited people in Newton like Dan Fahey and Bill Brandel. Listen to what they have to say.
One other thing, Joanne. I pay for my own garbage pickup. Waltham doesn’t collect from condo developments.
No Josh, not the same thing at all. Jeff called out a public figure who was using several sockpuppets, pretending to be someone else, against the blog’s TOS. I’ve never posted as anyone other than myself, and you posted my full name on a blog that allows anonymous posting. Creepy.
Tricia, I disagree.
MGWA, the one good thing about Newton’s electoral structure is that at least it is supposed to be a part-time job. I worry what would happen if Newton had full-time legislative bodies like the Board of Aldermen or School Committee.
Greg Reibman — Have you considered handing over the passwords and starting a shopping blog? This is freaky when someone is going out of their way 24/7 looking up the internet footprint on anyone and everyone. One can only hope under obamacare changes, certain meds are affordable/available.
Jeff, most of everything you said here is utter hooey.
However, your move to Waltham gave me the best argument against a 2018 override.
We had some interesting exchanges about how how city finances, human nature, journalism and the political process work. I even researched your 2009 aldermanic campaign platform. Unfortunately, you didn’t have anything there that I didn’t already find out myself. Still, I gave you a lot of credit for a few useful nuggets. However, Bill Heck turned out to be more resourceful and less judgemental than you.
I never said that Cohen had a rosy financial picture. I’m saying and have said that Newton’s financial picture was lousy under David Cohen and it has been exacerbated under Setti Warren.
As for Setti renegotiating the labor contracts, are you talking about the contracts that expired in 2009 and were being renewed in one year stop-gap contracts?
During the 2008-2009 period, you and Dan Fahey complained about the 80% that goes to fund compensation & out-of-district SPED. Newton still spends 80% of its budget on compensation & out-of-district SPED and you and Dan Fahey eagerly supported Setti’s override.
You and Dan complained about these other unresolved issues
Newton’s OPEB Deficit ($433M when Dan wrote about it, $602.3M now)
Newton school budget ($159M when Dan wrote about it, $188M now)
Non-resident students (507 when you and Dan fought the override, 538 now)
Pension Deficit ($190M when you and Dan fought the override, $244M now)
SPED ($41M when you and Dan fought the override, $62M now. At least you verified the veracity and accuracy of the SPED Review)
Your organization Newton for Fiscal Responsibility also complained about how Newton’s teachers were making more than other districts yet getting weaker MCAS scores during the 2008 override as well
Anyone who claims Setti Warren saved $178M is dishonest or bad at math. Newton’s annual spending increased by nearly $44M under Setti’s first term.
If we didn’t pass an override in 2013, we’d have to get serious about dealing with the sacred cows of Newton’s budget
You have the right to your own opinions but not your own facts. You & Dan made the 2008 override a referendum on David Cohen and the 2013 override a referendum on Setti Warren. I’ll make the 2018 override a referendum on reforming Newton’s fiscal sacred cows. As I said, I found Bill Heck to be more knowledgeable and reliable than you.
You disagree, Josh? With what? Reality?
I disagree with your conclusion. You and Hoss were making snarky comments about me hiding behind anonymous names. And then you went on the warpath when I found out who you were.
If anything, you couldn’t help yourself because you made another insult towards me.
The comment of mine that Josh Norman quoted was intended as a statement of aldermanic humility, not hubris. As the distinguished San Francisco public servant Harold Callahan put it, “A man’s got know his limitations”. I think I know mine. Any one who wants to know a lot about record and my issues is welcome to visit my website http://www.brianyates.org.
A former New Yorker said that in that great Metropolis, he only had to be aware of 7 officials. –Mayor, Comptroller, and 5 Borough Presidents. Maybe the reason that this person left New York for Newton was that he or she was confused about the form of government there. The Mayor and the Comptroller are indeed elected at large. (Our Comptrolleer is appointed by the Board of Aldermen.) However, the Public Advocate is elected at Large. The Advocate must be of some importance because
the current incumbent Bill DeBlasio just won the Democratic nomination for Mayor to succeed Mayor Bloomberg. Via con Dios, Carlos Danger.
There are indeed 5 Borough Presidents in New York but each citizen can only vote for and be served by one. If you want to follow municipal legislation in New York, there are 51 Councillors elected in single districts, No at large legislators there.
And just to clarify things, the “Brian” who just started posting on this and other blogs is not me. I have always posted with my last name.
Brian Yates
Thank you Brian. I also interpreted your statement to show you were expressing a thoughtful concern that people didn’t know who you and your aldermanic colleagues were.
For the last time – I have never commented using any name other than my IRL first name. This blog (and that other Newton blog) do not require full names, just the consistent use of a single handle (in other words, no pretending to be someone you’re not, which is what GC did.). And I didn’t go on the warpath, whatever that means. Doxing someone who is abiding by the TOS of a blog is just plain creepy, and you were called on it.
Tricia, I didn’t have to go doxing, whatever that means. Did you make up that word? I merely guessed your name and it turned out I was right. I got lucky. You responded by belittling me and giving me attitude.
See Josh, this is why I stopped wasting my time on you.
1. You talk about a 2018 override as if it exists. It must be like your invisible pet rabbit Harvey. Only you can see Harvey and only you know there’ll be a 2018 override. Yet you talk about it like it’s real.
2. Newton’s financial picture is excellent under Mayor Warren, not lousy as you would suggest (I agree that it was lousy under Cohen.).
3. The city’s labor contracts were not renewed on a one year stop gap basis. Their savings continue today. Furthermore, expect new savings and significant changes (for the better) under the next round of contract negotiations.
4. Dan and I did not complain that the city’s labor cost was 80% of the budget. It still is. We complained that that portion of the budget was unsustainable and needed to be renegotiated, which it was under Setti.
5. Just talking with you about “80%” is a problem, in that it’s a rounded approximation. Yet you use it (to your advantage when it suits you) as accurate.
Gotta go now. I’ll be back to correct the rest of your nonsense later.
The attacks on this blog are why many of us choose to stay anonymous.
Brian – it’s been almost 40 years since I moved to Massachusetts and I never did vote in any local NY elections due to my age at the time of moving, so I might be fuzzy on some of the details. However, the position of Public Advocate didn’t exist until long after I left town (Wikipedia says it was instituted in 1993). Even with 51 councilors, that’s over 160,000 residents per councilor – almost 2 Newtons!
See Jeff, this is why I’m glad you’re now the founder of Waltham for Fiscal Responsibility
1. I talk about a 2018 override because Setti and Maureen are targeting one.
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/newton/2013/03/03/wenewton/iMCGb5XQGCDIJBevZj2Q0M/story.html
Jeff, if you are going to try to contradict my analysis and evaluation of Newton’s poor financial position, I would prefer it if you were to offer proof rather than unsourced rhetoric:
2. Newton is projecting annual budget deficits from 2014 to 2018 even when we include the impact of the override. Newton is projected to incur $32.4 million in cumulative deficits from FY 2014 to FY 2018 (Pages 32 and 33).
http://www.newtonma.gov/civicax/filebank/documents/47016
I didn’t make it up. Google is your friend, but doxing is revealing personally identifying information about someone on the internet to attack or intimidate them. How you got the information isn’t relevant. It’s wrong and it’s creepy.
Jeff, I should have been more clear about #3.
3. I was referring to the labor contracts from 2009 to 2011 with the school department (which accounts for the lion’s share of compensation spending), not the well-known 2011-2014 contracts. I think the municipal side may have had two year contracts from 2009 to 2011.
http://www3.newton.k12.ma.us/hr/collective-bargaining-agreements
I hope that the 2014-2017 labor contracts will enact deeper reforms, that way Newton can raise the money to fund Ward, Williams and Pierce from 2019 to 2023 without resorting to an override package.
If Newton engaged in fiscal reforms and used the money to fund the 2019-2023 CIP projects without override Prop 2.5 or by cutting jobs, salaries, programs & services, I’d be very excited. But Setti and Maureen will have to show me that one, not talk about it. So far, I’m not as optimistic about that as you based on Newton’s 5 Year Forecast that I highlighted above.
Tricia, I didn’t attack or intimidate you. Making an off-hand comment is not what I would consider attacking or intimidating someone.
Jeff, #4 & 5:
4. You and Dan Fahey highlighted the 80% in 2008 and 2009 when you were expressing concern about compensation. When Moving Newton Forward With Fiscal Responsibility formed, Suzanne and I had a meeting with the mayor. I brought up the 80%. I asked why should Newton residents pay a tax increase ostensibly for infrastructure when 80% of Newton’s budget goes to fund compensation & out of district SPED. I mentioned that if Newton paid 76% of its budget for compensation/out of district SPED, that would free up enough money to cover the override package projects and programs without raising taxes.
Claire Sokoloff asked me If I was looking to cut worker salaries. I said “I’m not looking to go that far, a 1% raise in the next union contract instead of 2.5% would accomplish reducing the compensation % while eliminate the need to raise taxes or cut jobs, salaries, programs, projects and services. Claire replied “Did you know that the unions agreed to defer their raises by 6 months”. I replied, “That’s why I’m not looking to make outright cuts in compensation.”
5. 80.43% of Newton’s citywide budget goes to compensation and out of district SPED and 91.2% of the Newton Public Schools’ budget goes to compensation and out of district SPED. I just verified that wasn’t a rounded approximation.
http://www3.newton.k12.ma.us/sites/default/files/users/44/superintendent%27s%20proposed%20fy14%20budget.pdf
You purposely posted my full name on this blog, in a thread I wasn’t even participating in! It was not “off-hand”, it was nasty and creepy, and that’s why your comment was removed. I am now officially joining Dan in that happy place where one does not engage with Joshua. I’ve had enough.
This thread is closed. My only regret is that I didn’t close it sooner.