The list of contributors to the PAC Garden City Coalition is now online (click on the “data” tab). Of the 11 named contributors, six are from Newton. More than $1,200 came from non-Newton residents who want to “elect candidates to keep the garden in the garden city.”
Garden City Coalition spent $2,849 on Oct. 27 for a mailing from Boyds Direct, which is interesting since it didn’t organize as a PAC until Nov. 2.
Let me beat Greg to pointing out that former Newton resident and occasional blogger Geoff Epstein contributed $200 to the Garden City Coalition PAC.
Yes but I will be the first to point out that Framingham resident Geoff Epstein was being, at best, disingenuous, when he clearly knew more about this PAC just before the election than he let on.
Oh well, Geoff was an ineffective Newton School Committee member and his financial support of this secret coalition proved ineffective as well.
I’m rather hurt that I know 2 of the contributors and I didn’t get an endorsement from this group, knowing the amount of time I spent on this . I don’t care if they didn’t actually make the endorsement. fah.
While I’m a little annoyed that no one came clean about the PAC prior to the election, at this point I’m just wondering why it was necessary to form a PAC. Why couldn’t they have just worked through the NVA? Or was the NVAs name so negative to a large portion of the populace that it was important to have a new entity?
I’m also wondering which of those 12 donors was the driving force behind the PAC and if it is going to continue for future elections.
Geoff Epstein was not an “ineffective” SC member. The word “data” was not uttered prior to his involvement. I guess that I just don’t understand why this pseudo “spotlight” journalistic effort didn’t occur before the election. And are you also tracking the donations of developers? That’s something that I would like to see.
@Gail: Proud to do that to help level the playing field.
@Greg:
Oh, Greggie, you do go on!
How about running a poll on whether I was an ineffective SC member?
Plus the DEMPAC is secretive. The Garden City Coalition is not. It has to report.
The DEMPAC doesn’t have to report anything.
I suspect that they use the electoral database maintained by the democrats to tip the playing field in all of the supposedly non-partisan races.
How about ramp up a focus on DEMPAC?
They pretty much got their slate elected for the city council apart from Jake and Brian, plus they have now stacked the Charter Commission so can try to control its scope.
Given the dominant position of DEMPAC in Newton election outcomes, it will be highly unlikely to see any charter reforms designed to afford a more level electoral playing field.
If the Charter Commission does not do a wide ranging digital survey of the community, including an opportunity for community members to provide free form suggestions, ideas and problem identification, they will be subject to a serious criticism that they are not really taking input.
If they simply have a bunch of meetings where folks have to turn up to give feedback, they won’t end up with much.
Look for the initial meetings of the Charter Commission to define scope and how they plan to gather input and do research. I’m assuming that all of the meetings will be open and posted.
There is a real danger with a DEMPAC dominated Charter Commission that they will narrow the scope and only end up with DEMPAC approved options for change and then jam those down the community’s throat with a DEMPAC supported get out the vote just like on 11/2 and we’ll have a worse situation. Look for them to throw out term limits on the SC, so they can keep better control of the SC.
One could go on.
But I think, Greggie, that you are the greatest hypocrite with this alarmist approach to the Garden City Coalition!!
I’ll also say that for me personally, $3000 is not a huge amount of money in an election, so I don’t want to go overboard on these folks or this PAC. I’m against unknown money in politics, so I’m always going to call out any PAC operating in Newton.
All that said, in retrospect, I’m sure it must be punishment enough that these fine folks wasted their cash in a very complete manner. Did anyone they endorsed in a competitive election actually get elected? For that matter, did anyone the NVA endorse get elected either?
Are we allowed to draw conclusions from that like certain NVA members did? 😉
Cue the TAB editorials!
Meanwhile…. Geoff Epstein donates $200, but what are the developers with millions in profits at stake
donating? Are there “journalists” covering this end of the story? Because it absolutely has consequence to anyone with a financial stake in Newton, i.e. anyone who owns a home here.
@KarenN: As has been stated on this blog many times, this is a volunteer community-run platform. All donations (including, by the way, donations to the Democratic party) are public record and are online and available for anyone to review (you can even search them if you have a Framingham-based ip address). If you discover something noteworthy, report in.
Oh and KarenN, I agree with this statement very much (bold added for emphasis)
So what about the non-residents who wrote checks to this secret PAC? What’s in it for them?
@Geoff Epstein
Hear, hear!
One note I should make is that of the DEMPAC dominated Charter Commission, I still have some faith that Brooke Lipsitt and Josh Krintzman will help steer the effort to best practices and a good outcome.
I have enough knowledge of how both of them think to know that they know what is at stake and will make a genuine effort to include all voices.
KarenN: It didn’t occur prior to the election because the Garden City Coalition PAC purposefully filed so that we couldn’t see before the election. That’s why a number of us are annoyed.
Geoff, you make it hard to defend you. I don’t always agree with you, but I’ve got no issue with you posting here, and I thought you made some very good points on the SC. Again, don’t always agree with you, but I like opposing viewpoints because it helps to sharpen my thinking.
I don’t think the DEMPAC actually exists the way you think it does. For instance, I talk to a lot of people. I think I probably talked to 30 or so voters about the election over the last month. A lot of them were practical progressives, which is sort of how I envision myself I guess. A lot of the candidates that won managed to reach to multiple bubbles of like minded folks. They went broad and appealed to the center AND left. Not saying they weren’t left of center, but they had wide appeal. Jake had wide appeal. He convinced Gail for instance.
For the Aldercritters, I think the strategy that Julia, Lynne, et all. took in functioning as a group was really an all or nothing approach. Either all of them were going to drive enough folks to the polls together, or they were going to be tied together and fail together. As the challenger you need to differentiate yourself from the incumbent, but I had a hard time voting for any of them because I viewed them as a group. Julia especially would have been more successful as a separate candidate.
I think what I’m saying is that it wasn’t DEMPAC that caused your candidates to lose. It was NVA-PAC. If DEMPAC exists it isn’t an organized force like you think. It just happens that a lot of folks think alike in Newton regarding progressive politics. But NVAPAC does clearly exist. There is a clear strong minority of folks who think like NVA does. They just don’t happen to be the majority. Perhaps some day they will be. But I think this election shows the limits of NVAPAC far more than DEMPAC’s strengths.
You can only drive so many folks to the polls because you are against something.
Geoff, agreed on Brooke and Josh.
KarenN, I actually doubt the developers gave more than $200, who ever they may be. That doesn’t mean they didn’t rally support in other ways, like hosting events, sending emails, etc. But lots of us did that too, no?
Geoff – I’m not really understanding the venom. I remember working very hard on your first election and supported you for a long time after that. And please remember I spent a year or so being the city goat over a little project on Walnut Street. But at some point you have to move on, let go of it.
As for being part of a PAC, the 8-day financial reports have been filed in City Hall and maybe you should check them out.
I have a question for Geoff from Framingham (the same person who complained about lack of transparency in Newton from the day he first ran for office until the day he announced his departure).
You were actively participating on Village 14 this past weekend and on the Monday and Tuesday before election day when the Garden City PAC was being discussed. Why did you not volunteer information about the group or that you were a donor? Why the lack of transparency?
As I see it, the problem with NVA and GCC is that we all know what they are against, but what are they for? They are for keeping things the same? Really? Things, including cities and charters change despite whether we want them to or not. It’s part of life and we can adopt to the changes or whine about the changes.
Second, when the commission starts up I hope we get to see who voted yea or nea on each issue, I hope thats made public by the commission. I hope they feel us watching them. I am nervous about atleast two of the committee members as to whether they will block advancement or not, but I am expecting big things from them as a group.
@Geoff – The Democratic City Committee is not secretive – it is very open in fact. All of our events are open to the public. The email list includes thousands of people and anyone can get on it if they ask.
@Janet – You know all of this, and you should know better. I don’t know why you insist on saying bad things about the organization you help run. I do not appreciate it.
FYI to all – I’m sick of hearing people on here bash Democrats and our elected leaders. You may think you’re right, and that’s fine. But it is pretty clear to everyone else who’s paying attention that the vast majority of the city does not agree with you.
Bryan,
I want to preface this statement by saying I used to be a democrat. But it’s the old school tactics that the dems played in this election was part of the reason why I left the party. This was suppose to be a community event with differing viewpoints and a complete discussion over some of the more important issues we face today, instead it became a circus. From my point of view it’s lost a little of the edge. This was suppose to be a great day for the city, but the dems have already tainted this day for me. I would be saying this to Tom Mountain and the republicans if they were the first to draw on endorsements. I’m not even upset with NVA or GCC, they are citizens trying to make a point….the dems are all fighting for control of the city, there’s a big difference. You can disagree with me all you want, but some of us have been around longer than others. BTW. you ran a great campaign.
@KarenN, I can’t speak about all the developers, but if we’re looking at Dinosaur Capital Partners, the company associated with Austin Street, then the answer is $0 donated to any Newton candidates. That’s according to the same database listed above.
Donations were listed for officials in Cambridge and Boston, as well as a donation to former Gov. Patrick. The total donated over the three years between 2010 and 2013 was $1250 spread over four candidates.
If you have specific developers about whom you are concerned, I suggest that you search their names and post the results here.
For anyone who would like clarification, I don’t run the Newton DEMPAC, I am the chair of the Newton W1 Dem Committee. They are different groups, just as Progressive Newton is.
@Greg:
You did not ask. Plus I had no information about the group except that it was going to get the word out to help challengers. That was good enough for me. So I wrote a check for $200. That’s more than the total I’ve given Bernie and Hillary so far. Because local democracy is at stake.
I guess on this Newton got-to-live-here attitude, you’d have a problem with my ex-wife and her husband donating to my SC campaigns, while living in Brookline.
Live free to donate!!!
This ‘Greg’ parochial attitude has to go.
I like Newton.
I own property in Newton and care that my renters will have a good city to live in.
Plus I know a ton about how things work in Newton and there is always the inner core DEMPAC at work.
Has been for decades. It used to be a lot nastier, so things have improved.
I remain a democrat but am convinced that the local Newton democratic party organization has had a bad effect on democracy in Newton.
Can anyone on this blog attest to the fact the the Democratic Party contact lists including street addresses, phone numbers and email addresses are NOT used by favored Newton candidates to prosecute their non-partisan races for elected office in Newton?
The @Geoff from Framingham: So last week when every one was speculating on the identity of the Garden City PAC you didn’t volunteer that you knew who they were or disclose that donated money to them because I “didn’t ask“?
Well I didn’t ask you to disparage the character of the men and women who had just been elected to the charter commission while everyone else was congratulating them on election night. But you volunteered to do that all on your own.
Just looked up the donor list for some of the contested races. Looks like there are some significant donations – not from developers but those who are very actively supporting certain development projects.
Janet, I have an additional clarifying question: is DEMPAC a thing that actually exists, as you imply it does? To my knowledge it is merely a rhetorical device Geoff created to make his points. I’m pretty sure there isn’t an organization called that.
The closest thing is the Newton Democratic City Committee, which a) was not institutionally involved on a large scale as a committee and b) *is* something you are part of.
Geoff — Members of a club can pay to use its services. Registered Democrats running for office can pay for access to services like contact lists. Of course, anyone can find other ways to access public data on voter registration and voting records, so I’m not sure how that’s a huge, nefarious advantage. And if you are concerned with local democracy being under siege, you can’t legitimately complain about candidates using resources at their disposal to reach and turn out a higher number of voters in local elections. That should be considered a good thing.
@Bill Humphrey:
But this puts independent candidates at a huge disadvantage.
Candidates supported by the city democratic outfit have a huge advantage, with access to the dem voter information. Plus the inner circle of the Newton democrats always have a get together to figure out whose best for them to support and then use their lists to put together their slate and circulate it.
It is a constant bias which in local elections can pretty much most of the time get the democrat easily ahead of the challenger.
If everyone had access to VoteBuilder, the playing field would be more even, but even then the constantly primed democrat apparatus is always going to give the local democrat a huge advantage once the inner core, which I refer to as DEMPAC, decide where to throw their support.
The DEMPAC supported candidates have prebuilt networks and a leg up on financing.
Even a great candidate like Jake got beaten by Susan Albright because of the DEMPAC effect.
All things being equal, Jake should have killed Susan.
And I can tell you from my experience that it takes a great deal of effort to take the public data and build the equivalent of VoteBuilder and that it what every new challenger has to do.
We have a lot of very talented folks in Newton but we cannot bring that talent to bear in most cases for elected office, because they are not approved by DEMPAC and cannot overcome that disadvantage.
Susan ran a great campaign, is a long serving member of both the Board and the School Committee, is well liked and well known all across the city, works incredibly hard, and is eminently qualified for the position.
If anything, these results should show that Democracy is alive and well in Newton. People like myself and Jake, with relatively shorter records in Newton, were able to get our names out and convince thousands of people to vote for us by knocking on their doors and actually talking to them. I used a spreadsheet and Jake used Nationbuilder, neither of us needed Votebuilder, which is actually prohibitively expensive for a local race in my opinion.
Also, DEMPAC is always on the lookout for potential opposition groups forming, which is why the Garden City Coalition is being questioned on this blog.
Prior examples of DEMPAC action in fear of an opposition forming were its initial control of Stand for Children when it first came to Newton, its close monitoring of the possible formation of a citywide school council organization and the formation of NewtonSTEM, which was vigorously opposed by 3 card carrying DEMPAC SC members.
DEMPAC fears NVA and is concerned about local area councils.
DEMPAC co-opted the TAB in its over the top effort to protect one of its key members in the Yeo residency battle.
DEMPAC was very concerned about the Charter Commission and had to act to ensure that changes would not be made to weaken its power.
Without DEMPAC action, it is likely that Peter Harrington and Ken Parker would have made it on and provided much needed experience and balance.
I have watched DEMPAC in action for 10 years.
You used to be able to see what it was up to by tracking Liz Richardson, who was a key field operator.
There is a long history associated with DEMPAC.
I’m sure there are many other stories.
@Bryan:
But I thought that you supported all of the incumbents in the recent election. Is that not true?
Also, how many doors did you knock on compared to Jake?
@fignewtonville, you seemingly have really become much more active on the blogs, and it is refreshing to read your thoughtful comments.
If you have any interest in connecting offline, I can be reached at [email protected]
As someone familiar with the NDCC I find this whole discussion amusing. There is, obviously, no literal DEMPAC. Nor does the NDCC, as the original comment by Geoff suggested, functionally operate as one.
Newton Democrats are far from a monolith. We disagree with each other regularly on issues, solutions, strategies, and support different candidates in Democratic primaries. In local elections and on local issues, those divisions are even more pronounced. I know for a fact that my own ward committee includes both strong supporters and strong opponents of the Austin Street project, while on national issues we have broader agreement. I don’t find that surprising.
The NDCC’s only action as an entity in this year’s elections was to circulate a list of Democrats (registered Democrats, not just NDCC members) who were running, without further comment. That list included the new charter commission members, but it also included 8 of the 9 charter candidates endorsed by the NVA. In contrast, the Newton Republicans encouraged their email list to support specific candidates, including (naturally) the two registered Republicans running and the remaining candidates they deemed the least progressive.
If anyone co-opted the Tab, it was the NVA, it’s supporters and Kathleen Kouril Glaser. Talk about “vigorous support.”
They don’t share their list of members, nor do we know how many there are, but they were constantly putting out material on their slate of candidates. The GCC sent out a huge mailer with the same slate of candidates as a last minute Hail Mary.
These candidates and the organization’s who backed them lost for several reasons, none of which was because they didn’t have the resources of the big parties.
They lost because:
They were part of the NVA, an organization that has supported nothing new, status quo in Newton, conflates issues as having one solution but offers none, uses scare tactics and controversial terms as misdirection.
They ran as a slate of candidates supported by the NVA instead of individuals.
They were happy to tell you how bad things were in Newton but had no real ideas about how to make them better.
There were enough voters who decided to vote against them because of the above reasons or who liked the incumbents.
In addition, some of the slate, particularly Julia, are quite capable and well known in Newton, but they came as a package.
There is no DEMPAC, there is the Newton Democratic City Committee which has Ward Committees. It is not a separate entity like Progressive Newton. I’m a member of one but not the other.
Nevertheless I voted for Peter Harrington and Ken Parker. I voted for Peter Bruce because he offered something that wasn’t just tied to the NVA.
I voted for Susan Albright because she is a great Alder and will be a great City Counselor. It’s ridiculous to say she won because of the Democatic Committee and that Jake should have “killed her.” Jake won over Marcy because he convinced a lot of people he would be a good councilor. The winning theory falls apart there because Jake had a powerful political machine with savvy strategy and money to spend on the best voting technology behind him. Certainly more so than Susan Albright.
@Bryan. Sorry, but you did some “bashing” of the other side as well with that comment you posted about the opposition candidates spreading “fear” in the electorate. It created howls of laughter among some of the candidates on the other side who were shouting pithy comments such as “Only 4 more hours to spread the politics of fear before the polls close”. Now I voted for candidates in both camps, But I can’t imagine any reasonable person arguing or believing that Julia Malakie, Brian Yates, Jim Cote, Lynne LeBlanc or Chris Pitts were out spreading fear or derision among the electorate.
Hell, I’ve known Brian Yates for more than 45 years. The man is constitutionally incapable of uttering or promoting fear or anything close to it and he would have had nothing to do with any of these other candidates if they did. He did what he did out of principle and because he loves this City at least as much as anyone else on either side of this election. I wrote less about Brian in this election than in past contests, but the outpouring of respect and affection I have seen for him in recent weeks from every corner of the political spectrum said more than any words from me could possibly have had.
While it’s important to have wide-eyed optimists in our midst (Fitzpatrick, Barash, and Humphrey), It’s also important to know and acknowledge history. Engage me on a separate thread if you want to hear more details.
Further proof of Geoff’s-coined DEMPAC is NDCC Co-chair Fitzgibbons’ lures to several un-enrolled / “independent” candidates in this year’s municipal races (Julia Malakie, Christopher Pitts, Lynne LeBlanc, Jake Auchincloss and Alison Leary) to re-register as Democrats in order to get the ‘coveted’ “endorsed by the Newton Democratic Committee” on their badge. Only Leary bit and changed her party affiliation to Democrat on the morning that Fitzgibbons published this coveted list. IMO, she was a more engaged and visible candidate and did not need to do this to be reelected in Ward 1. Leary was able to earn the re-election on her own, but got her DEMPAC insurance just in case.
I don’t see anything sinister going on either side of this NVA, NDCC, GCC, NTA. Those are just groups of people that try to push an agenda and the candidates they think will support it. It’s part of the game.
It seems to me that winning involves connecting with more voters who vote than one’s opponent. Connecting with a voter is best done in person (as Jake did so well) or via people whom the voter trusts. Next best things are signs and endorsements.
The more connected you are to folks who are politically active, the more personal recommendations, public endorsements and money you get from that network. If you’re an incumbent, you already have that network. Of course you will get endorsements from other electeds – they’re people you have a working relationship with. It’s not cynical to help one another, it’s a feature of human relationships.
This may sound naive but I don’t fault any person or group for trying to promote what they think will be best for Newton. In fact, given the number of people I encounter that didn’t know what the charter was let alone why it should be changed, I’m happy to see any involvement.
I’m admittedly disappointed that many of my picks for Charter Commission didn’t make it in, but I accept that the NDCC wants to promote its own members. I also think it’s a good thing that another group is trying to organize for its own “slate”. (And by the way, some of those NVA/GCC slate candidates told me they had no advance knowledge of those recommendations.)
Anyway, the more people get engaged, discuss and debate, the merrier. That’s why the three Ward 5 area councils put together the Oct 4 candidates forum and manage to get some video on the air and online. Open discourse is the way to go and I applaud anyone or any group that promotes respectful, meaningful and productive discussion about how to move this city forward.
To paraphrase Billy Joel… It’s Still Free Speech To Me
In any case, the DEMPAC is not an evil machine, but it does operate to influence Newton electoral outcomes in a very significant and detrimental manner.
It’s like the deer in the Cowassock Woods abutting my home. They are not evil, they are simply overgrazing the woods and threatening the continued existence of both flora and fauna.
Their influence is out of balance.
So it is with the DEMPAC.
It continually kills off new political growth in the city to maintain its hold on power.
Newton would flourish and finally take full advantage of its talented citizenry, if DEMPAC would encourage new talent across the board, especially independents and not kill them off in their early stages of development.
I had to run twice to get elected and in truth, apart from truly bringing some new energy to math and science in NPS, a key factor was that several influential members of DEMPAC realized that I was not a political threat to DEMPAC’s control of the city.
Likewise Margaret Albright ran 3 times, every time against severe DEMPAC opposition, winning the 3rd time.
Now she just got elected with the most votes of anyone because, again, several key savvy members of DEMPAC realized that she has talent which is needed on the SC and that she does not pose a political threat to DEMPAC.
But the default DEMPAC position remains. Any new challenger from outside of the DEMPAC approved pool will be attacked and crushed.
Rebalancing the Newton political ecosystem is a critical task.
It would be interesting for the Charter Commission to take on that task to ensure that municipal elections are truly non-partisan.
@Janet: The coveted list link does not work.
Bob, my take on Bryan’s comments regarding “fear” was that it wasn’t directed at the challengers, but at the NVA. There are some members of the NVA that I really respect like Julia (who in my mind before she ran for office I constantly call the “Blog Tree Lady” which is unfair but I consider a compliment 😉 ) But I’ve attended several meetings on Austin Street where supporters of the project were shouted down, addressed with anger, etc. Difficult projects bring up intense feelings. But I’ve also felt that occasionally the rhetoric from certain NVA folks has been over the top.
I will say that although I disagreed with her on Austin Street, I found Lynne personally to be terrific to chat with and listen to. I didn’t vote for her, but at no point did she inspire fear in me. (except perhaps fear in our unfunded liabilities, which is a proper fear to have all things considered). A lot of folks I like and respect sent me information regarding her campaign and tried to convince me to vote for her.
I personally think DEMPAC is overblown, but there is definitely an advantage to being in Newton and being a Democrat. But I don’t think there is a democratic cabal planning out everything. If that was the case, would Jake have won?
One other thing about the NVA. I may not agree with them on most things, but many of the issues they bring up are valid issues that deserve to be reexamined by the city and the aldercritters. We may have different solutions for the problems, but that doesn’t meant the issues don’t exist. During an election things tend to be either/or. I prefer to see life as shades of grey.
@Bob Burke, I too took Bryan’s comments about fear to be aimed at NVA, not the candidates.
And fig’s last comment is one that we need more folks to embrace: the world and issues are just not all that often black and white.
NDCC tells Democrats how to vote in non-partisan election list. Coveted by those who won their respective races, as a result. 😀
Thanks for the link, Janet.
This is really problematic. I’ve written about this before, and I’ll go into greater detail sometime in the future, but there is very little of what political scientists call salience between important local issues and national issues. Democrats (and Republicans) are (reliably and increasingly) in synch on national issues: economic policy, reproductive choice, environmental issues, &c. But, those do not translate at the local level. What is the official Democratic position on density? Traffic? School funding? Open space? Pick your favorite local issue. There isn’t one. We find Democrats in good standing, who would vary not one whit on nationally relevant issues, taking strongly opposite positions on local issues.
Party affiliation is a strong proxy for policy positions at the national level. It’s a weak proxy for policy at the local level. The NDCC should define its local platform and promote candidates that agree. Of course, that would alienate a lot of Democrats, which is why it probably won’t happen and why party affiliation shouldn’t matter.
But if party affiliation doesn’t matter at the local level, we’d have somewhat more representation in Newton by independents and republicans, one might think. So it must matter.
Isn’t Newton like 40% unenrolled? How many candidates run as unenrolled?
@Dan, I think I was one of three Charter Commission candidates that was not a democrat and am personally unenrolled. As far as I know there is no Newton Unenrolled City Committee. Maybe there is a need for one 🙂
Dan,
Party affiliation clearly does matter at the local level. The NDCC is an effective organization for promoting candidates.
My point is that politics, at least as defined at the national level, shouldn’t matter. Politics are important, they matter, as a means to some policy ends. But, I challenge anyone to articulate a set of policy positions that the NDCC holds that are relevant at the local level. If not, the NDCC endorsements are tantamount to politics without purpose.
@Bryan: You strike me as a reasonable person who analyzes both sides of a controversy before drawing conclusions, which is why I’m confused by your latest comments. In this thread, you infer that our local democratic leadership isn’t deserving of criticism. Who specifically do you believe is so infallible? Also, please do specify how you define “fear” and how it was disseminated in this election.
In my opinion, leadership is measured by results. What leadership produces is what matters. One of the most important leadership qualities for accomplishing desired outcomes is working with constituents, stakeholders AND opponents – instead of doing things to them – by rallying everyone around the goal, clearly communicating what it is, why it’s important, and inspiring everyone to support/do what’s required. It’s also key to fend off naysayers without disrespecting them and thus unnecessary elevating the emotional intensity of the debate/opposition.
I haven’t seen any such leadership qualities displayed since following this election. What I have seen, however, is certain individuals quick to attack the character of particular candidates. You yourself recently liked and commented on a Facebook post that expressly stated the challenger candidates are not sane people. It’s this type of behavior that divides our community, pulls us further apart, and as a result causes too many in the debate to lose focus on what we are trying to achieve in the first place. Believe it or not, but those who opposed the incumbents in this election are all great – and sane – people.
We should all aspire to be part of the solution, not the problem.
@ Groot, I’m an Unenrolled myself, and always have been [though it used to be called Independent]. And I’m glad that you were comfortable running as such, but…check out how many candidates over time for alderman or school committee actually run as unenrolled or republican for that matter. Yet 40% of us are unenrolled.
Folks,
Firstly I’d want to publicly congratulate Jake on his strong campaign and wish him the best of luck in office. I spoke to Jake yesterday. He was very kind and we both agreed to move ahead. Jake, thanks again for taking the call and for your time.
Secondly, local elections bring a great deal of intense debate. And I agree with Steve; all parties can and should make their voices heard in an election. Voters decide.
Lastly, on the NDCC, our State Party Charter specifically states that local parties should support enrolled Democrats in non-partisan elections. And our own bylaws also state that we should “recruit, endorse, assist and otherwise support Democratic candidates for public office.” We operate transparently; for example, our executive committee members strongly supported the flyer highlighting Dems. This year, we also invited all unenrolled candidates to join the Party, and three did (in addition to Alison, who had joined earlier this year on her own). We probably should have extended this invitation sooner in the election season, but still before sending out a flyer we wanted to give everyone a chance to join.
We have a meeting tonight, 7:30 pm at Newton City Hall room 204. We also have a larger meeting on December 3. These are open to the public. Come listen, throw roses, or tomatoes. All are welcome.
Congrats to all on a vigorously fought election season.
Shawn
Hi Sean – here are two:
Earlier this year the NDCC endorsed and advocated for Ald. Emily Norton’s effort to change the name of our august local legislative body from Board of Aldermen to City Council. Nationally, Party Democrats make equal rights for women a top priority. To us local Dems, helping make local legislators’ titles gender neutral aligned perfectly with the national Party platform.
Also earlier this year, the NDCC joined a movement to expand basic civil rights protections to transgender individuals in Newton. We endorsed the proposed local legislation and encouraged its passage which happened easily thanks to Ald. Sangiolo and many others. Again, this local initiative aligned with the national Party’s commitment to equal rights.
Shawn
Shawn,
I’m gonna acknowledge that there is some overlap between local and national policy. You’ve given us two excellent examples. But, if you look at the sweep of local issues, there are lots and lots of issues where there is no national analogue. What, for instance, does the national platform have to say about water charges, leaf blowers, parking, residential development?
Shawn,
Thanks for the information about the state charter and the local by-laws. Very important part of the discussion.
What does it mean, though, to be a Democrat in the context of a local election? Is it anything more than a loyalty test? Is there a local platform on the issues that matter locally?
You (and the NDCC) apparently read the state charter to require you to support all enrolled Democrats. But, arguably, that can be read as a floor, not a ceiling. Couldn’t the NDCC impose other policy-based requirements? One can imagine a world in which the NDCC only supports Democrats, but not all Democrats.
I realize that getting the NDCC to a place where it takes a stand on local issues has the potential to divide local Democrats. But, maybe that should be the point.
Sean,
Good points and yes, we could do more if our members want to do so. Other local committees in Massachusetts certainly do as you suggest. For us, overall, the goal would be to advance the Democratic Party locally in a way that is not too divisive for our members. We all agree that we need to be united for state and national campaigns.
Shawn
Sean (and hope everyone else is enjoying the back and forth here),
My own personal opinion is that broad national policies do apply at the local level with the types of issues you mention. In fact, what we’re often doing locally is debating the street-level implementation of broad concepts.
For example: community development block grants. Dems strongly support this grant program whose mission is to help the poor. It is a social safety net that is such a critical resource for millions of Americans. Here locally, CDBG is directly relevant to the affordable housing debate in terms of if or how it can be used for certain types of housing developments. Barney Frank was a strong advocate for the CDBG program and for its local implementation in Newton and throughout the district.
Environmentally-minded Dems were thrilled that Obama took steps to improve air quality this year. Locally, perhaps this means less cars, more public transit, and maybe less leaf blowers? (Not getting into a debate on that one here, just saying).
So at the local level, all the nitty gritty gets worked out which is tough. But the broad Party positions certainly do apply and matter when you’re thinking about who is going to be an office-holder.
Shawn
To be accurate, the NDCC did not “endorse” anyone in this year’s local races. The same cannot be said of the Newton Republicans, who did specifically recommend candidates (I don’t have a problem with that).
The NDCC did send out a list of candidates who are registered Democrats. Surely nobody thinks we were telling people to vote for both candidates in Ward 1, or to vote for all three candidates in Ward 8, or to vote for 19 charter commission candidates instead of 9.
The list provided factual information for the benefit of any voters who happen to care about party registration, and in my view it was consistent with the committee’s mission of promoting Democrats. We similarly post events on our Facebook/website at the request of any member – even members who are running against each other.
In my experience, Sean is correct that the NDCC is “an effective organization for promoting candidates,” but only when those candidates are official Democratic nominees in partisan elections. In Democratic primaries and in local elections, our membership generally is quite divided. That’s precisely why the NDCC hasn’t “endorsed” in local races (and it cannot, under state party rules, take sides in contested Democratic primaries).
Of course, individual members sign up to help the candidates they support, and they take their contact list and their long experience as campaign volunteers, managers, and even candidates along with them. But those coalitions are not “the NDCC” as much as they’re ever-shifting subsets of the NDCC. I can think of very few people who have supported all the same candidates I’ve supported.
It’s not clear how a title equates to gender equality. What someone is referred to has no guarantee of rights. Thanks for reminding everyone about the colossal amount of time Newton’s Programs and Services committee spends discussing things that have value only in the abstract.
The irony of the NDCC list of preferred candidates is whoever put this list together for NDCC was so impressed with Wenhua Zhang’s crdentials that they assumed he was a Democrat however he is a registered Republican!
😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀
Shawn,
If Greer Swiston or Jim Cote both (R)’s came up with the idea to change aldermen to councilors would the NDCC have supported it?
No need to answer, I already know.
A good idea is a good idea regardless of who comes up with it especially locally.
Second lets correct some dats made out here
1. There is an independent party in Massachusetts called the United independent party. It was formed last year by a fellow Newtonian…Evan Falchuk.
2. The majority of voters in Newton (52%) are considered either Unenrolled or Independent. The dems or repubs put together don’t carry a majority.
3. Statewide the ind/unenr carry 52%, a tad bit higher than in Newton.
4. An issue that I hope the Charter Comm take up (if they can) is to add ind/unenr people on the election committee. Right now there are 2 dems and 2 repubs on the election comm and in case of a tie, the deciding vote goes to the Mayor’s lawyer (oh, I should say city solicitor). The larger point is that the election commission only represents 48% of the constituency….what I hope the CC takes a look at is to add 3 inde/unenr people. This gives more representation to the inde/unenr and it prevents a tie so the mayor doesn’t have his/her lawyer cast the deciding vote.
I think maybe a big take away from this discussion is that there needs to be more room in Newton politics for independents.
They should be encouraged to run for election and not vilified, or attacked, or otherwise marginalized. And they need access to all of the kinds of voter information that comes pretty much free from the DEMPAC corner.
One past SC member was a republican but had to switch affiliation to democrat to get elected!
Allison Leary switching to democrat is another signal that something is wrong. It should not matter.
When I was campaigning just before the election in 2007, I found out that Gail Glick was phone banking with the message that she was the democrat in the race, so I had to quickly put together a robocall to counter that by noting that I was also a democrat.
With so many independents roving around Newton, it’s clear that 50% of Newton talent is not captured by the two major parties.
That’s a big loss.
We would know we were making progress if 50% of our elected officials were independents.
Neither republican nor democrat local party officials should worry about that.
After all if one is going to go from the farm team to the big leagues, from local municipal elected official to state rep, one generally has to pick an affiliation.
If we encouraged independents much more in Newton and did not use the local party organizations to crush them, we’d end up with much more talent to choose from when the big leagues come scouting.
What a win for every one!
According to the voter extract I recently obtained from the elections department, as of September 17, 2015, Newton had 54,219 registered voters: 23,939 Democrats (44.2%); 4,074 Republicans (7.5%); 25,882 Unenrolled (47.7%); and 324 Other (0.6%). While there is a plurality of unenrolled voters, who slightly outnumber registered Democrats, they do not presently constitute a majority in Newton, and they certainly do not represent an organized party. Democrats are still by far the largest organized party* in the city, outnumbering Republicans by almost 6 to 1.
*Notwithstanding the words to the contrary of that great American humorist Will Rogers: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
@Ted: RE your quote: Aint that the truth?
Geoff, I am going to let you in on one of the worst kept secrets in Newton: unenrolled voters have the same access to information about likely voters as Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Independents and all the others have. Anyone can go to the elections department and ask for purged voter lists for every election going back a number of years from which one can determine who the “super voters” are, i.e., the people who always vote in every election. That is your starting point in any election.
The voter extract lists are also available to anyone, and provide information about age, party affiliation, ward, precinct, zip code, profession, etc., all on a digital spreadsheet which a smart person with some computer skills and a program such as Excel can mine for information. Using that information and a little political savvy, you can create lists by ward, precinct, zip code, etc., for canvassing to ID voters who will support your candidate(s). For GOTV (get out the vote), you contact those voters (from whom you collected contact information) and remind them to vote for your candidate(s). It takes a tremendous effort to do the voter ID and GOTV–which is where being part of a large, organized party or advocacy group comes in handy–but all of the information is publicly accessible to every0ne.
So, please, quit whining.
@Alderman Hess-Mahan: Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe this Newton voter information is even available to Framingham residents, right?
Amen Ted.
@Ted. Are the voter extraction lists available online? Thanks.
@Jeffrey: You can go to city hall and request them and get them on a CD, or you can email the election commission and they’ll email it to you. It literally couldn’t be easier to obtain.
@Ted: Been there, done that.
Ask any of the challengers how challenging this is.
Plus if this was all so easy how come 50% of our elected officials aren’t unenrolled.
You are trivializing a giant problem in Newton.
I have been through this and for an ordinary challenger type person, this is the biggest initial challenge.
Plus the major further problem is really getting past all of the DEMPAC obstacles which are erected in a challengers path.
It’s remarkable how all of the folks who benefit enormously from DEMPAC support in their election runs are making out how easy it is to run without DEMPAC support.
DEMPAC remains the pre-eminent killer of new political talent in Newton.
Thanks Bryan.
How many parrots does it take to make up a Charter Commission?
Literally?
Geoff, the problem of which you complain is essentially that the unenrolled are not organized enough to wage a successful campaign to elect a candidate. You might as well complain that people who don’t vote don’t have a voice on the City Council. As Woody Allen said, “80% of success is showing up.” Welcome to the real world.
Now, if what you seek is a voice for those who are in a distinct minority, then proportional voting–which Cambridge has–would guarantee representation of that minority, i.e., a voice, on the City Council, but not a majority. And the majority still rules.
There is a third way. As an Aussie, you know that Australia mandates that everyone must vote in every election. But somehow mandatory voting just seems so … un-American. 😉
Ted, glad to have you back setting records straight.
Marti, I wasn’t aware that I was away. 😉
@Ted: It must be a great view from up there on DEMPAC mountain looking down at all of the whining challengers.
@Geoff
LMAO!
It’s official. The zombie apocalypse is here. Both Ted and Geoff are right.
@Geoff, I can see all the way to Framingham.
@Charlie, if so, we are in serious trouble.
@Ted – you sure about that?
“Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future.” –John F. Kennedy