The TAB’s Jonathan Dame reports on Newton Mayor Setti Warren’s decision not to reappoint Barbara Huggins to the Zoning Board of Appeals
“The reason for my decision was because her work in other communities has involved opposing 40B housing developments, which could give an appearance of bias,” Warren wrote.
But as Dame points out, asked about Huggins for an article earlier this year in Commonwealth magazine, the mayor said:
“I can tell you right now, I did not, nor do I do, background checks like that for volunteer appointments,” Warren told the magazine. “My intent is to make sure the values and vision of this administration are adopted.”
And Dame reports, count City Councilor Emily Norton among those who are unhappy with the non-appointment.
“I’m not going to vote to appoint the new appointments if she’s not on it.”
When you visit an ophthalmologist they usually have you look trough a bunch of different lenses. Some make things a little blurry, others very blurry, until finally the correct lens allows you to see everything clearly. If you want to see Setti clearly, you need to view him through the right lens. On one hand he’s put forth a court case claiming the city has immunity from 40B. On the other hand he’s now dismissed an effective 40B opponent from the ZBA. As policy goes, those two things may appear inconsistent [or blurry, to stick with the metaphor]. But when you switch the lens to politics it all becomes crystal clear. Nearly everything that Mayor Warren does is calculated in a political way. When he runs for Governor and speaks to groups with different concerns, he’ll be able to present himself as either a champion of affordable housing, or the mayor who went to court to stop out of control growth. How incredibly convenient!
Included in the article are Councilors’ reports that Ms Huggins has voted both to approve and not approve projects. She has been on the ZBA since 2011. She is experienced in the workings of Newton and 40B law. She knows the loopholes developers can use to get around the law and how to plug them effectively. Has there been actual bias observed or is the mayor reacting to the media? Or stacking the ZBA?
If there was no active recruiting as reported, the mayor’s explanation of “only 4 men applied for the positions” means nothing.
Sticking with Mike Striar’s metaphor, ZBA decision making needs to be viewed through more than one lens – it needs counterbalance. Different viewpoints contribute to the value of decisions. It appears more biased after her removal and the addition of new male associates than it did before, particularly when two reappointments work in 40B development.
The mayor’s quote, “My intent is to make sure the values and vision of this administration are adopted” adds to the new appearance of bias. Seems to me it opens the way for more lawsuits than we have now.
Mike, Setti’s ticket out of here is Hillary. If she doesn’t make it or it’s not the right job offer he runs for re-election and then Governor. I see Baker beating Warren decisively.
Perhaps Setti is pacifying the housing advocates who were disappointed by his recently released housing strategy by dumping Ms. Huggins.
The Full Board sent Setti a clear message this evening. None of the ZBA appointments were approved.
It was my impression the council unanimously agreed the appointees were all qualified, but the majority of the board were very disappointed with the mayors attempt to remedy the situation.
By voting all appointees down, the ZBA will retain the status quo.
In my humble opinion, it was spectacular act of defiance.
The place for “acts of defiance” is not the City Council floor.
While many folks believe the primary contortion to be 40B, the ‘density’ driver is Prop 2 1/2.
2 1/2’s budgetary constraint forces a governing body to not expand at a rate conducive to the community affluence ratio. The fixed tax levy base causes an increase in the prop 2 1/2 exemption – that being new growth. The year to year ‘new growth’ monster feeding results in the apparent density demand.
– which all goes to the mayor’s logic on Huggins.
believe us not in what he is saying, but that which he is not..
I think this sends a very negative message to people who are willing to serve, are appointed by the Mayor, come in to the City Council to be interviewed and talk about why they want to by on a particular board or commission, get a unanimous favorable vote in committee, and then at the eleventh hour get told “sorry” but we decided to screw you over because we have a beef with the Mayor. Nice. Not exactly the way I think we should be doing business. But clearly a substantial majority of my colleagues feel otherwise. So, time to pull on our big kid pants and move on.
IMO, last nite’s vote is an apparent show of ‘no confidence’. The council’s sensitivity goes to the matter of citizen awareness in a time of apparent distrust in government function.
And I think the Mayor’s decision to not re-appoint someone who has volunteered her time and commitment, has had no issues related to performance or service and is informed at the eleventh hour – sorry but – I think you have an “appearance of bias” even though the Law Department and the State Ethics Commission both opined “no appearance of bias” sends a negative message to the folks who serve. This wasn’t about having a “beef with the Mayor”. It is about having equal application of a standard applied to all applicants and that didn’t happen here.
@Ted: I could not disagree more with you. As someone who has not heard back from this Mayor despite repeatedly reaching out for a variety of reasons, I was so pleased to see our City Council do its job. I speak only for myself at this point, but as someone who is willing and very able to serve our great community, I now have hope that this Mayor will begin taking his appointment power more seriously.
Amy, as I said last night, I was appointed to the Housing Appeals Committee by Governor Patrick five years ago but I understand that an appointment is a privilege and not a birthright. I accept that Governor Baker may not want to reappoint me if he decides to go with someone he prefers. If the Mayor screwed Barbara Huggins over, it is on him. We screwed over the other candidates who received a unanimous favorable vote in committee by playing politics. They deserved a fair shot. That is on us.
@Jane,
The vote on appointments got postponed from the previous meeting. This was done to give the mayor an opportunity to address the issue.
Clearly the majority of councillors felt his response didn’t cut it and they found the courage to act within their power.
The Board showed COURAGE last night. A strong message was sent out to the Mayor.
Ted H-M says: ;I think this sends a very negative message to people who are willing to serve
Are you referring to Ms Huggins?
Doug- That would be a matter of opinion. I have no thoughts on this particular issue, but I do have concerns about how the Council functions as a body and how the Council treats qualified residents who offer their time to serve the city. If the mayor chooses not to reappoint someone to a board or commission, then he takes responsibility and the heat for that, and he did. If the Council chooses to take an action that negatively and publicly affects other residents, then the responsibility and the heat on the Councilors. The Council did this; the Council needs to own it. There was nothing courageous about it.
Bob -I assume that Ted is referring to residents who put their names out there and had absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand and were treated very poorly.
Did the mayor even address the previous meeting’s issues brought up by Amy Sangiolo?
I understand that it is done and now we will move on.
But the situation doesn’t seem to be as one-sided as some are claiming. I can easily see that each opinion has merit from losing most diversity on the ZBA, both related to female representation and to matters pertaining to special permits, losing a valued member due to “appearance” rather than action, to the mayor’s lack of attention to residents willing to serve on councils and to treating new appointees unfairly. Why not just admit the situation was less than favorable in several ways and then move on.
My concern is not whatever issues the individual appointees might have had as I know nothing about them. The mayor did not reappoint one individual to a board. Whether you like the reasons he gave for his decision or not, he gave them and was willing to take the heat for the decision. What I object to is the City Council using the other appointees to make a political point. That’s a shabby way to treat residents who’ve volunteered their time to the city. This was grandstanding at its worst.
@Jane
It took 16 votes to do this. So I’m afraid you are with the minority on this one.
Simon – I’m expressing an opinion, not casting a vote. However, I would prefer to have the opportunity to cast a vote on election day for/against Councilors based on their actions. Unfortunately, I will not be permitted to vote against 7 of the 16 Councilors who voted No.
#courage #ChecksAndBalance
And as Coach Bellicheck would have said – “You did the job”
@Jane:I see you making the argument against ward councilors. But at the same time, you have to acknowledge, both at the state level, and the federal level, we have representation elected by limited numbers of people from a specific location.
You do realize that the second in line to succeed the President is the Speaker of the House, who was elected by about 180,000 Americans.
Our political system for the most part has representation that the majority of the people did not weigh in on.
And so it is in Newton. It works.
I think it a weak argument, that every time you disagree with a decision of the City Councilors you will argue you can’t directly vote out all those you don’t like.
How can something so right for Congress, and also for the state house be wrong on a local level?
People deserve local representation, and there is nothing more local than a ward councilor.
I’ve created a new thread on the topic with the story about Monday’s meeting from the TAB and will close this thread.