Although her name is not listed as the organizer behind Newton Citizens for Local Representation’s new website, Newton Ward City Councilor Emily Norton is listed as “chairman” of the ballot initiative committee to defeat the proposed charter, according to campaign documents filed with the state.
Documents also show that a ballot initiative committee — Yes for New Charter — has recently been formed. (No website yet but there is this Facebook page) Jennifer Abbott and Frida Dwack Frieda Dweck , neither of whom hold or have held any elected office in Newton that I’m aware of, are listed as co-chairs for the yes campaign.
The new proposed charter would, of course, eliminate Norton’s ward councilor seat, among other things.
My question is: Couldn’t the “no” side have found someone to chair this effort that wouldn’t risk looking like they’re just trying to save their job?
@Greg, who better to start the process than someone who knows how badly loss of local representation would be for the city. Emily suggested forming a committee some months ago on V14, and perhaps elsewhere, so this should not be a surprise to anyone here.
I’m only the “chairman” because that is what the form offered. Obviously that will need to be tackled next after this campaign. #ChairNotChairman #LanguageMatters
What “job” are you talking about? Councillors in Newton are volunteers, as you know. Here’s a blog post we could all live without.
Btw Frieda’s last name is spelled “Dweck” – Ward 2 resident so of course I know that ;-)
@Newtoner there is compensation, $10K/year + benefits. I don’t think anyone does for the money.
I don’t get why what Emily is doing is wrong. People care most about things that they are closely involved with.
This is a non-issue. (And I’m a Yes guy.) Emily is genuine in her opposition to the charter based on policy, not job security; she has the respect of many fellow-travelers in that camp; and she is a highly capable campaigner. She is an appropriate person to chair the ballot committee.
Thanks Lucia. I’m not doing anything wrong. Greg just gets crabby when I do things he disagrees with. He gets PARTICULARLY crabby when I’m effective.
@Greg you also misspelled Frieda’s first name. It’s “Frieda”
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Emily leading this effort, but why not make that fact clear on the website?
@Adam bc no one thinks there is anything wrong, including Greg, but he is desperate to attack it/me, and this is the best he could come up with.
Please add me to the list of those that have the utmost respect and admiration for Emily taking this on. In all aspects of her position as an elected office holder, she is a fighter for the residents of the city, and whether or not you agree with her positions, you come away knowing she is sincere.
I completely oppose the Charter Commissions efforts to promote less representation.
I am leaning toward voting for the charter. I am not surprised that Emily has an organization. Her position has been clear. Emily is in no way surreptitious. Vibrant elections with groups providing opposing views is good.
Greg, please join me in saying “Thanks Emily” for improving the political atmosphere in Newton. Come on Greg, I am serious, try typing, “Thanks Emily” in the grey box. You can do it.
Emily, I didn’t exactly say there was nothing wrong. I do question who the “us” is on the newtondemocracy.org website and the general lack of transparency. (True, I don’t use my last name on blog comments, but that’s the difference between blogs and registered political campaigns!)
The usual snark aside, how exactly is Greg’s post an attack? He calls you out as the chair of the campaign and asks a legitimate question about whether it would more effective for someone to lead the campaign as a constituent rather than an elected official. Seems like fair game to me.
…that said, I certainly do not question your sincerity or commitment to our city. Add an “about us” section to the website and I’ll add my “thanks, Emily” for improving the political atmosphere in Newton!
@Adam: Greg implies I am leading the anti-charter effort out of a desperate attempt to hold onto my $10K gig. You call it “snark”, I consider it an “attack”. As for the website, you’ll just have to patient, more will be revealed in coming days.
@Adam
“I certainly do not question your sincerity or commitment to our city.”
Greg is clearly questioning Norton’s sincerity, with no evidence.
This behavior should not be tolerated on V14. The guy is a walking conflict-of-interest, and he’s questioning others.
Seriously?
Howdy folks. I was away today and will take a shot at responding to as many of your comments as possible.
1. Jefferey. I grew up in a political family and my dad insisted that we refer to every elected by their honorific. So instead of “Thanks Emily,” I’ll happily write “Thanks Councilor Norton.” I write that with sincerity. While I have my differences with Councilor Norton, I do appreciate her and her colleagues’ public service.
2. Folks, perception matters in politics. And there are plenty of examples at all levels of government of electeds acting in ways to save their own skin. Now folks who personally know Councilor Norton may conclude that her efforts are entirely pure and sincere. Other voters may find her efforts self serving. Who’s right? That’s sort of besides the point because, as my dad also taught me, what really what matters most is what happens on election day. We’ll know if it mattered on Nov. 8.
3. Yes our councilors earn a paltry $10K a year. But they are also entitled to full health care benefits as if they were a full time city employee (for life, if you serve long enough, if I’m not mistaken, someone correct me if I’m wrong) So maybe, as Councilor Norton says, no one “does it for the money”? But health care for life? That’s a pretty good perk if you don’t have access to coverage from a day job or spouse.
4. Please note that I did not say that health insurance was or isn’t Councilor Norton’s motivation. I have no idea either way. I was just clarifying Newtoner’s comment and Councilor Norton’s response.
5. Thanks Adam for noting that I did not accuse Councilor Norton of “doing anything wrong,” except for not being transparent by disclosing her chairmanship on the website.
6. And Councilor Norton, you’ve commented on this thread several times but still have not explained why your name is not listed as chairman on this site or who “us” is? Perhaps you can explain now.
7. Yes I’m big on transparency. Yes, I’m calling out Newton Citizen for Local Representation and Councilor Norton for not publishing its campaign committee members (or is it member?) on its website, just as I once did with Newton Villages Alliance and Engine 6. (Those two organizations both responded by publishing names. Can we go three for three?)
8. Paul, the chamber’s board of directors has never discussed or taken a position on a $15 minimum wage. Not saying we wouldn’t, only that we haven’t.
Have a great night folks!
This issue is a non starter, The only goal here is, as usual, to stir the pot.
Emily’s integrity is unimpeachable
and her support from and for her
constituency is obvious.
There is no conspiracy here and there
is no attempt to hide or obfuscate
her involvement with this group or effort. Emily appears to have been very clear and consistent about her views about this. Although i disagree with the need for ward specific council members,(historically they have been
useless, unnecessary, absent and frequently damaging and in opposition to what our neighborhoods here have wanted and needed) i would put Emily at the bottom of any list of elected officials whose motivations or aims I would question.
One question I’m still waiting to get answered from the Chamber of Commerce- that would be you Greg-
is does the chamber support raising
the minimum wage to $15.00?
It’s a simple yes or no question….
Greg — Thank you for providing extra visibility to the charter debate while there is still time to revise it.
As you have noted, “Newton Citizens for Local Representation” is a registered ballot committee with the City of Newton (not the State of Mass) and this information is readily available on the City Campaign Finance website, and has been for quite some time ( http://www.newtonma.gov/gov/elections/campaign_finance.asp ). In addition, this ballot committee was announced in a letter to the Newton Tab on March 18th ( http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20170318/newton-tab-letters ).
The site lists a politically diverse and growing group of over 110 residents publicly endorsing the retention of ward councilors. Please bear with us while we work on finalizing detailed organizational charts for you. As noted in the ballot committee filing, I am the committee treasurer and this is now captured on the group’s donation page.
The “Yes for New Charter” group also has a website that was plainly announced on the Facebook page you cite on March 23rd. It has the same characteristics as http://newtondemocracy.org, and lists quite a few residents holding elective office, yet for some reason the focus here is on innuendo with regard to Emily. Regular readers might see a pattern emerging. I will just thank you for the extra web traffic.
Again, thanks for providing a forum for lively discussion and debate on the proposed charter. Could we please get back to that now? The Charter Commission can still revise their proposal to retain ward-elected councilors, but after Wednesday will have limited time to do so.
Hello Jack. I’ve been working remotely and did not realize that Yes for a New Charter had a website too. Thanks for pointing that out.
And I now see that that group doesn’t list its committee either. I call on them to rectify that as well and thank you for pointing that out too.
Also bravo for adding your name to your group’s site. Your quick response is much appreciated.
However, could you perhaps explain why it was decided to not publish Councilor Norton’s name as committee chairman? Many folks here have said they see nothing wrong with her leading the no campaign, so why the continued lack of transparency?
And finally, there must be literally dozens of threads about the charter on Village 14 and thus plenty of opportunities to discuss every aspect of it. So I’m not sure why you suggest a need to “get back it” when “it” has never gone away.
“Chair”
@Chairman Norton: It clearly states that you are the “chairman” on the state election forms. But I’m sure no one would object if you identifed yourself as “chair” on your organization’s website and mailings. ;)
P.S. Thank-you!
OK — Getting back to the debate where we left off, in reference to your exchange with Geoffrey, it was suggested help find where the commission had deliberated among themselves on retaining ward councilors and the council composition options that retained them. http://village14.com/2017/04/02/charter-commission-adds-residency-requirements/#axzz4dcnItyH7
The commission minutes do not appear to be google-indexed, so its possible this discussion has been overlooked.
Pattern continues Greg.
Here is the Newton Citizens for Local Representation Facebook page for those that would like to follow it:
https://www.facebook.com/newtondemocracy/
Greg – You listed the Co-chairs for Yes for a New Charter in the thread. Is there other information that’s missing? Just a question.
@Jane: It’s great when the public can easily see the names of all the members of ballot question committee. But since the state requires disclosing “chairman” and treasurer when registering, I believe committees should do at least disclose those on their campaign sites.
@Greg – I just sent a mailer opposing the charter to thousands of people in Newton. You really think I’m not being transparent? The flyer even had my smiling mug on it. #Chair
@Councilor Norton: So then you’ve stumped me. The reason your name isn’t on your new site is?
Greg- When you have a moment, could you please disclose how much annual revenue is being generated by village14.com being a member of the Google Ad network (or other associations)? and who is receiving that revenue? Since the site’s content and traffic is driven by the ideas and postings of others, would it be fair to assume that the revenue (minus minimal hosting expense) is donated to charity? Which charity?
I’m certainly not suggesting that there’s any wrongdoing, but I’m also curious to know why that information is not posted on the site.
@Charlie (and Fig): As has been noted many times here, Village 14 is run entirely by a group of volunteers. None of us receive any revenue or other compensation. We have no organized structure, titles, etc.
A company called Serpcom built, maintains and hosts this site at no expense to us bloggers. They provide us with technical assistance, as needed. In exchange Serpcom posts ads on Village 14 and keeps all revenue. We have no idea how much that might be and have never asked since all we care about is having this platform for community conversation and having someone else fix something if it breaks.
Disclosure: Serpcom changed its name a few years back (the earlier name escapes me) but this has always been our arrangement.
And yes, Serpcom’s name is clearly visible on every page of Village 14.
@Greg–I have a dare on how many email threads we can have about it and I intend to win. Btw for those who haven’t signed up as a public “no” vote it’s http://www.newtondemocracy.org, don’t wait! Hurry now so you can make the mailer!
@Greg – Not having a position on $15 minimum wage is same as a NO.
Worse, its spineless and results in the hard workers in the city getting paid sub-living wages.
Charlie:
I realize you are just being snarky in response to Greg’s snark in response to Emily’s Snark in response to Greg’s snark, but I can tell you from experience that this site would earn very little money after expenses. Also, it isn’t a non-profit, even if it provides a really useful purpose for our community. You could always go post at the newton forum website…
Unless Greg has figured out the secret of google ads, I’d guess his “take” is a few hundred a year, tops.
But personally, your metaphorical snark is rather faulty. I don’t really care if Emily is the face of the no movement, in fact it makes sense that she is in my book. She is passionate about it, etc. But asking for disclosure from public servants and folks trying to lobby us on various issues seems a bit more important that asking Greg what the private institution of Village 14 does with its funds from google ads.
Greg, as it pertains to Emily being listed somewhere, who doesn’t know that she is the face of the “no” movement? She sent me a mailer, a video from her is on their website, etc. Stop concern trolling, will ya?
In short, you are all being silly. #silly. #growup. #stopthesnark.
Thank you, Emily, for taking this on, on top of your part-time job and your full-time job and your mom-of-three job! I just signed up to add my name to your public list. (Hope I make the mailer!)
Getting back to the underlying issue: for anyone not on the (original) Newtonville discussion group, here’s my recent comment there (with a few names of other commenters ‘redacted’ in case they wouldn’t want to be mentioned in a different forum):
I’m with —– and —–, and am urging everyone I meet to vote No on the revised charter. I would rather not spend my time on the ‘engagement theatre’ of futile public comment; the charter commission members came in with the intention of reducing the size of the city council and getting rid of ward councilors, and have shown no inclination to be influenced by public appeals not to do that. Early on, someone committed the gaffe (you’ve heard the saying ‘a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth’) of saying a goal was more ‘efficient’ government, until people rebelled and said we’d rather have thorough debate than efficiency. Then ‘efficient’ changed to ‘effective.’ Whatever you call it, it’s largely about getting big developments and other controversial projects and proposals approved faster.
Remember when it was important to have an odd number of councilors to avoid tie votes? Then someone must have realized that would make it harder to get a 2/3 majority to approve special permits. Whoops. So that 13th councilor got jettisoned, and it’s down to 12, another even number.
And while the elimination of ward councilors is getting more attention, the overall reduction in size seems designed to overwhelm the remaining councilors and force the transfer of special permit granting authority to an appointed body such as the ZBA. (Without peeking, how many members of the ZBA or Planning & Development Board can you name?)
And I agree with —– and —– about the need to care as much about local elections as national elections. We need more than 20% of the electorate to show up for non-mayoral elections. And I don’t think reducing the size of the board will help with that, and eliminating ward councilors certainly won’t. It will just be harder for non-incumbents without wealthy friends or family to raise enough money to unseat an incumbent.
Keeping track of 24 city councilors is not that hard, if you care enough to pay attention. I compare it to a 25-man baseball roster — if you care about the Red Sox, you probably know them all.