Newton Patch reports that the full City Council voted 17-5 in favor of the resolution. Candidates for mayor Ruthanne Fuller and Amy Sangiolo voted in support,. Scott Lennon opposed.
Laura Lovett from the TAB tweeted that the vote was 15-6.
City Council passed a resolution for the Presidential impeachment inquiry in a 17 to 6 vote @newtontab
— Laura Lovett (@lauralovett7) July 11, 2017
If anyone has the roll call please share.
Anyone care to guess who the last American president to be impeached was?
Hint: His wife just ran for president
That’s right,
William Jefferson Clinton in 1998
We are coming up on a 20 year anniversary. Time does fly,
but the more things change, the more they stay the same!
Here’s the full roll call for anyone interested:
Ward One: Alison M. Leary-YES Scott F. Lennon-NO Allan Ciccone, Jr.-NO
Ward Two: Emily Norton-YESJacob D. Auchincloss-NO Susan Albright-YES
Ward Three: Barbara Brousal-Glaser-YES Ted Hess-Mahan-YES James R. Cote-NO
Ward Four: Jay Harney-YES Leonard J. Gentile-NO Amy Mah Sangiolo-YES Ward Five John Rice-YES Brian E. Yates-YES Deborah Crossley-YES
Ward Six: Richard Blazar-YES Gregory R. Schwartz-YES Victoria L. Danberg-YES
Ward Seven: R. Lisle Baker-YES Marc C. Laredo-YES Ruthanne Fuller-YES
Ward Eight: Cheryl Lappin-ABSENT Richard A. Lipof-NO David A. Kalis-YES
Thanks to all those who voted yes!
Thanks Shawn.
Thanks to Councilors Lennon, Auchincloss, Cote, Ciccone, Gentile, and Lipof for being the adults in the room. That is leadership.
What ELMO said.
I’m anything, but a Trump fan, (Bernie 2016), and empathize fully with what motivated this resolution.; but I still think it’s premature and blurs some very substantive concerns with the Federal Government that our City Council should better address. What I would have preferred was a resolution that zeroed in how Trump Administration domestic policies and budget cuts pose legitimate threats to many residents of Newton, especially the most vulnerable, and by inference the residents of most other American municipalities. The list of these keeps growing longer and their effects are starting to go deeper and deeper–housing, the environment, education, public health, roads, transportation, other “public” infrastructure spending. etc, This is where our city and town governments should be leveling their complaints because this is where their expertise resides. It would also reflect the growing public concern about the tone deaf Republican agenda that’s becoming ever more apparent, even in strong Red State areas. Tossing Trump out of office may happen in time, but the schedule is on the Special Council’s clock, not ours.
I’m very confused here.
According to all the beltway pols
and media folks, there is solid evidence of collusion, which of course can’t be shown to anyone, its classified,
so why is the city going halfway on the resolution?
I say, with Shawn Fitzgibbons and the Newton Democrat City Committee’s
oversight, that a new resolution be drafted. The new resolution would be
a “bold” step, because the City
Council’s new resolution would
ask congress to seek the immediate impeachment of Trump as president.
Why go half way when so much more can be done?
Let’s get the new resolution drawn up and hold it until early September when
everyone who will be voting are back in Newton so every councilor can go on the record with their vote for or against the resolution well ahead of the local elections coming in November.
Sound good?
As several of my colleagues noted last night, it was appropriate for the City Council to vote on the merits of this petition–seeking the adoption of a resolution to call on the Congress to begin an investigation into the possible impeachment of President Donald J. Trump–because it originated with a group of citizens from Newton.
Most of my colleagues, reflecting the views of what I believe to be a majority of the people of Newton, agree that an investigation by Congress into impeachment of the President is warranted at this time. Indeed, such an investigation seems almost inevitable. In addition to questions about the financial dealings of the President and his family business with foreign governments, and ongoing revelations concerning the President’s efforts to thwart any investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and operatives of the Russian government, the press is now reporting that representatives of his campaign—including the President’s campaign manager, his son and son-in-law—had a previously undisclosed meeting during the campaign with a person with close ties to the Kremlin who promised to provide damaging information about Hillary Clinton. (Ironically, there are emails released by Donald Trump Jr. himself to prove this.)
Nevertheless, we were urged by some to vote against this resolution, not on the merits, but because it is supposedly not within the purview of the Newton City Council to pass judgment or take action on national issues. This is an inaccurate and misguided interpretation of the respective roles and responsibilities of our laws and system of government and our obligation to represent the people of Newton. As our nation’s Founders recognized, federal, state and local governments all represent the people. And as local elected representatives, the Newton City Council is closest to the people of Newton, and it is therefore our responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard at even the highest levels of government.
At the heart of that responsibility lies the right of the people to petition their government to redress all grievances—a right which is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Massachusetts Constitution and Declaration of Rights, and the Newton City Charter. Indeed, just last week we celebrated the anniversary of our nation’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, in which the nation’s Founders adopted a statement of principles and list of grievances, including the following passage which has profound meaning and relevance to this issue:
The right to petition the Government for the redress of grievances—and the corresponding obligation of the people’s representatives to take action on such petitions, has been a keystone of the Anglo-American system of laws and government going all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215, a charter of liberties which King John of England agreed to under threat of rebellion. The early American colonists incorporated those principles into their laws and viewed their local governments as conduits for lodging their complaints with the King of England. In 1641, just 21 years after the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, the Massachusetts Body of Liberties—the first legal code established by colonists in New England which was composed of enumerated rights belonging to the people, rather than restrictions imposed on them—expressly protected the rights of the people to petition their government, recognizing that:
The right of Newton citizens to petition their government is expressly protected by our City Charter. Section 10-2 of the Charter provides in relevant part that “the city council … shall hold a public hearing and act with respect to every petition which is addressed to it, which is signed by at least 50 voters, and which seeks the passage of a measure.” Importantly, the requirement to hold a public hearing and take action on a citizens petition is set forth in mandatory terms, not discretionary.
Thus, this right to petition the City Council to call on the local, state and federal government, even the President himself, to redress their grievances resides at the very crux of our system of laws and government. While I respect the right of any of my colleagues and members of the public to disagree as to the merits of this resolution to Congress to investigate impeachment, I believe that, as a City Council, we had not only the authority but the obligation to take action on this petition presented to us by citizens of the City of Newton.
Trump is a terrible human and president, but this is simply not the city council’s business. Please focus on the local issues, of which there are many, for which people actually elected you.
What Ted said.
So, Ted..now that the council has supported the resolution…whats next?? Does the resolution just sit there and collect dust…Is this the end?? How are the councilors going to put teeth into the resolution?? We wasted countless hours discussing this, even on the blog…Maybe you’ll take it to J Kennedy, Warren and Markey…do you think it’ll change their mind?? I just rode down Winchester st and felt like I was in a mind field.
By the way, my thoughts are in line with Bob B.
So Ted and Bryan-
You would or would not support
an amended resolution that would call for Trumps’s impeachment?
He is already being investigated, and
there is clearly a move to impeach already at hand. Isn’t this resolution
a day late and a dollar short?
If there is a group of newtonians
that pushed the 1st resolution, wouldnt their hatred of Trump dovetail with a resolution that had some teeth? Are they trying to make noise or enact change?
There were three candidates for mayor
and other candidates for office that voted on this. Shouldn’t the electorate of Newton, the entire electorate,
not just those that are here in Newton this summer
get a chance to see this voted on
closer to the November elections?
Maybe the goal is to get this done
while few people are here to pay attention. I’m probably just being a cynic, or as Greg would say, I’m
pushing a “conspiracy theory”.
Clinton got 36,463 votes in Newton. Trump got 7,764. And since then, he’s admitted to what appear to be several crimes.
Do you really think a city council vote to impeach Trump closer to the municipal election would hurt the council candidates who vote yes? Regardless of your views on the merits, the reality is that Trump is, shall we say, less than popular in our fair city, regardless of what the up or down arrows say on Village14.
@Bryan-
Doesn’t answer my question as to
whether you personally would support it. Being bold means taking a stand one
way or the other. I understand, it’s too much of a commitment, better to stay in the middle. It’s good to persist and resist, not so much to commit. Good luck with the resolution.
Tom Sheff, I couldn’t agree more with you. The condition of Newton Streets are a total disgrace and our City Council is focused on impeaching Trump. They need to get their priorities in order and I’m no Trump supporter.
It’s funny you should mention
Winchester St Tom and Peter. I jog by there quite regularly.
Yes, Winchester street is bad, but nearby on Nahanton street there are no sidewalks. The CPA Angino Farm, which was having a private restricted gala event last night- despite the fact that is a public property, has had its driveway paved, is deleading the property and has a current opening for a staff person. Compensation unknown. Apparently the people that operate the farm live there full time.
I imagine rent free.
Don’t know how much or if they are paid or if the job comes with a stipend.
The property and its adjoining barn are in line for capital improvements,
that will most likely be done before any side walks are installed.
The city of Newton has also signed 20 year agreement with Angino farm. All on our nickel. The city can’t be bothered dealing with capital improvements, like sidewalks, which are sorely needed over on Nahanton St, but it can continue to commit long term dollars to a CPA project in ward 8, which overwhelmingly rejected the CPA tax, so that the project will exist in perpituity. The CPA was supposed to be subject to 5 year reviews, but I’m not sure that hasn’t happened even once.
I am embarrassed to say I live in Newton today! There are no words for President Trump but it is my opinion that the City Council should focus in on City affairs! Councilors you were voted in as City Councilors not Federal/Government councilors. We have so much going on our City with a possible tax override, schools, traffic, overcrowding in schools, streets/sidewalks, and this is this should be the focus of City Councilors. I
Ironically, after the Trump vote was completed and the chambers cleared of all but five residents, the council had a substantive discussion on the merits and risks of a proposal to add a slew of police cameras to Newton intersections– a local issue with broad implications.
I hate Trump, and I really don’t care what the City Council thinks of him. But I’m extremely intrigued by Jack Prior’s comment about the City Council considering a plan to install police cameras at Newton intersections…
I am sickened by the relentless intrusion of technology into every aspect of our daily lives. It is particularly disheartening when government directs its resources at monitoring the activities of law abiding citizens, in the hope they might catch someone breaking the law. These types of spying activities, whether it’s the National Security Agency or Newton Police Department, set the wrong tone for the relationship between government and citizenry. They’re conducted on the most questionable constitutional ground, and erode any right to privacy we have left. For the City Council or Newton Police to go down this path would be an enormous mistake.
Mike, I was waiting for your comment. Go to the intersection of Beacon st and Centre st, look on top of the lights…there are cameras already here…they just didn’t announce it. There are other intersections with these cameras as well.
‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’. – Martin Luther King
trump IS a local issue. I support the 1st Amendment protection of freedom of religion guaranteed by the US Constitution against trump’s repeated attempts at a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”. Not to mention his illegal emoluments and collusion with Putin. He is a traitor, liar, and fraud and should be jailed.
I believe Amy pointed out that only 17 citizen’s petitions have been submitted to the council over the last couple decades. Going forward there could be far fewer given that the proposed charter would make it 4 times harder to submit petitions, requiring petitioners to accumulate 200 signatures rather than 50.
@Mike – This was what was referred back to committee by the council. I believe Marc Laredo was first to note the Orwellian risks associated with the proposal. Unfortunately the “tapes” of the meeting are not up yet on NewTV (http://www.newtv.org/video/city-council-meetings/) — perhaps money better invested there….
“#175-17 Appropriate $150,000 from Cable Fees for video cameras for 30 traffic signals
HIS HONOR THE MAYOR, requesting authorization to appropriate and expend eighty
thousand four hundred seventy-seven dollars ($80,477) from Cable TV Capital Franchise
Fees and sixty-nine thousand five hundred twenty-three dollars ($69,523) from Cable TV
Operating Franchise Fees for the installation of video cameras on approximately 30
traffic signals in Newton.”
@Tom — I had thought some devices that look like cameras on top of signals were replacing failed sensors in pavement to detect waiting cars, but now I’m not sure…
@Nathan — agreed — it is just interesting how much activist focus we had on a council letter of marginal impact vs. whether to put our Cable TV dollars to work to add 30 surveillance cameras to Newton’s streets to monitor the movements of residents.
I for one am proud to be from Newton and at the forefront of calling whatever attention can be called to the disaster that is the Trump presidency. Yes, there are local issues for which the City Council can cast more than symbolic votes. But last I checked we are part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which is part of the United States of America, for which Trump is at least nominally president. So it affects us. And every little bit of resistance, even if it is just essentially a press release saying we are concerned by what is going on, matters. If enough other municipalities did this it could create a tipping point for state representation to act. Local government does not need to be myopic in deciding what issues to discuss.
Welcoming City. Leaf blower ban. Nixing plastic bags. Impeach Trump.
In my humble opinion, the Alder-whatevers are behaving like a pack of nitwits.
I am truly proud to be supporting Scott Lennon and appreciate his colleagues who also chose to not make decisions based on their personal opinions. Whether or not you support the President of the United States or not we do not need to make Newton divisive based on an issue that is not part of our City Counselor’s job description in the first place.
Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump have been introduced in the United States House of Representatives. Somehow, I doubt it was our City Council’s resolution that motivated Reps. Al Green (D-Texas) and Brad Sherman (D-California) to do so (sarcasm intended). To be fair, and as stated here by others, the charter did force the hand of our councilors to take a vote on the citizens petition, even though many of us thought even an hour’s debate was a waste of time for our local legislators. We have our own problems here. So, now we can watch as events unfold and see what happens. The 2018 elections will be key. Democrats should be aware: It requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove a president. That would probably mean about 10 Republicans joining their colleagues across the aisle… if it gets that far. Time will tell.
Andy, thanks for that info. I believe the numbers in the Senate are 52 Rep to 46 Dems and 2 Ind (Ind and dems make up 48). Since there are 100 Senators and it takes 2/3 rds to support impeachment (67 is 2/3) then it would take 19 Republicans to crossover. Just sayin’
@Tom and Jack– When the cameras at Beacon and Centre streets first appeared, I expressed my concern here on Village 14. I was quickly assured that those particular cameras were used to expedite emergency vehicles from the nearby fire station through that intersection. It seems fairly clear that is a legitimate use of monitoring. As often is the case though, it’s a fine line between legitimate use and unreasonable intrusion. I’d be very disappointed if members of the Newton City Council didn’t recognize that line. And I am extremely disappointed that Mayor Warren leaped across that line by proposing such intrusive and constitutionally questionable police monitoring of citizens.
The cameras mounted on traffic lights probably deserves a separate thread. But for what it’s worth, I am very troubled by the fact that the proposed cameras would be recording and that the recordings would be saved.
In the past, the cameras were used solely as motion detectors to replace the coils in the street and not as recording devices. I was distressed to learn that the NPD would consider using these cameras for surveillance and as evidence in investigations and possible criminal or civil proceedings. More distressing is the fact that the city does not have a fully developed policy on how these video recordings will be used and the public’s privacy interests protected. As I said the other night, not only are there privacy issues, but the city will be subject to subpoena after subpoena by defendants in traffic cases, as well as from parties in various other civil and criminal matters that have nothing to do with traffic law enforcement, such as divorce cases.
Here is an article in Boston Magazine from 2003 that is still relevant today.
The disaster that is this administration will play out regardless of Newton’s take on it….
Let’s plant some trees, etc….
Dear Paul Green,
The “private, restricted gala event” held on June 10th at the Farm is called a fundraiser. I often attend such events. The Boys & Girls Club, The YMCA and the Library and many other non profits hold such events. The Angino Farm event was open to the public and the cost of the ticket covered the cost of the food and a contribution to the NCF education program.
The private nonprofit Newton Community Farm, Inc., (NCF) runs the farm under a 20-year license from the City of Newton, with public oversight from the City’s Farm Commission. NCF runs community-supported agriculture and educational programs and covers all day-to-day operating costs from its own sources. No City funds are used for annual operating costs.
The farm is now the site of a thriving all-organic community supported agriculture (CSA) project run for the city by the nonprofit Newton Community Farm, Inc. The farmhouse has been renovated and permanently deed restricted as an affordable unit, which houses the resident farmer hired to oversee farm operations. The land is intensively farmed to provide locally grown produce through the farm’s CSA, farm stand and local farmers markets. Additionally, a portion of the food grown on-site is donated to people in need through the Newton Food Pantry. Educational and volunteer programs are also offered at the site to area youth.
Had the town not acquired the property with the help of CPA funds, it was slated to become a $3.75 million condominium development.
http://newtoncommunityfarm.org/about/
Here the Newton Conservators weigh in on the possibility of acquiring the farm in 2004; http://www.newtonconservators.org/angino.htm
The CPA is NOT subject to 5 year reviews. That is not in the statute. You may be referring to section 16(b)which states in part; at any time after the expiration of 5 years after the date on which the law has been adopted by the such city or town said sections may be revoked in the same manner as accepted….
Here is a link to the CPA law which you may find informative ; http://www.communitypreservation.org/CPA_Text_DOR.pdf