The following press release arrived this morning from City Councilor Jay Harney. Note that the deadline to hand in papers to run for office was July 25th.
City Councilor Jay Harney announced today that he will not be seeking re-election. Harney has been the Ward 4 Councilor for seven terms, having first been elected in 2003. “It has been an honor and a privilege, one of the greatest thrills of my life, to serve the citizens of Newton, particularly the residents of Ward 4, as an Alderman/City Councilor for the last fourteen years. I have tried to work really hard to give back to a place where I grew up, a city that has given so much to my family and me. I hope that I have been able to make a positive difference in the lives of the people in my community.”
Harney says that not running again was a very difficult decision to make, and that is why it took him so long to come to this decision. The last few weeks have been agonizing for him. “I love this job, I love helping people, and I very much enjoy the time spent with an amazing group of dedicated citizen legislators. We may not always agree, in fact, we sometimes have very strong disagreements. However, I know how hard my colleagues work, day in, day out, to make Newton a better place for all of the residents.” But in the end, he believed it was simply the right time to move on. “When I first got elected, I stated that I would serve two or three terms and then somebody else should have an opportunity to run. But somehow, time just flew by and two or three terms turned into seven.”
Harney is excited that long time Auburndale resident Chris Markiewicz has decided to run for the Ward 4 seat and wholeheartedly endorses his candidacy, and he knows that fellow Ward 4 Councilors Lenny Gentile and Amy Sangiolo support Chris as well. “I have known Chris for many years. He has been involved in various neighborhood activities where he has demonstrated an ability to work with all parties to find common ground and reach agreement. As a CPA who has consulted to many large companies, he brings experience and judgement to fiscal, planning and strategic matters. Chris is active in the local arts community, especially in the music field.”
Harney has been a strong supporter of maintaining the character of our villages and neighborhoods, and has worked hard to try to assure that development projects are of appropriate scale and density for the neighborhoods in which they are situated. He has been a strong supporter of the Newton Police and Fire Departments, “the men and women who put their lives on the line every single day to keep us safe”, and of our great schools, including teachers, administrators and custodians. He has been a strong believer in open and transparent government, and in always trying to listen to the residents. “I know that Chris Markiewicz shares these same values and he will be an extremely effective advocate for Ward 4.”
Harney feels very strongly that since Newton is a city of 13 villages, each with their own unique characteristics, it is of the utmost importance to have a ward councilor who lives in the ward, is elected by the residents of the ward, and will be responsive to the issues and concerns of each ward. “Whether it’s fixing a pothole, putting in a parking restriction, implementing traffic calming measures, or working with a neighborhood and a developer to try to find common ground on a development project, a ward councilor is the most direct representative you can have in city government to listen to your concerns, protect your interests, to be your direct link to City Hall” he says. Thus, he strongly urges the residents of Newton to vote NO on the Charter change. “I respect that the Charter Commission worked very hard, but at the end of the day, I believe that they simply got this one wrong. The proposed new Charter is an up or down vote, so if you want to keep your direct local representative, you have to vote NO on the Charter.”
As far as his future plans, Harney stated “Go to more rock concerts, of course. I have only seen Bruce Springsteen 76 times. But seriously, I am not sure exactly what it will be, but I am looking forward to exploring new opportunities in public service, to continue to give back to the community and to continue trying to make a positive difference in people’s lives, whether in our city, in our state or in our country.”
Very disappointed to hear this. I can understand why Jay wants to have a life again, but I will greatly miss having him on the City Council. He is one of the best defenders of common sense and regular people against the pressure of profit-oriented developers.
Waiting, until past the deadline to hand in papers, to announce that the ward-elected incumbent isn’t running, let’s the councilor pick his replacement. This technicality may push me to vote yes for the charter.
I think there should be an extension of the deadline to turn in papers for that position only when this happens.
I am genuinely sad by Jay’s decision and endorse every word in his statement above. He’s the kind of independent thinker and leader we need more of in Newton and it’s encouraging that Chris Markiewicz will be replacing him. It’s always been a pleasure to interact with Jay at City Hall or on the campaign trail. He is never afraid to speak truth to power or to tell you tell you what’s he’s thinking. Jay is the kind of leader who genuinely favors the full inclusion of strong village institutions in the political and governmental life of the City.
It’s cliche to say that “someone will be missed”, but in Jay’s case, this is hardly an overstatement.
With all due respect to Jay and his long record of service to Newton and also to the state, because Jay really has been a dedicated and committed public servant, I am troubled by the timing of this announcement and the fact that nobody else will have an opportunity to run for what is now an open seat.
This virtually guarantees Chris Markiewicz a seat. I don’t know him or where he stands on issues, and neither do any of the people I’ve spoken with in ward 4 since his name appeared on the final ballot list. He doesn’t have a website that I’m aware of and didn’t do a candidate statement on Village 14. Maybe he’s a great guy and shares my values. I have no idea. That troubles me.
Does he plan on knocking on doors or running any campaign at all?
I don’t understand how no-one else had the opportunity to run for the seat. People can run against incumbents. How does the fact that no one else decided to challenge the incumbent support the current proposal for charter reform any more than the uncontested at large seats in Ward 4, 6, 7 or 8?
I’ll miss Jay’s extremely valuable contributions to Newton government. And I wish that he had made this announcement well before the deadline for others to turn in nomination papers. And I support Lucia’s reminder that people can run against incumbents.
While it’s often more difficult to win against an incumbent, we make that hurdle more difficult when we refer to seats as “open” only when there is no incumbent running. Every seat is “open” in every election.
As somebody who did it, I agree with Lucia. If you think an incumbent needs to be challenged, challenge the incumbent. Don’t sit around unhappy until a seat opens up. You may not win, but you will give voters a choice.
I’m not sure the proposed new charter (which I take every opportunity to mention I oppose, because getting rid of ward-elected councilors is a terrible idea) would even do anything about allowing candidates to jump in after the deadline if they see a seat will be open. Any Charter Commission members know offhand?
Hah, good point Bruce! I didn’t see your comment before mine. I should have said “vacant.” :-)
It seems to me that if there’s a deadline for entering the race, then there should be the same deadline for pulling out of the race (with exceptions made for unforeseen medical issues or the like). As a ward 4 resident, I’m frustrated to end up with only one candidate who is relatively unknown and who doesn’t have to make any effort get to know his constituents and our concerns in order to win our votes.
I’m grateful to anyone who is willing to serve and respect any decision to no longer serve. But I am disappointed — make that disgusted — by the way this has unfolded.
It’s sneaky.
It’s disingenuous.
It’s selfish.
And it’s disrespectful to the residents of Ward 4 and all of Newton.
I don’t know Chris Markiewicz. But that’s besides the point. Chris could go onto become the Greatest City Councilor Of All Time. He could win the Nobel Peace Prize. But that doesn’t excuse this.
It’s wrong.
@Allison: There is a deadline to withdraw, it’s August 10th, 2 weeks after the papers are due to be handed in.
Timeline here: http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/City%20Clerk/2017%20Election%20Calendar%20(signs).pdf
@Bryan, thanks for that info. Thinking about it more… now I’m thinking the deadline for withdrawing should be *before* the deadline for handing in papers. So that in a case like this, if someone withdraws leaving only one candidate, there is time for another candidate to jump in. Any idea what the rationale for the current timeline is (with deadline for withdrawal *after* deadline for papers handed in?
I agree with Greg and Marti
Everyone just needs to relax a little here as this is going to be a wild year of change in government and all kinds of things can happen because in the end of the day, we’re all people (Please read my candidate statement on City government changes). Jay has been nothing less than an honest trusted Public Servant that has always had the best interests of other people in his heart, and I value his guidance and friendship. Ward 4, simply has not generated any candidates during this election cycle and this is quite possibly due to being so well represented by their sitting Councilors for a number of years.
This along with the uncertainty of the Charter makes paying for a campaign to win a seat a big family decision. You can spend money now, and then lose your seat in 2 years, making community service a costly venture.
Jay cannot dictate asking people to run, and had he announced 2 weeks before, given they only have one at Large candidate in an open seat, who do you think was going to step up?
Chris is also someone I know well from his actions in the community, and these actions have also been for the benefit of his fellow residents. The fact that he is stepping up to fill what could have been a “write in” seat is something that you have to appreciate.
Serving on the Council is not as easy as it looks, requiring many hours, good and bad reviews, all kinds of comments, and the reality of having to run every 2 years. (every 1 1/2).
Keep in mind as you consider your Charter vote that as a city we cannot find candidates for open seats, so why would shrinking the Council improve this situation?
Thank you for your service Jay!!
With all due respect Councilor Cote, we will never know if someone would have stepped up to run if they knew Councilor Harney was stepping down because Councilor Harney waited until one week after the deadline to make his announcement.
I also don’t think we can assume that the lack of competition for the Ward 4 at large opening means no one else would have stepped up for the ward seat. Josh Krintzman is pretty well known and a political newcomer might have judged that city wide contest to be out of their reach.
PLUS isn’t one of the arguments in favor of keeping ward seats is that they are easier path for a newcomer? Councilor Harney blocked that path.
We have seen a record number of new, talented candidates step up this year in other wards and for other seats in spite of the charter uncertainty or the cost of running a campaign.
I like Jay Harney and I respect him for all the time he’s given to the city, his campaigning for progressive candidates on the state and national level and his taste in music. But this was a good old fashioned “we insiders know better than you voters” politics at its worst.
@Lucia and @Julia – sure, if you’re unhappy with the incumbent you can run against them. But there are people who aren’t particularly unhappy with the incumbent and see no reason to challenge them, but would run to replace them if the seat opens up. Those people get shut out when this happens – and many of them might make good City Councilors.
The deadline for incumbents to announce that they aren’t running for re-election should be earlier than the deadline to submit papers, to avoid people getting to choose their own successors.
For those of you who have the longterm institutional memory, this is not the first time something like this has happened.
– all I can say is I hope Jay gets over his illness.
“There is a deadline to withdraw, it’s August 10th, 2 weeks after the papers are due to be handed in.”
Who made this rule? Is it statewide or local? Could it be addressed in the Charter?
There seem to be implications of ill intent on the late withdrawal, but maybe it was a sudden decision.
A bit off-topic with regard to the original post, but seems relevant to this discussion: What happens if nobody runs for a vacant seat? Are we left with 23 councilors? This must have happened at some point in history.
@Lucia: It is not spelled out in the Charter, it is a procedure run by the Clerk’s office. I would presume these procedures are either in ordinance or determined at the discretion of the Clerk’s office.
Despite our thorough process on the Charter Commission, issues will inevitably come up that we didn’t foresee in our review. That’s why we included a regular charter review to be completed every 10 years.
This is a shame. I don’t know Jay Harney and I only know his positions to a limited extent. But it is laughable to think that he only made this decision now, in the exact time period between the registration period and the drop out period, without some knowledge that Chris would be benefited. I would say the same thing if any member of the city council decided to do this.
I don’t know Jay Harney at all. But as a city councilor, this was a shameful last act. Clearly he wanted his ward to approve someone he personally knew and liked. Too bad he didn’t trust them enough to do that without his interference. If I was a Ward 4 resident, I’d think less of him, and I’d be upset.
But hey, ward councilors = democracy, right? Isn’t that what we were told?
I’ve said it before, politics ain’t beanbag. But even as some of Jay’s supporters come to speak, let’s have some self respect and acknowledge that this wasn’t a shining moment of integrity and openness. Insider politics indeed. Glad I’m not in Ward 4.
At least Emily and Jake won their seats the old fashioned way. They walked the ward.
I like Jay Harney. He’s done a lot for Newton. But I’m in agreement with Greg. This move was a bit too manipulative for me. Council seats belong to the public, not Council members.
Although having ones’ name on the ballot is important, it’s not the only way to get elected. Having been an observer of Newton politics for quite some time, I’ve often felt a Ward Councilor’s seat could be won with a sticker campaign. It would take a candidate with strong organizational skills, but it could be done. Particularly against an non-incumbent opponent.
Sounds like the folks who are “troubled” with everything surrounding Jay’s choice to not run for councilor again, and Chris stepping up to serve his community is a bit of sour grapes. Without knowing the background and what Jay was thinking, it seems to me that comments like “sneaky, disingenuous, selfish and disrespectful” are nasty and do not show appreciation for the many years of service Mr. Harney has given to Newton.
Jay is a great guy who’s been very dedicated to the city and the Democratic Party. He’s well-liked, hard working and deserving of thanks for his service.
However, the way he has stepped down is really, really unfortunate. Jay’s statement that this happened because he was having a hard time deciding whether or not to run simply doesn’t align with the fact that everything was set up so nicely for this Chris fellow. It is hard to see how this maneuver is anything but an undemocratic (small d) way for Jay to appoint a successor.
@Bryan – “That’s why we included a regular charter review to be completed every 10 years.”
Isn’t there something like this in the current charter? What would the difference be with the new review process?
I’ve still to see any reasoning why Jay Harney stepping down support the proposed Charter changes.
It does, though, strongly support changing the rules on when a candidate can withdraw from the campaign. But it’s not clear if this is a Charter or Administrative rule. Either way it could be fixed by the current councilors or the mayor without a new charter.
@Lucia — No, there isn’t a regular charter review in the current charter. The last time our charter was reviewed was in the early 1970s.
Lucia-The current charter does not include a provision for a 10-review. That’s one of the reasons why so much of it is so out of date (superseded by changes in state law, unexpected situations that arise such as this one, etc.). The new proposal would allow situations such as this to be addressed within a reasonable amount of time.
Too many questions have been left unanswered that have created a level of mistrust in our local government that we simply can’t ignore.
I think that these election rules might be set out by the state, and not by the City of Newton. I did check on this recently because I’d been making a list of people who pulled papers and for which offices–and was surprised when there was a name and race for an office that wasn’t listed in City Hall. I knew someone other than a candidate could pull nomination papers, but I didn’t realize that a person could also change the office they are seeking (from what they write down.) Turns out we don’t even need to use nomination papers–as long as they meet certain requirements, we can create them ourselves.
terrific!- so now I am a write-in candidate for ‘dog catcher’…
What @Marti said.
@Harry: I thought you were dog catcher.
Lucia,
The Councilor who withdrew from the election too late for another candidate to turn in papers and selected his own successor is a ward-elected councilor from Ward 4. The reason this pushes me toward voting yes for the new charter is if he were an at-large Councilor there would be a much larger number of voters who could write in another candidate. I don’t like having electeds being able to choose their own replacement. It would be less likely to happen if all of Newton could exercise their right to vote.
If the laws/rules around turning in papers and withdrawing as a candidate were reversed, it would make the situation better. But still if a Councilor waited until the last day to withdraw, it would be difficult for a new candidate to jump in and get signatures.
It would be nice if Jay Harney would comment on all of the feedback that he is receiving. As it is his decision that is impacting the Ward 4 residents. If the ward councilor seat is as coveted as I am hearing…I do hope someone will launch a vigorous write-in campaign.
Jay has been a friend and neighbor of ours for the past 19 years and we are going to miss his tireless advocacy for Ward 4. Over the years, we have watched Jay put his responsibilities as a city councilor above his personal interests. He has always been nothing but a straight-shooter—“sneaky,” “disingenuous,” and “selfish” simply don’t apply to Jay Harney. Rather, Jay has always been honorable and transparent. When he says that his decision to step down was difficult, and one he only made recently, he has earned the benefit of the doubt. We support Jay 100%.
Statement of write-in candidacy for dog catcher:
‘Have net will travel’ theme to cast a wide net around unrepentant commissions such as the solid waste commission. – There the non-renewed commission members (long-term expired terms) take votes and make policy without their official dog tag license of commission member. My policy would be to muzzle those commission members whose expired terms exceed the length of time they actually served as a boneafide member. I would acutely utilize my dog whispering skills to effectively sniff out anal waste entitlements for an enhanced ‘organics’ program. My team of crack experts would meet monthly in the coveted secret staircase speakeasy behind the locked door opposite the Hall’s Treasurer window. Our secret entry password and handshake, although shared with the chief executive, allows for secure absentia, modeled after the school committee.
@ Marti “The reason this pushes me toward voting yes for the new charter is if he were an at-large Councilor there would be a much larger number of voters who could write in another candidate.” But there would also be a larger number of voters who could vote for the listed candidates.
IMHO being a write-in candidate for a ward seat would be easier because a candidate can walk the Ward quicker than they can walk the City and it costs a lot less to send out a mailing to a Ward than the $8,000 it costs to send out one mailing Citywide.
I don’t see how any candidate could walk the City and be a full-time employee or caretaker of a family, which brings me to my main issue with eliminating Ward councilors.
The time and money involved to run a contested Citywide race are much greater than running a Ward race. At a campaign event, I recently heard a School Committee candidate say it cost them $30,000 for a contested contest in 2009. By eliminating Ward elections, we are reducing the pool of potential candidates.
I don’t believe this issue applies to the charter debate. The same situation could have occurred with an at-large councilor.
@Lucia – thank you for saving me the time to write that. I agree 100%.
Lucia, The system is set up like our School committee. No one complains that they have to campaign citywide, no one is complaining their ward isn’t represented…all of a sudden it’s “an issue” all of a sudden it costs too much? Why didn’t you bring that issue up to the charter commission, so they can change the way the SC has to campaign? I guess the logic flies over my head…I don’t see it.
As far as this post…for me, this does leave a small blemish on Jay’s legacy. This isn’t healthy for the city and it isn’t the right thing to do.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the ill-conceived Charter-change proposal…on which I am enthusiastically voting NO…mostly because it would strip away our most accountable elected officials and consolidates power. More info at http://www.newtondemocracy.org
Meanwhile, Jay has always been one of the most thoughtful, independent minded, accessible, and responsive elected officials…and even has great taste in music. Sorry to see him leave the Council.
@Charlie I agree that it has nothing to do with the charter. But it does poke holes in your contention that ward aldermen are “our most accountable elected officials.”
Having someone else choose your elected officials is never democratic.
@Lucia From what I understand after speaking with some people who are more familiar with elections than I am, the cost of running, even on a city-wide basis, has dropped considerably in the past few years. The tools now exist to focus a campaign on the wards and voters who you would consider most-likely for your campaign.
So, for example, if your polling shows great support in Wards 5 and 6 (regardless of your home ward), then you can focus your mailings by targeting just those people in those wards who voted in the last local election. Now the mailing costs are a lot less. You can also walk that portion and meet just those selected voters.
In an election with a relatively low turnout, the issue may be more about activating your base than reaching every voter in the city.
Hi Tom – I do support Ward elected School Committee members, for the reasons above and because I think it would lead to a more open discussion on the differences between our schools (Is tech still PTO funded?)
Just thought it was a hopeless cause. Whereas, keeping our locally elected Ward councilors seems hopeful.
Chuck – How much does polling cost? Are you polling the City by phone, Village14 poll, door-to-door?
Lucia, why did you think it’s a hopeless cause to change the SC elections?? I am guessing because you didn’t see enough support behind it.
What makes you think there’s enough support behind the charter changes?? I am guessing because there’s vocal opposition to charter change on Village 14 and they decided to throw this issue in the mix to see if it has legs.
The argument just doesn’t hold water.
behind opposing the charter changes