City Councilor Jay Harney issued this statement to Village 14 on Sunday, two days after issuing this press release.
Last Friday, I announced that I would not be running for re-election for the Ward 4 Council seat. I want to thank the many people who have reached out to me over the last few days with kind words thanking me for my years of dedicated service to the City of Newton and to wish me well. After thinking about it for quite a while earlier this summer, I made the decision to run for one more term. However, over the last week, I had been struggling with some personal issues that made me seriously question whether running again was a good decision. I really wrestled with this right up until the day before I made my decision to withdraw. I am sorry about the timing of my announcement, but at the end of the day, I just finally came to the determination that my health, my family and my personal well-being were the most important things in my life, and I was forced to make the extremely difficult personal decision that running again would not be in my best interest. Thank you for your kind understanding.
Jay thank you for responding to the comments that have been placed on V14. As has been said, we thank you for your service and I do know the struggle that one goes through as to whether one should run one more time or not. Having said that, the timing of the decision that you made has an impact on not just Ward 4…but the city at large. As has already been said, one or two votes on the Council can make the difference between an item passing or not.
Since Chris Markiewicz has not shared any information with the ward and city via Face Book, an internet site or comments on V14, there is only one source of information and that is you. Why do I say this, it is easy since you have spoken in such glowing terms of him. So can you please help us out with the following:
1. Since Mr. Markiewicz did not “pull” his own papers, can you please let us know who did so, when and why he did not do so himself?
2. Though this is a Ward 4 office and only residents of ward 4 can vote for Mr. Markiewicz his votes effect the entire city, as you well know. So we all deserve to know about him and his positions. So as I said a moment ago, you know him best and your personal decision has put us into the situation of not knowing someone who could possibly sit on the council without a competitive and valuable race. So can you please answer the following: When does he plan to let us know his views on the fiscal health of the city, the hot topic of development and zoning reform, school department, environmental actions to be taken by the city, public safety & transportation, our library and the senior center and their needs…I could go on but you get the point?
Jay, as an incumbent who has been on the Council for many years, I am sure that you are well aware of the importance of transparency and accountability of our elected officials and candidates for office. In closing, maybe you can influence Christ Markiewicz to be open and transparent by communicatingwith the City.
I wish you well…and hope you enjoy more Bruce Springsteen concerts
If all ward council candidates were to withdraw nomination papers by the 10th in protest to the charter proposal, might that have some effect to the standing council? This is an unintended flaw in the proposed charter revision, that a block of 5 future successful candidates could game the system.
Good luck to you ‘YESers’, blindly leader lemmings over the cliff, the enemy we know is better than the one we don’t.
Jay –
You are a fantastic guy. Here are some reasons why I think so: 1) you are incredibly dedicated to the City and the Democratic Party 2) you’re the ‘viz’ guy for so many great candidates and I know will continue to do so 3) everyone can hear proceedings so well at Dem events because of your sound system 4) you have an excellent sense of humor 5) you’ve seen Bruce so many times –
awesome – and most importantly 5) you care – a lot.
Politics can be tough and unforgiving. Those involved know it to be this way. In this situation, the result of your actions is that choice was taken away from voters and a candidate who, based on your statement, has a particular agenda seems to be “installed.” Folks are right to be frustrated. I plan to support a write-in candidate if a good one steps up.
I’ll still gladly buy you a drink and nachos next time I see you. Others should too. You deserve a few rounds “on the house”.
Shawn
Councilor Harney, thank you for this second statement and your service to our city. I wish you and your family the very best.
Fair or not, the timing of your decision sours a distinguished tenure. And the mysterious Chris Markiewicz isn’t helping by remaining, well, mysterious.
Presuming that Markiewicz agreed to be a candidate (and really, who knows?), I’d also like to know who pulled papers on his behalf? Did he collect his own signatures? If not, who did?
Most importantly, when did Markiewicz know you weren’t going to seek reelection? Was it part of his decision to run? Was it before the filing deadline?
Unless we understand how Markiewicz came to be handed what appears to be a free ticket onto our city council and the circumstances that lead to his candidacy, your explanation that you just decided this past Friday is, frankly, hard to fully accept.
It seems like everyone agrees that the optics of this do not look good. In the past we have seen examples where apparently incumbents tip-off friends before anyone else. Before we focus on specific examples, let’s acknowledge this only happens because incumbents are involved in so few contested elections. This is a big problem that, as a City, we need to think more about. I have not decided how I will vote on the Charter. As the proposed Charter stands, the impact on contested elections is unclear.
@Jeffrey Pontiff: Although we won’t know for sure, I would guess that fewer seats would create more competition. (Certainly the election two years from now would be fascinating with 24 incumbents and 12 seats!) Either way, the average voter would certainly know a greater percentage of their electeds and, in turn, more about their policies and behavior and be able to make more informed decisions.
Also you write…
We still don’t know if this is also what happened here.
@Jeffrey: One of my primary goals throughout the charter commission process was encouraging competition. Here are a few ways I believe the new charter will accomplish this:
– Less races are likely to generate more contests simply because there are less seats to fill, which I expect will spill over to the school committee races as well.
– Term limits give a date certain when a seat might open, which gives potential candidates time to plan and prevents people (at least in that last term) from giving limited or no notice of their decision not to run.
– The eased restrictions on geographic location will allow more candidates to find a seat even in a smaller council – we’ve all seen situations, like this year, where we have 7 candidates for city council in ward 1 and only 1 new candidate for 1 open seat in ward 4 and 7 at large races.
– I have heard from many potential candidates that being a member of a 24 person city council is unappealing.
– With 3 geographically restricted seats per ward, finding the 4th person willing to run in a ward and thus leading to a contested election can be very difficult. With the new system only having 1 geographically restricted seat per ward, finding the 2nd is much less difficult.
I think it is incumbent upon me to mention that some people have also said they would be discouraged by the prospect of running at large. This certainly may be a factor for some people, but on balance, I am confident we are going to have much more competitive elections.
@Greg. I agree. I used the word “apparently” because, like the song says, “no one knows what goes on behind closed doors.”
@Bryan. If the new Charter passes, I hope you are correct. The point that you and Greg make about fewer seats implying a higher percentage of contested elections is the strongest. The other points seem flimsy. Although I love term limits (and it is a reason for me to vote for the Charter), term limits won’t solve the problem of challengers not running against incumbents, which cause shenanigan-looking-situations (like the current apparent situation). We disagree, but I think at-large elections discourage challengers, since incumbents already have city-wide recognition which is valuable in a city-wide vote. Also, I think running against a pool of candidates makes it difficult for a garner votes at the expense of a particular incumbent.
Greg: “Certainly the election two years from now would be fascinating with 24 incumbents and 12 seats!”
That presupposes the new city charter passes. I don’t think that’s a foregone conclusion, do you?
That’s why I used the word “would” as opposed to “will.”
To follow on Jeffrey’s comments… My belief has always been that voters DESERVE a choice. Choice is what makes democracy work. I’m very discouraged that my ward [7] will have a new at-large councilor who will automatically win the seat because she has no opponent. That is not good for democracy. It’s not good for Newton. And it’s exactly why I continue to believe that EVERY ballot should include an option to vote for “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
@Mike Striar – what do you envision happening if “none of the above” wins? Does the seat stay vacant for 2 years?
Hi Meredith– The important thing to me, is that the people determine who represents them. And if the people don’t want a specific candidate representing them, they should at the very least have the option to vote against that person. To me, choice is a fundamental component of democracy. There are several options of how to temporarily fill the empty seat of a single candidate who is rejected by the voters, before a new election for that seat is held. It’s not particularly important to me which of those options is employed, as long as a new election is held in a timely fashion and the final choice remains in the hands of the voters. It’s my belief that no one should take possession of an elected office unless a majority of voters put them there.
Mike – I completely agree with you in principle, just wondering about the logistics. And what happens if even after losing to “none of the above”, no one else steps up for that seat? Or if there are a series of candidates, all of whom lose to “none of the above”?
Meredith– A similar hypothetical already exists in today’s election process. What would happen if no one ran for an empty seat? So, my suggestion would be to utilize whatever solution has been contemplated by law under that scenario, because it likely already complies with Constitutional requirements. Also, it’s just my gut feeling, but I believe people would step up to fill a new election ballot in the event an unchallenged candidate lost to “None of the Above.”