All results from the Progressive Newton questionnaires are now online. Thank you to all the candidates who shared their views with us. If anyone hasn’t yet submitted a questionnaire, it’s too late to be considered for an endorsement but we are more than happy to share your answers on our website.
UPDATED to reflect the fact that 3 additional surveys had come in that we did not post inadvertently, from Margaret Albright, Cheryl Lappin, and Gail Spector. The website has been updated with their responses.
Nice work pulling all this together and making it publicly available. But who changed the spelling of my name in the link? It’s Julia — I never use Julie!
There is one important question missing from the questionnaire:
Would you support an ordinance to allow undocumented school children from Boston and neighboring towns enrollment into Newton schools? If a child feels threatened by their immigration status, Newton should provide a safe space for that child to go to school. After all, Newton supports the welcoming ordinance
The welcoming ordinance should not be considered a ‘token’ gesture
So sorry, Julia! My bad typing. Will fix.
Excuse my ignorance, but is there a Progressive Newton Committee who makes this decision? If so, I’d be very interested in learning who sits on it.
@bugek, all school districts in Massachusetts are obligated under state and federal law to provide all students with equal access to primary and secondary education, irrespective of citizenship or immigration status. These laws include the Massachusetts Student Anti-Discrimination Act, the Massachusetts Anti-Bullying Law, and Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Just a quick note that we have extended the time for ward 4 ward councilors to respond, given the nature of that race and how it developed. We should be able to update with their responses by the 31st, if they respond.
@Susan Davidoff, thank you!
@Margaret, I think Bugek was asking specifically about undocumented kids from outside Newton being allowed to attend Newton schools.
@Lauren Berman, there’s an answer of sorts on their website:
But that begs the question, who defines what is “progressive,” what are the litmus tests, and what is an “active” member. (And you’ve only got about five days left to demonstrate your “active”-ness!)
A great resource, well put together by Progressive Newton.
A question for its members:
Education is conspicuously missing from the survey. Beyond being 50% of the city’s budget, its surprising that educating our children isn’t a higher priority for the group. And no questions for the SC on education???
@Paul: It’s a fair question. This is the first time we’ve done such a survey, and admittedly there are some lessons learned. Next cycle, I think we need more questions tailored to the school committee.
Margaret,
Since Newton likely has very few undocumented immigrants because the cost of living is higher, should we not open our schools to those who live in neighboring towns?
It’s pretty clear Newton will never build hundreds of low income units so that undocumented immigrants can actually live in Newton. Let them come into our schools so they can have a safe space
@Julia An active member is a current member of Progressive Mass. We have extended the deadline until next Monday night – so it should give folks a full week to join.
I’ve read many but not yet all of these but I still don’t know the answer to Question 12: Why are people poor?
Now that the survey is closed can someone from Progressive Newton tell us the correct answer so we will know who to vote for?
@Greg: I think the assumption you’re making is that there is a right set of answers and if you answer them right you get an endorsement. That’s not how this process is going to work. The surveys serve two purposes: To inform the public about issues that are important to our members and to be one set of data we can consider in determining who to support.
Having now read through these, I’m really glad we asked why people are poor. We got some really impressive answers and a variety of perspectives that really help you understand how our would-be councilors think.
@ Greg: To follow up on Bryan’s comment, that question was borrowed from an activist we know and respect greatly. We had a discussion about whether to include it, fully aware there would be, ahem, skeptics.
We decided to include it to see a bit more about candidates’ thought processes and worldview, and perhaps also to provoke some broader systemic thinking because, in the day-to-day of governance, there often is little time for such reflection. I don’t view it as a litmus test question with a particular “right” answer.
I too am happy that we included it, and with the level of thought that the candidates put into that question and all the questions. My personal thanks to everyone who submitted.
@Robert and Bryan: Thanks for your reasonable responses to my somewhat flip comment.
The “poor” question should have been: “Name three specific actions that you will take, if elected, to help our thousands of demonstrably poor residents improve their lives.”
A political candidate talking about his or her subjective philosophy on the root causes of poverty does nothing to help those in need. Period.
It is insightful to note, however, that none of the candidates talked about bringing the Summer Food Service Program to Newton. Making sure that our poor students have food to eat during the summer months should be a priority of each and every elected official.
@bugek, I think the point I was making is that no school district asks that question about whether a child is documented or undocumented nor can we. So I’m not sure how accepting undocumented students into the district would work since we cannot and will not ask that question, nor will any other school district. And no school district can or would advocate for any family or child to self-identify.
Thank you, Progressive Newton, for undertaking your questionnaire and publishing the candidates’ responses. I encourage every voter to read this material for greater insight into the candidates’ positions and proposals for Newton.
Thanks to Progressive Newton for the work put into this survey and for posting the answers for the public to read. There are no perfect set of questions to ask candidates but I think you did an excellent job. Reading their replies helps gain insight into their manner of thinking as well as their concrete answers to questions about Newton.
I’m more bothered by the “Why are people poor?” question than Greg is. It’s relevance to any of our local races is tenuous at best, and the answers are entirely subjective and speculative. But that’s not what really bothers me about that particular question. I’m more troubled by the fact an irrelevant question took the place of an extremely important and highly relevant question [to many true progressives] that went unasked in this groups candidate questionnaire…
HOW SHOULD THE CITY OF NEWTON HANDLE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR RETAIL CANNABIS SALES?
In my opinion, the City Council [then BOA] completely mishandled the implementation of the medical cannabis law in Newton, denying thousands of patients access to their prescribed medication for 3 years. To date, the only public official in Newton to have admitted that mistake is Amy Sangiolo, and she deserves a lot of credit for her bravery in acknowledging that.
Now, recreational cannabis has been legalized by the voters, and the City Council must decide how that law will be codified within the City’s zoning regulations. They could do the smart thing, and apply the same zoning regulations for retail cannabis sales that currently apply to liquor sales, OR the stupid thing, and try to isolate the fastest growing industry in America to a geographically remote area like Wells Ave. In fact, the City Council could still attempt to defy the will of the voters and ban all cannabis sales in Newton.
The questions about retail cannabis sales are directly relevant to this campaign, as our new Mayor and City Council will in large part hold sway over how this issue will be handled in Newton. I don’t understand why a group that calls itself “progressive” [Progressive Newton] would fail to even mention this issue [or the word “cannabis”] in its’ candidate questionnaire, in favor of a silly question about “poor people.”
Here’s the bottom line… I would very much like to know where all the candidates stand on the issue of cannabis regulation BEFORE the upcoming election.
@Bugek, do you know how many undocumented are currently attending Newton schools already? Newton has a higher than state average student population by % whose first language is not English. Not that it particularly means they’re undocumented–but it attests to Newton being a culturally diverse City.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/student.aspx?orgcode=02070000&orgtypecode=5&leftNavId=305&fycode=2017
Back to the survey, I can’t help but read it as spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, and make Newton affordable! One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong.
And the plan to raise taxes while giving tax breaks “to the needy” just serves to build a two tiered society: rich and poor. Leave some room for the middle class!
David M,
First language not being English has correlation to whether they are undocumented or not. Calculating many undocumented live in Newton would be quite easy to approximate, the majority are probably making minimum wage or less.
Annually that would be 15k a year, assuming one parent stays at home to take care of the kids and a small 2BR would rent for $1800. Even if 2 parents work, that would be 72% of income just on rent..
I would say the actual number of undocumented families living in Newton is very very small, less than 100, if that…
What is progressive Newton doing to enable large numbers (not token numbers) of undocumented families to actually live in Newton… build hundreds of low income housing units? Do we actually want them to ‘live’ in Newton?
@Davis, I agree Newton should have the Summer Food Service Program. Perhaps Newton is not eligible. According to Mass Dept of Ed Child nutrition outreach program
http://meals4kids.org/find-summer-meal-site
SFSP eligibility can be determined by either of the following:
1.School Data- the community has a school at which at least 50% of these students are eligible for free or reduced price meals. The school data represented here is based off MDESE’s October statistics.
2.Census Data- the community has an area in which at least 50% of children under 19 are at or below 185% of the federal poverty level.
Mike,
Would you explain what the Council did wrong with respect to Medical MJ? I would like to hear what Amy said went awry. I did some checking with our Law Department about the implementation of the new law – to find out how the Council can/should get involved. FYI – I found out there is a working group of city staff chaired by the Director of Planning and that Greg Schwartz is the Council’s representative to the group. The working group met a few times last year and was waiting for the final legislation from the state. Now that this is available they plan to start meeting again. I just this week asked Mr Heath if he would please a) send a letter to the Council explaining what he is doing and b) allow citizens to give input to the working group. He agreed to both of these things
@Maria: Are you suggesting that Newton does not have an area in which at least 50% of children under 19 are at or below 185% of the federal poverty level? We in fact have many.
As you went out of your way to provide the website, please take two seconds to do the following: type “Newton” into the website under where it reads “This map can be used to view meal sites or determine SFSP eligibility.” Please then report back your findings. (To anyone reading this comment, the website makes clear that there are six different areas which qualify Newton for SFSP.)
Not only do we likely have hundreds of kids living in public housing, meaning their are distinguishably poor (that’s where I grew up), but we have more than 1,400 NPS students who live off some type of welfare. To suggest that we don’t have areas in Newton where poor kids live is quite frankly outrageous.
Tom
Does the METCO program skew the poverty rates for students in any way?
Tom, thank you for posting this information concerning an available program not being utilized to combat child poverty and hunger in Newton. The website was most enlightening. Our mayoral, city council and school committee candidates and current electeds should not be allowed to ignore this. There is an obvious need not being addressed.
It’s particularly disquieting to look at the map with the city of Newton showing no meal sites but ringed with them in surrounding towns and cities.
@Bugek: In terms of determining eligibility for the SFSP program? No, METCO has no influence as there are sufficient numbers of poor kids living right here in Newton.
If you have the time, check out website used to determine eligibility. You should be able to find it here: http://meals4kids.org/find-summer-meal-site#/?address=Newton%2C%20MA%2C%20United%20States&radius=805.
Not only does Newton qualify, but as illustrated on the website by the many large orange/red circles, we have significant need. In fact, we have more areas in need than Waltham, which offers ten SFSP sites throughout the summer. Newton offers zero.
On a related note, I’d add that participating in METCO does not necessarily mean that the individual is poor or even close to poor. From kindergarten through senior year, nearly all my friends participated in the METCO program. They were all minorities from Roxbury, Dorchester, and Matapan. I was from Newton, yet I was much, much poorer than every single one of them. In fact, most of my friends who participated in the METCO program came from well-off families.
Nice job Progressive Newton!!!
Towards the end of the school year, my son brought home a flyer from the City of Newton advertising free lunches during summer vacation. All of the locations were IN WALTHAM!! So, not only does Newton not offer this type of program, they’re sending poor kids over to Waltham to get their free lunches! (Not to mention that most of the kids who would need free lunches likely can’t readily get to the Waltham locations, unless they live in certain areas of West Newton and they could walk) Newton can do so much better in terms of working with lower income families.
I’m glad to see that Progressive Newton put out this questionnaire, but I think the “why are people poor?” question would have been more useful if it asked HOW Newton can better help out families in need.
Interesting and important discussion here but I’m wondering if anyone has any comments about any of the candidates’ actual answers. For example, Al Cecchinelli writes:
I saw that. I rolled my eyes and moved on, but I can’t say I’m surprised based off what I saw when I looked him up on FB. His posts are all public.
Greg, why even bring attention to the lies about the BLM movement? Al’s just spouting the ignorance passed around by whomever Trump represents. All of them falsehoods not worry of print.
@Marti: Among the four non-City Councilor candidates, Cecchinelli seems to have the most lawn signs and perhaps the broadest support. It seems important to be sure that folks know where he’s coming from.
Greg, it’s disappointing that Al has the most support and yard signs of a non-councilor candidate for mayor. Still I think the ones supporting him know where he stands – on the far right.
I’ll concede it’s good to know these things about candidates. Surely he’ll be gone soon.
@Greg & Marti: Going into this process, I really wasn’t sure what to expect from these answers. Al’s answer aside, I can’t say enough about how impressed I am with the thoughtfulness, intelligence, and empathy of our councilors and potential councilors. We are truly lucky to live in such a well governed city and that trend seems likely to continue.
For those with questions about the summer food program here is more information via the Watertown TAB – http://watertown.wickedlocal.com/news/20170629/low-income-children-face-summer-meals-gap-in-watertown
Also, here is the list of grantees for the 2017 program. The closest grantee is the Waltham Boys & Girls Club who run multiple sites in Waltham – http://www.doe.mass.edu/grants/2017/awards/542.htm
Tom,
Wait, metco does not have an income requirement?? We are potentially paying to have a rich family to come to Newton because they are too cheap to pay for private school or to move into the suburbs?
Pretty outrageuos, unless intentional.. Newton celebrates diversity but only if they are not poor
Margaret, I think the more urgent issue as School is starting is to do whatever it takes to bring this program to Newton next summer.
@Marti, that probably means private funding as the program from dese has very limited funds, is a competitive grant process, and prioritizes low income communities.
@Greg, I think the candidates’ responses to the question “Why are people poor?” helps reveal their thoughtfulness, insight, empathy, character, and concern about poverty. I like that they were asked to comment on this broader, social issue.
@Margaret: Can you confirm that the School Committee or its agent applied to the Summer Food Service Program for summer 2017?
@Susan Albright– Thank you for your question. The [then] Board of Aldermen passed a city-wide moratorium on medical cannabis more than a full year after the medical marijuana ballot initiative passed overwhelmingly in Newton, and at the exact time when the state board regulating dispensary licenses was scheduled to approve the first round of applicants. The state had made it very clear that those applicants with a “Welcoming Letter” from their “host community” would be the first to be approved, and they held true to their word just one month later by issuing licenses in communities like Brookline which had met that requirement. The ill-timed moratorium caused Newton to fall out of the approval cue. The city then revoked its’ moratorium, and it took another two years before the applicant could obtain a license.
Making things even more difficult, the BOA failed to understand or acknowledge the medical cannabis law requirement that a dispensary licensee must cultivate 100% of their own product. In other words, a cannabis dispensary [at that time] could not purchase any of its’ products through a third party vendor, and had to grow their own cannabis for all of the products they sell, including not just “flower,” but edibles and other concentrates favored for medicinal use. The locations selected by the BOA for cannabis “overlay” districts failed to contemplate the need for a grow facility large enough to supply a dispensary in Newton, forcing Newton’s applicant to go through the entire application process a second time in another community to obtain a license for a grow facility, further delaying the process one additional year.
Why is this so appalling to me? Because there were thousands of Newton residents suffering from severe pain, or with illnesses like brain cancer [for example], who were denied access to their prescribed medication for years because the BOA blocked them from obtaining it.
Once again we find ourselves in a position where the voters made clear where they stand last November, and the City Council is responsible for implementing the will of those voters. We apparently have a “working group” appointed by a prohibitionist mayor–led by a prohibitionist City Councilor, which has to date operated in secret, charged with determining how the City of Newton will treat retail sales of cannabis. I fear the end result of this scenario will be zoning regulations that foolishly and unnecessarily restrict retail cannabis locations more stringently than retail liquor store locations.
@Marti: Thanks for your comment. And I absolutely agree that our mayoral, city council and school committee candidates and current elected officials should not be allowed to ignore this. Food insecurity is serious in Newton. Growing up here, there were times when I used to go to bed so hungry that I’d ration pretzels on my nightstand so that I could eat them when I inevitably woke up with hunger pains. The need is real, which is why I want to know how strongly our elected officials advocated on behalf of our most disadvantaged children (if at all).
@Bugek: There is no income requirement for METCO.
@Bryan: If we’re lucky to live in such a well governed city (your own words), how would the proposed charter improve that?
@Margaret or any other elected official: Can you confirm that the School Committee or its agent applied to the Summer Food Service Program for summer 2017?
@Marti and Tom,
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education published a list of eligible, priority communities for the summer meals program. Newton was not on it. All communities that received a summer meals program grant were communities on that DESE list and not all communities on that list received funding because the grant is highly competitive. In my professional experience, I believe a summer meals program in Newton would need to be funded entirely through private philanthropy.
@Margaret: So in other words, no one even tried?
I don’t buy the “priority” argument for a second. Here’s why. Waltham has ten different SFSP sites. However, as per the most recent data, Waltham only has 336 more economically disadvantaged students than does Newton. (During the 2016-17 SY, Waltham had 1,489 economically disadvantaged students to Newton’s 1,153.)
How could it be possible that Waltham – with its only slightly higher number of economically disadvantaged students – has ten different SFSP sites but Newton has zero?
Furthermore, when looking at the SFSP map, the need in Newton is arguably greater as our students who are going hungry during the summer months are not only more segregated and dispersed than similarly situated Waltham students, but our poor students are nowhere near active SFSP sites as none exist in Newton.
If neither Mayor Warren nor anyone on behalf of our School Committee even attempted to apply to SFSP, we need to know as that would be wholly unacceptable.
Unbelievable. In addition to Newton having zero SFSP sites for our kids who go hungry during the summer months, I just learned that over at least the past two summers, Newton-Wellesley Hospital has joined the Summer Food Service Program to ensure that low-income children have access to nutritious meals in … Waltham.
“Newton-Wellesley Hospital’s support of the Summer Food Service Program in Waltham is not only generous, but enormously helpful in supporting the work we do,” said Ashley Krebs, director of the Child Nutrition Outreach Program. “Without them, we would not be able to provide this vital service to the children of Waltham who just want to focus on being kids and not spend their time worrying about when they’ll be able to eat again.”
Kids go hungry in Newton during the summer. That is a fact. We also have almost the same number of economically disadvantaged students as does Waltham. Waltham has ten different SFSP sites. Newton has zero.
How is this possible? What do our elected officials have to say about this?
Link #1: https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/newton-wellesley-hospital-helps-provide-meals-low-income-children-waltham
Link #2: https://patch.com/massachusetts/waltham/newton-wellesley-hospital-supports-waltham-summer-food-service-program-children
Are none of our elected officials on here going to acknowledge that a tax-exempt Newton institution effectively pays the City of Waltham to feed its students who go hungry during the summer months at the expense of paying the City of Newton to do the same?
On the campaign trail, Setti Warren talks a lot about not leaving people or communities behind. Given the above silence, in Newton, are we not at the forefront of leaving behind those in need?
Thanks Tom for your excellent comments about grants for summer students. I learned some very important facts. I hope our school committee members pay attention and seek grants for next summer.
@Greg @Mary @Marti Your comments re Al Cecchinelli are intellectually dishonest, certainly not “welcoming”, and downright rude. More importantly they demonstrate how “unsafe” it is for people to express their opinions in this city if they don’t line up with the “progressives”. That kind of damping down of opinion is fascist at best.
I was appalled to even find that question on the questionnaire, really! What kind of litmus test is this. The jury is not yet out on BLM. Black lives do matter, but the organization baring that name has some problems to sort out, big ones. Mr. Cecchinelli has every right to express his view; safe from ridicule and debasement. So much for the values of Progressive Newton. All the more reason to vote NO on a charter that gives so much power to narrow minded people
I don’t feel the need to be welcoming to racist conspiracy theorists. #sorrynotsorry
Jim, nice spin. Heard it all before. Al’s direct quote pointed out by Greg is not true; as MMQC says, “it’s a racist conspiracy theory.”
The thing is Al is allowed to say what he wants, as are you, but no one is obliged to believe him and those who don’t are free to say what they want about his statements. The Welcoming part concerns his being on the ballot, being invited to participate in forums and saying what he wants with no one “damping” him in down. He is not “unsafe” when he speaks his mind – doesn’t mean others cannot, and do, disagree with him.
No public official is ever “safe from ridicule.” Just look at what some voters are saying about other candidates.
I really wish people spouting “progressives aren’t tolerant of other opinions” would admit that disagreeing and disliking an opinion is very different from tolerating it.
@Marti MMQC’s quote is “Racist conspiracy THEORIST”; that’s a person (s). Wish this fell into the “disagreement” category, but it does not. I don’t feel this was your implication by any means……