Full Disclosure: I personally participated in the endorsement process and am an active member of Progressive Newton.
To all Newton Voters,
We are excited to announce that Progressive Newton has endorsed eleven excellent candidates in contested local races this Fall.
All of Newton can vote for these candidates:
Newton City Council (At-Large)
Nicole Castillo, Ward 1
Alison Leary, Ward 1
Susan Albright, Ward 2
Andrea Kelley, Ward 3
Deb Crossley, Ward 5
Andreae Downs, Ward 5
Newton School Committee
Bridget Ray-Canada, Ward 1
Matthew Miller, Ward 8
Residents of the candidates’ wards also can vote for these candidates:
Newton City Council (Ward-Only Seats)
Maria Scibelli Greenberg, Ward 1
Allison Sharma (Write-In), Ward 4
Brenda Noel, Ward 6
Based on these candidates’ responses to our questionnaire and the entirety of their public record, our Endorsements Committee is confident that these candidates share our most deeply held values and are the best candidates to move Newton forward in a positive direction. Our membership agreed, ratifying each of the Endorsement Committee’ recommendations with over 60 percent of the vote.
Newton is fortunate to have so many talented and progressive residents willing to serve in public office.
We urge you to look for these candidates around town, and to vote for them on Tuesday, November 7th. They will serve Newton well.
This posting is a valuable guide as to why you would vote for my candidacy for reelection to the City Council. I chose not to respond, as did others, since this agenda would tie you to positions that will quite possibly be counter to what is best for you. My record is extremely clear that I represent those that need representing, at City Hall and there is not one group in the city that owns me over your voice.
I feel for the new candidates, lacking experience, who feel that they must pander to everyone that sends them a questionnaire.
Vote for me and you will be represented and have a voice.
@Jim: Can you clarify how you think refusing to state your position on issues of importance to your constituents is a virtue? All sorts of opinions are represented in the questionnaires, both among endorsed and non-endorsed candidates. Even Al Cecchinelli filled it out, despite disagreeing with us on several key issues.
Endorsement 101:
I have found from scores of years being active in campaigns that the endorsement game is just that. As one not believing in endorsements, not all endorsements are positive, as the history, caricature, and reputation of the person providing the endorsement could possibly be negative to the campaign effort, forcing the candidate to swallow the negative with the positive. Public perception requires the candidate to hold his/her nose and hope for the best – have you ever seen a candidate refuse an endorsement? Never happens! Negative endorsers sometimes find an affinity, sort of group therapy. Not that Progressive Newton is such a group, sometimes the well intended endorsement then becomes counter-productive to that which the group -speak kindly intended.
As I’ve said before, I believe it was unfortunate that the school committee candidates were asked the same questions as our council and mayor candidates since they deal with different issues.
That said, I’m interested in knowing why Progressive Newton choose to endorse in two contested school committee contests (Wards 1 and 8) but not two others (Wards 2 and 3). If you’re going to endorse, have the courage to endorse in all or else at least explain why you passed on some contests.
In Ward 2, for example, based on the questionnaires, I would have expected Margaret Albright would have earned the Progressives endorsement both because her opponent Cyrus Vagahar supports privatizing the school custodians and was unfamiliar with most of the statewide legislation the Progressives endorse. It would be great to understand the reasoning here.
On the other hand, what makes Matt Miller more progressive than Gail Spector? Their answers to the yes/no questions are identical and generally speaking so are their other answers. Meanwhile Spector has invested decades in Newton establishing strong progressive credentials and speaking up against intolerance and the intolerant.
Simply picking a name is one thing. Articulating the thinking behind each endorsement would be helpful and add credibility to the process.
Passing an ideological litmus test is a pretty poor way of selecting a candidate. It may tell you something about the policies they might pursue, but it tells you nothing about their character or their experience.
Yes, having just a list of names without further explanation is rather disappointing.
It’s not just a list of names. Our membership chose who they wanted to endorse. If others want to better understand that decision, or make their own decision, that’s why we make all of our endorsement questionnaires public. See here: https://progressivenewton.com/2017/08/28/newton-candidates-questionnaires-2017/
@Bryan: My point (two examples above) is that reviewing the responses to the survey is insufficient.
Certainly it does not explain why there’s an endorsement in some contests but not others.
And it doesn’t provide any insight when two candidates both seem to have similar answers yet one is endorsed over the other.
A group may not endorse for a number of reasons. If they don’t feel they have sufficient information about the candidate, then they shouldn’t be expected to endorse in that race. Also, there may not be anything close to consensus in the endorsing group about a particular race or candidate. An endorsement from a group needs to be more than a head count. While I think it’s admirable for PN to put the questionnaires online, I really doubt that they were the sum total of the thinking of individuals and the group.
As an example, in the 2014 gubernatorial race, certain groups chose not to endorse before the Primary Election. This is hardly an unusual way to proceed.
Thanks Jane. That’s a nice explanation for how the endorsement process might work. My point is it’s not an ideal process and probably not even as helpful to the endorsed candidates as it would be if the group articulated its reasons.
That’s why I hope Progressive Newton will elaborate.
No endorsement process is perfect or ideal and there are always loud complaints when a candidate doesn’t receive an endorsement. It’s also part of the process.
So Jane, you’re saying that because it “always” happens it’s not ok to ask about it?
That’s not the way I look at the world.
That’s not what I said, but I think you know that. I never said it wasn’t okay to ask questions.
If I may be more explicit, I said when endorsements are made, supporters of the candidates who did not receive the endorsement often complain about the process or question motives. In my experience, I have not seen an explanation that satisfies the concerns of supporters of candidates who don’t receive an endorsement. It’s not right or wrong, It’s merely an observation.
What Jane said.
Greg- you really think anyone here believes you’d be complaining if Gail was endorsed? You’re just looking out for a better process? Please.
She’s a pretty good candidate, unfortunately going against a better one. Matt Miller’s dedication to Newton Schools is pretty amazing.
@Paul: Hahaha. If nothing else, I believe I’ve earned a reputation as an equal opportunity complainer. I’ve been ribbing Progressive Newton about their questioner since the day I saw their question< asking why people are poor.
On the other hand I won’t apologize for believing that someone who has earned my respect for her deep understanding of our city and willingness to challenge the status quo would be an excellent school committee candidate. Plus she’s as “progressive” as anyone I know.
I take the endorsement process seriously. Always have. And I’d seriously would like to know why Progressive Newton choose to endorse in two contested school contests and not two others. The answer may be as simple as “we couldn’t come to consensus on those two contests.” That’s a reasonable explanation
@Greg
Your characterization of Gail is very fair– the same would be true for Matt Miller, with the exception that his energies have been focused on Newton Schools, whereas Gail has been more of a generalist on issues related to Newton.
She’s a better fit for city councilor, Matt Miller the better candidate for school committee. Not sure your friendship with her lets you a clear-eyed view on this one.
@Paul: If the Progressives were looking to endorse candidates who were best for school committee as opposed to those with the best progressive values then they should have asked the candidates school issue based questions. But they didn’t.
I’m not saying they aren’t entitled to reaching whatever decision they wish. I’m requesting transparency, which they don’t have to provide, but would add more credibility to the endorsements if they did.
Hi everyone. I’m one of the steering committee members of Progressive Newton who participated in the endorsement process. I’d like to address Greg’s question about our process for making endorsements. As you all know, we made questionnaires available to all candidates, and the answers were certainly part of our decision making process. We also considered voting records (when available) as an indicator of alignment with progressive values. Our group did not seek to endorse who we felt to be the best candidate in each particular race regardless of political leanings , rather we endorsed progressives running against less progressive or not progressive candidates. We chose not to endorse in races where neither candidate could be defined as progressive. We also did not endorse in races where there was not an opponent. And, we also did not endorse in races where the differences between two progressive candidates was not immediately clear or measurable. I think that covers our rationale in most, if not all, of the races in which we provided an endorsement.
Your point about tailoring the questionnaire differently for School Committee candidates vs. City Council candidates is well taken, and lesson learned, I think we’ll do that next time.
I hope that helps to provide the clarification and transparency you’re seeking.
Thanks!
Nanci: Thanks for your answer. Much appreciated.