Mayoral Candidate Scott Lennon called me this afternoon to say that he “misspoke” at Sunday’s mayoral forum and that “I would not support the proposed eight and eight home rule petition” that has been docketed by City Councilor Emily Norton, chair of the vote no charter campaign. and 13 of her colleagues.
“I would not support eight and eight [as in eight at large and eight ward] but if the charter was defeated I would want to look at a model that included some ward representation,” Lennon said. “But eight and eight is problematic because it gives voters less choice in who represents them.”
Lennon chalked up the confusion to a long campaign. “I just said it incorrectly.”
Lennon said he texted Norton last night to clarify his position.
Good to hear.
I hereby retract my comment about Scott’s position. Admitting a mistake is admirable, and I’m glad he did.
Emily, just out of curiousity, why were you posting in the thread regarding Scott’s position regarding the viability of the 8 plus 8 proposal and not disclosing the above?
If neither Mayor candidate will support it, doesn’t that make the 8 plus 8 proposal dead on arrival?
Four things would be required for 8 & 8 to become law:
1. City Council approves
2. Mayor approves
3. State legislature approves
4. Voters approve
I would be skeptical of *any* of the four being successful. All of the four? No. This proposal has no political legs.
It is muddying the waters ahead of election day and I was heartened that Scott and Ruthanne joined me in voting against docketing.
The fact that both our candidates for mayor don’t support eight and eight should bring discussion of this as a viable option to a hard stop. Anyone who continues to promote it as a realistic possibility is intentionally seeking to deceive voters.
What Jake said.
When you’re running for office and in the heat of the campaign, there is a huge amount of pressure to stick to your guns. Scott, in admitting he made a mistake and clarifying the record, showed real leadership today. Thank you to Scott Lennon, Ruthanne Fuller, Jake Auchincloss, Lenny Gentile, and the other councilors who have been willing to challenge this ploy.
@Greg: I hope that the TAB will take note of this as well and make it clear to readers that their previous support for this proposal should be taken with a large grain of salt.
There is nothing wrong with Emily’s proposal. What is wrong is that the city is so divided regarding Ward representation. I shall be very disappointed if the YES vote passes and we lose WARD councilors. This entire trench warfare could have been avoided had the Charter reform people been willing to compromise on the issue. For me the Charter commissioners failed to make the changes more palatable for more city homeowners/renters, a truly regrettable situation.
@Colleen: There are several things “wrong” with the proposal, here’s two:
1. It gives voters even less say in who represents them than even our current system.
2. It does not have the support from our mayoral candidates to move forward even in the unlikely event that it passes the council.
@Colleen Minaker they certainly have failed to sell it by educating the voters. If it is such a “no brainer” then why is there so much opposition? They have seemingly taken a stance that by virtue of their election to the commission (in 2015 by just about of 10% of registered voters) that inferred in that is the we should accept their recommendation without discussion. Perhaps the CC folks who put forth 8&8 had bad motives (although I don’t subscribe to that) But they have brought real value to this debate in that many more voters are educating themselves and becoming engaged on this issue. We will have a more informed electorate casting their vote.
I look forward to hearing the word of the voters
@Claire: I hope it doesn’t seem that way. We did our best to solicit public feedback and had hundreds of people share with us their vision for a new charter. I took that feedback and voted in a way that I thought was consistent with what the city wanted and what I thought would work best. I won on some votes, and lost on some votes. The charter isn’t exactly how I would’ve written it alone, but I believe it’s a significant step forward which is why I’m voting YES.
Now it’s up to the voters to decide whether they want to go with our proposal or not. I hope every voter asks themselves whether the proposal in its totality is better than what we have now and votes accordingly. The 16 member council is clearly an attempt to inject a 3rd option into the debate, and I don’t think that’s helpful. The voters have a right to a clear referendum on the proposal before moving on to a debate about what comes next.
@Fig – what post of mine are you asking about? I didn’t say anything about Scott’s position, I wasn’t even there. I texted him at 9PM to say I had heard he’d said something about it and asked for clarification, he texted me back at 1:19am, when I was [uncharacteristically] I was asleep. What are you criticizing me for doing or not doing now?
Did I hear that right? Scott is blaming his confusion regarding one of the most important issues in this election on the campaign being too long? This seems to me to be just plain old flip-flopping to appease an audience, and that worries me about whether I can trust him.
Robert: Lennon has been consistently opposed to 8/8. Yesterday he said something that was contradictory and today he confirmed that he stood by his original, consistent, opposition.
@Bryan Barash I think it is a mixed bag. I think we have a much more engaged electorate than we would have had if the 8&8 hadn’t created a buzz. And I think that is a good thing. If the pro-Charter folks want to carry the day, they have two weeks. But my recommendation is it doesn’t help the cause when the NO voters are characterized an ill-informed or dupped. I’m not suggesting that you personally are doing that, but it is definitely out there.
Scott…Thank you. I had heard that you may have stated something that showed your support of the 8 by 8. So thank you for your courage and leadership!
I agree with Jake this home rule proporsal is DOA and the NO campaign must stop confusing voters by issuing a statement to that fact!
Robert – Scott did not in any way allude to confusion on his part. He has been clear about his position on the charter and has stated his position on many occasions over many months. He said he misspoke and corrected the record. The thread alluded to a situation where people were confused by an ambiguous statement that he then clarified.
I’ve always seen you as a totally upstanding guy. In the face of a handful of people who want to take words out of context and distort people’s motives, I hope we can make it through the next two weeks with a vigorous debate focused on issues.
It’s unfortunate that Scott made this decision prior to being elected and prior to formal process and discussion. Be that as it may, it’s even more important to reject the new charter proposal. Why give up any of your local power to special interest groups who can easily propose/select their candidate in every ward and vote them as a slate. You feel you have no power on a federal level? Preserve it on a local level. Vote NO to limiting your voice!!!
@Jon: We had the “formal process” it was called charter review. It was multi-year formal process (as mandated by state law) that included an extensive signature drive, the election of a nine-member commission, 18 months of public meetings, studies of other municipal structures and deliberation. Disagree with the conclusions and vote no if you want, but please don’t suggest there was no “formal process.”
Emily:
Happy to explain. You posted multiple times today on the thread: City Council: No Vote on Charter Proposal Until After Election. Both of your posts were this afternoon, around 2 pm. I know this because I posted right before you did, and my posts, as many others before me, referenced the new information (now recanted) that Scott would support the 8 plus 8 scenario you are championing. My point is that it says in the post above that Scott texted you about this prior to your posts this afternoon.
Always possible I have the time frame wrong.
I just thought it would have been helpful for you to point out that Scott told you he wasn’t supporting the 8 plus 8 model in the post where some of us were commenting on it.
Your choice of course, to do so or not to do so.
I do think that since neither Mayor candidate will support 8 plus 8, it seems pretty clear that it isn’t viable.
Hope that cleared up my post.
@Greg Reibman, I was talking about Scott waiting until after the the vote on the proposal in November, and possible home rule petition (as formal process). Certainly I know there was an arduous procedure leading up to the new proposal. As much as I understand that it is disappointing after so much work, you couldn’t possibly expect we’d all agree it was acceptable. Democracy is hard work.
@Jon: My apologies if I misunderstood you, although surely if you believe Councilor Lennon should have waited until after the vote on the charter to be discussing other options then you would agree the Councilor Norton and her 13 co-docketers should have done the same with her home rule petition.
@Fig: It’s not my place to report on a private text from Scott. I certainly did not mislead anyone, which is what you seemed to be trying to imply. Not sure on what basis you are criticizing me. #NoOnCharter #Democracy #NewtonMA
All this talk of he said, she said, recant, rebuff, deep breadth is enough to make one vote for both candidates..
@Greg Reibman possibly, BUT Emily etal provided an invaluable public service. Until they spoke up most of the city thought that the charter reform was only about downsizing, thats what the sign says. People began to do their own research.
I notice you didn’t reply to the essence of my above comment; its too easy for an organized group which is cross ward/all city to “slate in” their favoured candidate, one with shared idealogical beliefs as opposed to one who knows a ward intimately and is wanted by the ward itself. No need to comment, but feel free if you wish.
Emily:
I wasn’t trying to imply you were unethical in this instance, I just thought it was unfair to Scott to not correct the record. If it was a text you thought was in confidence, that’s fine of course. Always best to get the most up to date information out there,and Scott was getting hit for his change of view.
As for the ethics of organizing a substitute “plan” to reduce the city council that now has zero chance of passing, but clearly seems to be doing its job muddying the waters of the charter debate, well, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on the ethics of that.
But I will tell you this. If the No campaign wins, and 8 plus 8 reform actually happens, I will gladly come on this blog and humbly apologize to you.
But my guess is that we end up with the same 24 member city council we’ve always had, and that any talks of reform suddenly disappear like fog on a sunny day. That’s ok I guess, from my view. I’ll be voting yes because I think it is an improvement, but if it doesn’t pass, life goes on and so does our city’s civic environment. It’s a great place to live.
But I’ll certainly be disappointed, not in the yes vote losing, but in some of the tactics taken by the No side, especially the 8 plus 8 proposal. Sometimes winning at all costs leaves a bitter taste.
“humbly apologize”? Oh I think we can do better than that… I am thinking you’ll have to host a “Re-Elect Emily Norton Ward 2 Councilor” lawn sign.
PS I have a screen shot of your comment just in case someone with moderating privileges gets itchy fingers
Ha! One step at a time Emily.
Plus, my significant other hates lawn signs. Partially because I’d put up like 20 of them I think we agreed to go lawn sign free absent special approvals. I’m a bit opinionated.
Also, I don’t have moderating priviledges. They don’t give cookie handle anonymous folks any type of rights or responsibilities. Which is a shame, and kinda makes me want to abandon my nom de plume. And then I remember how clever it is and stop such thoughts.
@Harry Sanders
Does this mean Scott had the People’s Neutral Gate in sight, but fumbled the ball in the end-zone?
@fignewtonville: You said to Emily, “I just thought it would have been helpful for you to point out that Scott told you he wasn’t supporting the 8 plus 8 model in the post where some of us were commenting on it.”
Why not direct that observation to Scott himself? He knew his thoughts before Emily did, and he has complete rights to post them here.
@Fig: The “itchy fingers” comment was not directed at you 😉
For those interested, the Board of Aldermen/City Council docket and debated the issue of downsizing itself in 1977, 1980, 1989, 1993, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2006, and 2009. Each of these actions was voted either Denied or No Action Necessary.
@Chris please comment on how many sitting Councilors were in office then. And also please comment on how often in the past downsizing legislation was filed with 14 co-sponsors.
>AL, more of a one point safety. This unique, never before in Newton history, has there been an election of power & control sustainability; the class question, the affluence question, the religious/philosophical question, the race question, the gender question, etc.
SL got to the neutral gate and unlatched the lock, and to his credit rang the bell for his roots, upbringing, values, and although pressured by notable influentials cannot unring the bell. This is a turning point for his success as a logic based tactician, showing to all that he is a multi-sided listener, wanting to hear all sides before delivering a decision.
This past week was campaign’s religious meet n greets, the opportunity for that which is unspoken, is aired between backers. Traditionally the last 10 days take prominence for short term voter memory (esp since so many undecideds exist), the chance for heavy hitters of each campaign to air/negotiate backroom deals, citing grievances and violations of trust. This unique election is not so much about the mayorship, but more so about preservation of quality of life in New Ton Charter v. corner office seating. Musical chairs dancing around the cushy executive recliner, leaving the other standing with serving tray in hand.
For the sake of not being moderated out from comments, we should talk after Friday. HMS
Hi @Councilor Norton: With regards to your first question – how many Councilors were involved in those previous Docket items are still in office – remarkably, the number is not zero, and in fact many Councilors who were involved in the dialogs on the items discussed in this century are in fact still in office. I should note that even for the earliest docketed items (the ones from the 1980s), Councilor Baker‘s name is especially prominent in the transcripts.
On your other point, that of how many of the docket items had 14 Councilors signing on as Co-sponsors, the number is zero. Importantly, this tally also includes the current, postponed docket item for all practical purposes. While it carries 14 cosponsors of the current Council, the debate has been postponed until after the election. Since the process will certainly take more than a month and a half to debate and then move on to the state, the current Council will then transfer the item to the newly elected Council when they take their seats on Jan 1.
Of the current Council, co-sponsors Harney and Sangiolo have decided not to seek reelection and will not be on the next Council. Likewise, co-sponsor Councilors Blazar, Ciccone, and Cote are in contested races and could theoretically not be on the next council. Therefore, at least in theory, the list of docketers who remain on Council after January first could be reduced to 9. This is, if you do the math, certainly less than majority of the current total of 24.
Add to this the fact that several Councilors who are unopposed and will remain on Council have expressly stated their intent to oppose the item (for various reasons) when it comes before them. Both mayoral candidates have also stated their opposition to the item, which makes the discussion a moot point as even if Council votes in favor, the mayor will not endorse the measure, rendering it a dead letter.