What do you think of the weird circumstances of the Ward 4 contests? What does it tell you about the need for charter reform?
On the one hand, you have a first-time at-large candidate, Josh Krintzman, who will win his seat in an uncontested race. As pointed out on a wild thread on the Newton Parents listserv, this is not exactly unusual. At least one sitting councilor, Marc Laredo, first won his seat without a third candidate.
On the other hand, you have a first-time ward candidate, Christopher Markiewicz, who attracted a write-in opponent, Allison Sharma. If there’s been a ward councilor who first won her seat without an opponent, I’m not aware of it.
The obvious explanation for this state of affairs? Channeling my inner No-bird, it’s a hell of a lot easier to launch a first-time bid for a Ward seat, especially an outsider. In fact, it’s so easy to launch a Ward campaign, you can do it as a write-in!
Once Josh put his hat in the ring, he became a favorite to win. Though a non-winner in his first bid for elected office (school committee), Josh was a long-time state-house lawyer and the chair of the charter commission (which is also elected office); he’s connected. Inarguably, he’s got a leg up in a city-wide race. Seems he cleared the field.
When it became apparent that Christopher would run unopposed for ward councilor, the barrier to entry was so low, Allison has mounted a write-in campaign. With just a few hundred votes to win, anybody can do it!
So, the situation in Ward 4 is compelling advertisement for No, right?
Not so sure. I’m inclined to think it demonstrates that ward representation doesn’t matter and that the Charter Commission was unnecessarily nervous about ward councilors. For sure, the at-large race is a cautionary tale about the advantage an insider has in a city-wide race. But, the ward councilor rates illustrates what I don’t think the charter commissioners wrestled with: the fact that rule changes change strategy. In a world of eight ward councilors on a council of twelve, the insider juggernaut can and would concentrate its efforts on the ward races. We’re seeing it a bit in the Ward 4 ward race. The insider machine sure seems likely to deliver. In a write-in campaign.
It’s all a bit reductive. The world doesn’t divide so neatly into insider/outsider. And, we’ve seen “outsider” Bill Brandel unseat insider Christina Samuelson in a Ward 5 ward alderman race, years ago.
But, I’ll stand by the basic theory: insiderdom would have fared just fine with ward councilors. And, by eliminating ward councilors, the commission made itself a political problem that jeopardizes the effort to deliver a smaller board.
Thank you for raising these questions, Sean. This could be a very interesting thread.
The Charter Commission reviewed and deliberated various city council models factoring in numerous considerations. You (and other readers) may be surprised to learn that I agree that running a ward-only race is easier than running at-large. However, when it comes to establishing a legislative body, that one factor is not, and should not be, the end of the analysis. Setting up a city council structure is far more complicated than asking – what is the easiest way for a person to run? Yes – we sought more contested elections and ease of running is a factor in that. But data demonstrated that people in Newton choose to challenge seats elected citywide more than twice as often. Three other decisions we made will almost certainly result in more contested elections: 1) reducing the number of council seats; 2) establishing an at-large pool component of the council; and 3) establishing term limits. Overall, the commission concluded that there will be more contested elections and there will be desirable access points for new candidates.
You may also be surprised to learn that I recognized the pictures on the thread, “Pop Quiz: What do these three Newton residents have in common?” Kathy and Becky are going to be fantastic additions to our elected bodies. Jury is still out on the man though.
I think that anecdotal evidence about one election here or there (whether it be the cost to run the campaign, who chose to contest a seat, or which seat was contested) can be very misleading. I believe that whether a seat is contested, who was elected and the behavior of our elected officials has a lot less to do whether a seat is ward-only or citywide, than it does the individuals holding those offices. We all know highly responsive and admirable ward councilors, councilors-at-large and school committee members. Those responsive and admirable elected officials get re-elected because of who they are and how they perform their public responsibilities. For example, Marc Laredo was an excellent school committee member and has been an excellent city councilor. He is consistently re-elected because of how he does his job – not the method of his election. (He happens to be wrong about Charter reform, but everybody makes mistakes.)
The Ward 4 races are interesting. I’m supporting Allison Sharma because of who she is, who I’ve known her to be and how I believe she will do the job.
Sean and Allison are also right about the charter reform debate. I have been out campaigning and people are most interested in speaking to me about the proposed charter reforms. I’m fine with that, as I think it is extremely important and I enjoy the discussion tremendously. But it is taking away attention from some of the races. If only there were some way that we could ensure fewer races or a shorter ballot in the future enabling people to pay attention to all of the important races taking place!
The School Comm. has 8 elected officials. However, those races are often uncontested. As for Ward 4, I thank Chris for stepping into the race at the last minute. Why anyone questions his motives is beyond me.
What is more interesting is how/why several novice charter commissioners were elected over experienced former elected officials. Now that is something to discuss further.
I don’t understand the obsession on Village14 with “insiders”. We live in a city where it’s exceptionally easy to get involved. Those who choose to get involved in various ways should be celebrated, not demonized, whether it’s through the Democratic or Republican city committees, through the league of women voters, green newton, through volunteer boards and commissions, etc.
Bryan,
You do realize, don’t you, that by dismissing other’s viewpoints as “obsessive” reduces your credibility and ability to influence?
In the absence of political party salience at the municipal level and no other organizing structure, insider/outsider is a useful heuristic for understanding Newton political outcomes. If you have a better heuristic, bring it.
@Bryan P. Barash: Your level of ignorance is profound. For many, it is not “exceptionally easy to get involved.” Here are two specific examples to illustrate why “insider status” matters in Newton: The Mayor does not appoint people with whom he disagrees to our public committees or councils and the NDCC has proactively voted to keep a Democrat from participating in a public debate. I’m respectfully but clearly going to ask that you stop alienating those who disagree with you. By continuously categorizing everyone that you don’t understand as “obsessed” or whatever your adjective of the day is, you’ve done significant harm to both your own credibility and that of your position as a “yes” proponent.
@Sean: re:”The insider machine sure seems likely to deliver.”
I guess I’m encouraged to hear that you think I’m going to prevail on Nov 7, but if there is a machine that’s delivering the win, that’s news to me. I am personally working around the clock to knock doors and get my message out. The vast majority of folks helping me have never been involved in a local campaign before.
If I prevail on Nov 7, it will be because my message resonates with voters in Ward 4 more than my opponent’s message does. It’ll be because the majority of Ward 4 voters want Newton to be vibrant, welcoming and diverse, recognize that change is inevitable, and want to be smart and proactive about how we embrace and drive that change.
I don’t find the insider/outsider view to be particularly meaningful or helpful. What’s important is the message and the vision of the individual candidate, and how the individual candidate’s views align with what the majority of voters are looking for in their representatives and leadership.
@Sean: It’s an interesting question but I think you are doing this issue a disservice by only looking at one ward. What about Wards 2, 3 and 5 which have had contested at large contests in recent years but no ward challenges? Or Ward 1 where at-large, ward and schools are contested? On the other hand, there’s Ward 7, where we have newcomers getting in uncontested for school and at large.
Also, the emergence of a write in campaign in four is an outlier in of itself because it still feels like a set up, with Harney pulling out after the deadline (and Gentile and Sangiolo endorsing Harney’s anointed successor in tandem).
We will never know how that contest might have shaped up if Harney did what, for example, Ted Hess-Mahan did, which was announce that he was not seeking reelection at a point when Andrea Kelley and Julia Malakie had ample time to step up.
The term “insider” has been bandied about for years and for that long, people have questioned what it means, how you get to be one. At on point in my Newton life, I was so much of an “outsider” that the outsiders wouldn’t speak to me. Someone recently told me I’m now an insider. It’s a term without meaning and I’d love to see it put to rest.
If you’ve been involved in the community at many levels, are you more likely to know more people, are more people likely to be familiar with your work and therefore be willing to vote for you? Generally speaking, successful candidates for a seat on the City Council or the School Committee have been deeply involved in the community for years.
On another note, Allison Sharma is a hard-working, civic-minded individual who has contributed enormously to the community in many ways and has engaged the Newton community in an outreach program well beyond the borders of Newton (NuSyria). If that makes her an insider, then what’s the complaint?
I may be naive but since all three of the current Ward 4 City Councilors have enthusiastically endorsed Chris Markiewicz, how does that make Allison Sharma the “insider” candidate?
What Bob said.
Bob and Greg, When all [most] the proponents/ creators of the Charter Change are endorsing the same candidates, tho not living in the same wards, that is “insidership”. This election cycle, a candidate[s] being a strong supporter of the Charter Committee’s Proposal is to be an insider. This is not a statement about the candidates, but a statement about one form of being in with the power. We can expect similar if the charter is approved, Cross Ward influence on an idealogical basis, rather than needs of the Ward.
@Jon: insiderness is in the eyes of the outsiders.
We have a majority of sitting city councilors opposed to the charter, are they not insiders?
Allison,
Did not intend to diminish the hard work that anyone has to do to get elected. But, getting elected is more than the candidate knocking on doors or hitting the streets with visibility. A successful candidate taps into a network of like-minded people for a variety of support: financial, volunteer effort, signaling. That’s not to suggest anything inappropriate or untoward. It’s the way it’s supposed to happen. It’s why you have an endorsement page on your web site. And, those endorsements signal to people that you align with a certain set of political values that have local relevance.
I hope you win. In part, I hope you win because I trust the instincts of some of the folks who support you, like Kay Khan. Call it the spotted side, call it the inside, call it the pro-development side, call it what you will. The reality is that there is a know-it-when-I-see-it alignment of folks in the city. Wishing it away or pretending that every candidate should be or is evaluated on her individual merits is naive.
Greg,
If you’d like to write a post on topics outside of the scope of this post, please contact the host. I’m sure he’ll let you. I posted about this race because it seems to fit a certain narrative, but, when pushed on, provides some insight into the charter discussion. The situations in wards 2, 3, 5 support a counter-narrative, but have very different explanations. Ward 1 is sui generis, though I think I have an explanation that covers it and, maybe, ward 7.
Jane,
I hope you didn’t misread me as being critical of insiders (or outsiders). As I wrote to Bryan, I think insider/outsider is a useful heuristic that explains Newton political outcomes as well as any other. There may be substitute words for insider/outsider that are equally apt.
FWIW, I align myself with the policy objectives of what most would, I think, consider insiders.
Just to be clear, what I find interesting here is that, however awkwardly, Ward 4 ended up with the prospect of an unopposed non-incumbent in both the ward and at-large races. And, a write-in candidate arose to oppose the ward candidate, not the at-large candidate. Does that set of facts add anything useful about the charter debate? I think so, but not what you’d think.
@Sean: My point is you can’t conclude anything about what one year’s contestants in one ward says about the charter. You have to consider the whole megillah over many years.
Meanwhile, what the Ward 4 write in says to me is that a group of people were ticked off at Jay Harney’s attempted slight of hand and are working hard to elect someone else.
This is what democracy looks like.
Greg,
I’m not concluding, but using narrative to explore!
As for the motivation, I don’t think most people are so process-oriented. They weren’t happy with the potential outcomes and saw an opportunity to prevent them.
@Sean Your posts on this thread have been very thoughtful and interesting. Would you consider sharing your inference re the write-in’s choice of a Ward over At Large candidacy in 4 ?
Jon,
The most obvious inference is that it’s a hell-of-a-lot easier to mount a write-in campaign for a ward seat. The second (and the one I think you’re getting at) is that Allison is fine with Josh’s likely policy preferences and is less fine with those of the mystery candidate who has Lenny’s, Amy’s, and Jay’s endorsements.
Caveat: it’s difficult to divine the intent of a person’s actions. Only Allison really knows what’s motivating her. But, I feel like I’m on more solid ground interpreting the political forces that move her supporters. And, I’m a (bleacher seat) supporter!
Sean – This is how I see the Ward 4 narrative: when councilors or school committee members decide not to run again or are termed out, it’s been common and accepted practice for the incumbent to make an attempt to pick their successor and often the tactic works. Usually, it’s done quietly, behind the scenes. An insider might know about the goings on, but for the most part, the majority of the electorate has no idea.
For whatever reason, this year two people leaving office were much more open about seeking out a replacement. One school committee member actually named her replacement in her announcement that she wasn’t running. It left a lot of raised eyebrows. Then the Ward 4 situation occurred and it was pretty clear to most people that some shenanigans had taken place behind the scenes. So I’d say what happened this year was just too blatant, too out there, too public and it’s brought us to a most unusual and interesting situation where we have a highly credible write in campaign.
As for the charter commission, other than the initial vote, every discussion and vote on the composition of the council was divided so it’s really hard to make a statement about what the “commission” thought. We heard no consensus from our many contacts in the community, so it made the decision all the harder to make. Frankly, I had no horse in that race, other than I wanted a council that was far more accountable to as many voters as possible.
No, I never read your stuff as personally critical. You’re a clear, analytical thinker. I’m an inside-outer or something like that, so I usually make the point when the discussion of insiders comes up.
I’ve been very clear about why I launched my write-in campaign. It certainly wasn’t because I’d been wanting to run for years and was waiting for the *easier to win* ward seat to finally open up (the first possibility you mentioned above, Sean) . Rather it was a direct response to the unusual and questionable series of events last August, in which Jay Harney seemed to pick his own successor. Of course, many have said that what happened was all on the up-and-up and that it was pure coincidence that someone with an idealogy similar to Jay’s landed on the ballot unopposed. But the optics weren’t good. I was motivated to run because (1) I thought Ward 4 deserved better than to be handed their next ward councilor without a say in the matter, and (2) I think I offer a choice that is more in line with what Ward 4 voters are looking for in their next councilor.
I think the fact that it took Sean five paragraphs to explain what’s happening the the Ward 4 City Council election of 2017 is a great argument for the new charter.
@Sean: Sorry if the tone seemed harsh, I didn’t mean it that way. I believe we need to be conscience of how our language impacts people’s trust in our government, and I think discussions about how insiders influence elections erode trust in government. I also think it’s discouraging to people who are heavily involved in community service if that relegates them to being “insiders”.
If insiders mean councilors we elect to represent us, people who serve on volunteer boards and for non-profits, and community activists, I think we need a much better word that doesn’t have the same negative context.
Here is my precise definition of “insider” and “outsider.” An insider is someone who has two or more endorsements from current councilors or school committee members. Virtually all challengers are outsiders. Virtually all incumbents are insiders. Yes, Jane. You were an outsider. When you ran for Charter Commission, you became an insider–along with the other candidates who won. The final three mayor candidates are insiders. The non-final three were outsiders.
I can’t prove it, but I bet that people who are very active in the NDCC or the League are almost always insiders from the first time they run for office. Republicans are almost always outsiders. I wonder where my definition puts Jim Cote?
@Jeffrey Pontiff: Interesting! By your definition I’m an outsider (I have only an endorsement from one current school committee member) and my opponent is an insider (having three endorsements from current city councilors). But by Sean’s definition, I think I’m an insider and my opponent is an outsider. I think we’ve all just proven that the insider/outsider terminology is flawed 🙂
Alison. I don’t think the terminology is flawed. Different people have different definitions. There will always be borderline cases, but different definitions are correlated. I think my definition has the highest probability of predicting the outcome at the polls.
@Jeffrey Pontiff: Out of genuine curiosity, who do you consider the insider in the Ward 4 Councilor race?
This thread is fascinating. I don’t know how I missed it up to now! I don’t know how anyone could call Allison the insider in this race when it is clear to everyone that her opponent was hand selected by the current Ward 4 Councilor . Yes, she now has a lot of endorsements … could it be that’s because she has worked tirelessly to meet everyone in the Ward and people are impressed ? To the extent that people you think of as insiders are supporting her, maybe that is also because they see her as the best candidate and also because they were not happy with the Ward 4 process . Personally I had never met her in person until she declared , although I had a very positive impression through mutual friends and her work at NuDay Syria. When I met her, I quickly knew I wanted her on the Council to represent me. She still has an uphill battle as a write in, but I think she has this.
As a Ward 4 resident, I have been watching this race closely. I am supporting Allison Sharma, as she would be an excellent fit for Ward 4. In the twelve years I have known Allison, she has become increasingly active in our community, from volunteering on the elementary school PTO board and leading various committees at her church, to coordinating and hosting a large effort to collect supplies for refugees with NuDay Syria. If elected, I know she will work tirelessly to keep Newton welcoming, diverse and vibrant, while considering each potential change thoughtfully. Allison is friendly, open and approachable, which will encourage residents to engage with her and share their thoughts and concerns for our city.
The Ward 4 race *is* interesting, and as the article above mentions, it “attracted a write-in opponent”. Many people were away or not yet engaged in the local election news when Allison made her decision, but as we head into election day, I hope all are aware of the unusual situation that prompted her entry as a write-in candidate; this article explains it well: https://village14.com/2017/08/18/tab-column-suggests-markiewicz-knew-harney-would-drop-out/
I am certainly glad that Allison decided to run as a write-in candidate and give Ward 4 a choice.
As a Ward 4 resident I want representation by the strongest candidate possible who can advocate for me and the issues impacting the quality of life in my neighborhood. One of my most pressing concerns is the potential mega Riverside development, less than 1 mile from my doorstep. My vote will be based on: Which candidate has the best grasp of the issues? Which one has the depth of knowledge to intelligently advocate for my interests? Who would be the strongest negotiator with potential developers? Which candidate can think for him or herself, and, if necessary, buck the majority when it comes down to protecting the interests of Ward 4 residents?
The Ward 4 Forum last Tuesday evening was eye opening for me. Both candidates provided their visions for Riverside and weighed in on questions posed by Ward 4 residents. For me, there was no contest on whom I’d want to represent Ward 4. It wasn’t even close. Were others from Ward 4 there? What did you think?
I agree. Not even close. I’m writing in Allison Sharma and I am very excited that the Tab agrees. http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20171031/city-council-school-committee-endorsements
As many of you know, I am supporting Chris. I am glad that Alison has entered the race but really wish she ran at-large. Her issues – which are of a broader nature – are more in line with a city-wide lens – and until the Charter is changed and hopefully it will not eliminate Ward representation, I want a City Councilor who will fight for our Ward and our Ward issues. There was no contest at the debate at Lasell – Chris was more informed of the issues facing our Ward and with his vast financial expertise, he will be what we need to move our City forward. Remember when I said we need an override? The Mayor’s recently released 5-year forecast suggests that next year we will face a $2 million deficit and year 2 we will face a $6 million deficit and year 3 we will face an $8 million deficit and well – by year 4 – we are looking at $18 million in the hole. Plus – as much as I love watering holes, I really don’t think having more watering holes, particularly at Riverside, is the burning need for Ward 4.
Can someone post this very important event to address the opiod crisis?: http://amysangiolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Gather-for-Hope-Flyer.pdf
I agree with Amy that Chris Markiewicz has a much stronger grasp of Ward 4 issues, including Riverside, as was quite apparent at the Ward 4 Forum. Considering that Riverside is probably one of the biggest issues facing this Ward in the coming years, I was quite shocked at the lack of knowledge expressed by the other candidate. Examples of how Chris will be a excellent representative of our Ward is the fact that he did not support Turtle Lane until the abutters’ concerns were addressed and that he worked tirelessly and successfully to represent Ward 4 concerns about the Rowe St. proposal. Chris has what Ward 4 needs at City Hall. The fact that we do not have an Area Council further increases the need for true representation by a Ward-elected councilor. He believes in the Ward Councilor seat and what it brings to the Council. I agree with Lauren Berman that the Ward 4 forum showed clearly that one candidate would best represent Ward 4 needs, and that candidate is Chris Markiewicz. He is not in the race to push his (or others’) agendas. He is running to be a voice for Ward 4.
Can we stop it with inferring that every candidate who doesn’t share your exact agenda has an ulterior motive?
It’s bad for democracy and for Newton.