Scott Lennon has just sent Village 14 this statement in response to an ad in today’s Newton TAB.
Many of you have seen the recent Newton TAB advertisement highlighting key differences between me and Ruthanne in this year’s mayoral contest. Some of that ad – specifically the point that I have been continuously employed for the past 20 years – has been taken out of context. I feel compelled to set the record straight.
I have the deepest respect for working families, and those whose primary job is to care for young children while balancing life in the workforce. I appreciate the sacrifices made each and every day by stay-at- home moms and dads, because I was raised by one. My mother stayed at home to raise me and my sister – and later on returned to work part-time at Fox’s Pharmacy. The sacrifices my parents made for us are what shaped my values.
From Day One, my campaign has been about every resident in Newton, including the ones that do not always have a seat at the table. To suggest otherwise, or to insinuate an attack, is just a fabrication. The facts speak for themselves.
Throughout my career, I have always supported meaningful measures like equal pay for equal work, paid parental leave, and have received the endorsement of dozens of unions representing working families precisely because I have always fought for equality.
I am proud of my career in public service spanning over two decades. I am proud of my record on equality, and I am proud to come from a city that shares these values. Anyone who knows me knows I would never question anyone’s decision to raise children at home, or enter the workforce, or strike a balance in between.
Pointing out differences does not diminish the background of my opponent, who I have served with on the City Council and whose contributions to the city I respect. I will continue to run the honest, transparent campaign I have prided myself on, and look forward to getting to work for all the residents of Newton.
RELATED:
- Read Lennon’s TAB ad is here.
- Fuller’s email statement that was sent to Village 14 is published verbatim here.
Thanks Scott. 12 more days, this race will be over and we will be calling you Mayor Lennon.
Well said.
Um, this just makes a bad situation worse. Too bad. Not even a half-assed apology, like “if I offended anyone I am truly sorry.”
Scott, I’ve known and worked with you for 14 years. You just lost my vote.
I appreciate your integrity and seeing you handle such outrageous accusations with your admirable character is heartwarming and a welcome breath of decency! You’re the best, thank you Scott!
@Ted Hass-Mahan, there was no need for an apology from Scott. Perhaps RAF should apologize for impugning Scott’s motives. But your comments throughout the day have suggested (to me) that you have chosen a side. So my all means, endorse Ruthanne.
“Taken out of context” would imply that a sentence or paragraph was lifted out of a document and used incorrectly. How can his entire ad be taken out of context? It seemed carefully crafted. Poorly and ill-conceived, perhaps, but carefully crafted. He’s right about one thing: the facts speak for themselves.
I was very disappointed by the unfair and opportunistic distortion by your opponent. My Fuller sign has come down and I will now be voting for you, Scott.
Scott, unfortunately, you are tone deaf on the “mommy” issue — especially in Newton. According to you, mothers in Newton (who represent a major part of the electorate) are not your equal because they are not full-time breadwinners for their families. In the case of my family, my wife (who is the daughter of an Irish immigrant who came to this country in the 1950s with all his money in his shoe) became a high-powered corporate litigator for a top -tier Boston law firm earning six figures. She worked full-time (often from 8 am to 8 pm daily) through most of her pregnancy, worked when our child was an infant, and decided to stay home when our child was entering kindergarten so she could spend time with him. Meanwhile, I made her life extra difficult by starting my own company in Newton, worked 80 hours a week for 15 years, and traveled globally 60 percent of the time. I deeply resent your casual and naive inference that you understand the plight of working woman in Newton. Our women in Newton are among the most hard-working, thoughtful and caring mothers in the country. They support the community. They support their husbands (and their crazy dreams). And most importantly, they support the luckiest kids in the world, the kids of Newton. But guess what, Scott, parenting is not magic. It takes time away from the day-to-day working world to bring up healthy, intelligent and confident children. I am disappointed that you are bragging that you are “only candidate who has continuously held a full-time job for the last twenty years”. You should have left that statement out of your ad. Every mother in Newton has worked 10x harder than you — and received no remuneration and few if any thanks. Ruthanne Fuller and the other mothers of Newton deserve an apology.
@Tim
I do not believe you.
Scott:
Taken out of context? C’mon. What does it mean to point out that you are the “only” one working fulltime? Doesn’t that mean that Ruth didn’t work full time? What was the point you were trying to make?
This was a mistake. A poorly drafted ad. I’m betting you didn’t mean it, and I’m betting you know you completely stepped in it. This statement might reassure your base supporters, but judging by the reaction from my friends and neighbors, this wasn’t a good day for your campaign.
When you are in a hole, stop digging. Don’t talk about your family history (Which I’m sure is admirable), or how it was taken out of context (it wasn’t). Just apologize.
@fignewtonville yes, regardless of how you interpreted the ad Scott had a opportunity to put this matter to rest by apologizing to anyone who was offended and then moving on to more important issues. I’m disappointed that he didn’t do so.
Ruthanne upped the ante on several issues this weekend at three forums. She should have expected pushback.
Oh, Andy, of course no one here has changed his/her vote over this – not even Ted, despite his claim. The supporters on both sides are a bit hot under the collar tonight, then getting on their devices and doing the thumbs up/thumbs down thing. This is about the 10th controversy about how many angels sit on the head of a pin in the last two weeks. We’ll somehow survive the next two weeks and the city will carry on after November 7th. The world? not so sure about that.
That’s it for today.
Jane, “Ruthanne upped the ante this weekend and she should have expected pushback”
With all due respect, it’s a good thing you are stopping posting for the day. You aren’t helping your candidate, and your frustration is showing. A position of she deserved it isn’t a good look in this particular situation.
Although I do agree that most of us have locked in our vote and are there is a fair amount of posturing going on, that doesn’t mean that Scott hasn’t stepped in it here, and it does make me question his judgement.
To be honest, I’m not exactly thrilled with either mayor choice right now. I kinda wish the guy with the happy videos was back in the mix.
The ad makes me sad. It makes me sad that Scott wouldn’t recognize how the line in the ad reflects an anti-woman bias. He may not have meant it as anti-woman, but, in 2017, not being able to recognize the bias contributes to the bias. It makes me sad that Scott’s responses don’t seem to reflect that he’s learned anything from the negative feedback. It makes me sad that so many people either don’t understand the inherent (if unintentional) bias in the line or they don’t care. It makes me sad, because I think Scott’s a genuinely good guy who has given a lot to the city and he’s really made a bollocks of this.
@Tim, and @Andy Levin – I don’t either.
Tim welcome to Village14. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on other Newton issues once the dust clears after the electiom 😉
The Lennon campaign used poor wording in their ad and should apologize to those they may have offended. The response by the Fuller campaign, trying to paint a good person as a misogynist and racist, is disgusting. What’s behind it? Perhaps it’s a case of desperate times call for desperate measures. The Fuller campaign conducted a phone poll last week and maybe Scott Lennon is a little too close for comfort. Was this stunt intended to whip up support for Fuller? I guess when they go low we go high is now officially off the table.
Deep breaths everyone! This is a job interview to be our mayor. Scott is arguing that his work experience makes him more qualified. Ruthanne is arguing that her work + volunteer experience makes her more qualified. Everyone is interpreting anyone pointing out that she stayed home with kids as an attack. Why are we assuming that? Maybe she thinks that provided helpful experience for being mayor. Or maybe she thinks that part of her life was irrelevant to being our mayor, and that other parts of her time spent (such as serving on the CAG, serving as a City Councilor) are more relevant.
I spent 8 years working PT from home so I could be home when my kids were babies and toddlers. It was excellent practice for doing environmental advocacy in the Trump era as I worry a lot, don’t sleep much, and periodically forget to eat.
@Emily – if Scott was arguing that his work experience makes him qualified he would have said he was the only candidate with 20 years experience working in governmental administration. But that’s not what he said – he emphasized the 20 continuous years of employment, pointing out that his opponent doesn’t have that. And pointing out that she was home instead of working is hard to interpret as anything but an attack, because there was no reason to point it out unless he saw it as a negative.
Not a good week for Scott & TeamLennon
October 25 Oops #2 – Forced to respond (but no apology) for Lennon Full Page Adv
“I feel compelled to set the record straight”
.October 23 Oops #1 – Lennon mis-spoke
“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””
https://village14.com/2017/10/23/lennon-i-would-not-support-the-proposed-home-rule-charter-alternative/
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former. Albert Einstein
deep breath, reflect on the important focal point – charter..
Emily Norton’s most recent comment got me thinking is the part-time city council position a paid part time job or a volunteer position? CC members are paid $9,750@year. Assuming a 20 hour work week (standard for a part -time designation) that is $185.50 a week or just under $10 an hour. I assume that they don’t receive paid benefits. Point being at under $200 no one can serve without having another source of income be it retirement benefits, a spouse who earns a sufficient income to support the family, personal wealth or a full time job. Interesting thought as we consider the Charter question. Those who chose to serve regardless as to how they manage to do it financially are truly public servants. But I fear if the Charter passes and all CC seats are at large vs ward, the cost of be elected goes up and the pool of those who can financially make it viable to serve shrinks.
@Emily “Maybe she thinks that provided helpful experience for being mayor.”
That’s not the issue. This is Scott’s ad, a full page closing ad claiming not working full-time continuously for the past 20 years as a mark against Ruthanne. In fact, his number one “meaningful difference” between them. Whatever value Ruthanne places on her experiences, it’s clear Scott doesn’t think much of them.
That, in my view disrespects anyone who evaluated personal circumstances and decided to take time off from full-time paid employment for family or medical reasons. More often than not, women. If you were Scott’s opponent in this race, he could say the same about you and of course it would be just as cheap.
It also disrespects any capable, accomplished person who went through a period of involuntary unemployment or simply decided to take time off to find more meaning in life.
The focus by Scott and many of his supporters online on Ruthanne’s resume is absurd in my view because, had she done nothing else in her entire life, 8 years on the city council would, in my view, satisfy any threshold requirements for experience and knowledge of the city’s workings.
The remainder of the “meaningful differences” establish that those of us who moved here from elsewhere are lesser. I know many Newton natives, like yourself, who are still here and love this city. I also know Newton residents deeply invested in the community who grew up 30 minutes away, or in another state or country. I believe Ruthanne’s quarter century in Newton and near-decade in elected office is sufficient, so I respectfully disagree that’s Scott’s having grown up here is a “meaningful difference” and am put off by the parochial nativism I perceive in the ad. Just my 2 cents.
Wow. He didn’t acknowledge that he understands how his comment could have been offensive. He actually doesn’t get it.
The fact remains that Ruthanne is not a stay at home mom, and has not been for some time. Scott’s comment made no reference to stay at home moms. Not sure how that translates into these accusations. Folks are getting Roved.
Scott’s ad said something else: It stated that he is a life-long Democrat. Democrats, like Scott, have been fighting for women’s issues for decades, in the face of hostile Republican opposition. I am glad to see that Ruthanne has converted to Dems, but it is a fact that until recently, she has been supporting Republican politics and policies and how those impact women. After yesterday’s exchange, I think she owes us an explanation on that. It’s not like the war on women began last week.
@Bill. Nobody is being “Roved” and it’s insulting to suggest so.
The ad couldn’t be plainer: failure to have 20 years of continuous full-time employment is to be considered a “meaningful difference” against a candidate. It remains a fact that, due to centuries of sexism, women are far more likely to have such a gap.
Putting that aside, the assertion belittles anyone with a gap in full-time paid employment for any reason. It’s cheap and it’s nasty.
I don’t think your comment was meant to disparage SAHMs, it was meant to disparage the worth of volunteer work and meant to underline that only paid work creates the skills needed to be mayor of a city. The mere fact that you always worked for pay does not make you the better candidate.
Why not run a clean campaign on “here are all my (relevant) accomplishments” rather than “I did this, while SHE didn’t”?
Now that I read through the whole thread –
what Robert Fitzpatrick said – all of it!!!
Robert: First, let’s just establish some facts.
– Ruthanne is not a stay at home mom.
– Ruthanne opts to not work full-time
– Scott Lennon needs to work full-time
Are we in agreement on this? Are these not facts?
Now, until this campaign heated up, did you ever hear anyone accuse Scott of sexism? He has been in public view for 16 years. He was unanimously elected Board President twice (with Ruthanne’s support). Did you ever hear anyone say they voted for him in spite of his sexism?
Do you think Scott Lennon is not aware of Newton’s values? He has lived here all of his life. Somehow, as a life-long Democrat, educated in Newton schools, with a daughter, having worked for state government, we are to believe he has suddenly become this awful person?
I get that this is the political arena. But there are boundaries. Just because you or anyone else chooses to perceive Scott as being sexist here, the facts do not support your accusations. It does not make it a fact. Yes, Scott could have done a better job of articulating what he meant in that ad. I concede that. But this is devolving into character assassination. It is wrong. We should be able to hold a competitive election and critique candidates and their campaigns without descending to this.
Jane, I’m sure Fuller and Lennon’s base supporters did not change their minds over this but there were many of us who truly hadn’t decided between the two – those voters on the fence may have toppled one way or another. As for Ted, he decided to endorse Fuller when he was going to stay neutral in the mayoral race – he didn’t necessarily change his mind. I know you strongly support Lennon but if you had not made a decision, I think you would be one of the folks saying he made an ignorant, possibly sexist, statement.
I am one of those undecided voters and Lennon’s disregard for both those who are not continuously employed, work part time, are SAHMs or do volunteer work, definitely made my decision for me.
For me, the differences between their stance on issues hadn’t yet been enough for me to make a decision. I see strengths and weaknesses in both candidates but thought either would make a good mayor. Lennon’s choosing to list the #1 difference between him and Fuller as “the only candidate who has worked continuously for 25 years” before continuing with his work experience, gave me a definitive difference between them – just not what he expected.
Then he chose to ignore the offended voters and did not apologize for dismissing many of them, including his opponent, but instead said his ad was taken out of context. What baloney!
For the record, I don’t give a hoot about their or their family’s backgrounds, Lennon’s generations in Newton, his continuous government work or his attending NPS many years ago or Fuller’s past contributions, her family wealth or where her family members might have worked. I do care about who they are now, their more recent accomplishments and what their vision is for Newton.
Fuller has my vote.
btw, to you Fuller supporters: Can we do without the pretend “undecided” status? You have been pushing Ruthanne out here for weeks, and your conversion to supporter over every new issue does not contribute to the conversation.
@ Bill. I fail to see how any of your proposed facts is relevant. If Scott wanted to say “Ruthanne Fuller is rich and pampered and I’m not,” he can just skip the poorly-conceived shorthand.
I don’t think Scott is “a sexist” or an “awful guy.” By his own choice, however, he asserted that having 20 consecutive years of full-time paid work experience is a “meaningful difference” between candidates. As Sean Roche ably explained in the other post, accepting that premise will disproportionately disadvantage female candidates. That, too, is a fact. And, as it turns out, I don’t accept the premise. There are many people who, like Scott, “need” to work because they’re not sitting on a huge pile of money. Some of them, nonetheless, through no choice or fault of their own, go through periods where they do not work full-time, no matter how much they “need” to. I’ve in the past been one of them. I don’t think it negates those people’s capabilities.
And please don’t include me in your accusations of disingenuity. Throughout this year I have been genuinely conflicted about this race, and before yesterday I’ve commented on this site only twice, I believe, since 2015. Neither about the mayoral race. People who know me well say I must really be mad if I’m commenting publicly. And I am.
This ad has helped me make my decision because it has confirmed my previously vague sense of Scott’s campaign as tone-deaf on structural issues of gender, race, etc., and dismissive of others with different life experiences. Believe me or don’t, but it’s true.
William Brandel says: “Do you think Scott Lennon is not aware of Newton’s values? He has lived here all of his life. Somehow, as a life-long Democrat, educated in Newton schools, with a daughter, having worked for state government, we are to believe he has suddenly become this awful person?”
I do not believe that Scott Lennon is an awful person at all. I do believe that he is a limited person but that doesn’t make him bad. Is he aware of Newton’s values? Not so much. He is a child of a blue collar union worker, someone who has never worked in the private sector, never ventured out of the North side of the City. He has no idea about the rest of the City. He’s never knocked on doors in my neighborhood. He is a good ol’ boy and there’s nothing wrong with that. He would be just fine for our City. I, however, don’t want my City to be “just fine.” I would much prefer someone who has had more broad experience, looking at our City as well as looking at companies like WGBH and Volvo. Someone with an incredible education such as Brown and Harvard. Someone to elevate us rather that be “just fine.”
Your whole comment reeks of classism. Why is Lennon being the child of a blue collar union worker a strike against him? This is why Newton has a bad rep in terms of wealth and snobbery.
MMQC:
That is the response I was hoping for! Because I am seeing the exact “classism”, in reverse, from Scott’s supporters. Now isn’t it just ridiculous to dismiss someone out of hand because of their socio-economic standing? Look in the mirror sometime, Mary! To say that Scott can see the point of view of others but Ruthanne cannot, solely based on class, is, well, “classism.”
Thank you Scott for addressing the comments in your add .
We already know both candidates have excellent family values. In fact, people move to Newton for that reason. It would be most helpful if you tell us more about your vision for Newton.
I don’t think living in Newton all your life makes for a better candidate either. As noted on my 4th graders graphic organizer: “Important Information” (need to know) and the other is labeled “Interesting Details” (nice to know). Living here all your life is an “Interesting Detail”. There is a lot to be said for gaining insight from outside. Staying in one city your entire life offers a singular vision rather than a broader one.
NativeNewtonian: Are you kidding? Classism against the wealthy? Do you also believe that white people experience racism and men experience sexism?
Oh, Mary! You do live up to your name! Have a great day.
NativeNewtonian: I am speechless. “Limited? A good ol boy?” You are talking about the President of the Newton City Council.
I am also the son of a blue collar worker. Neither of my parents went past the 8th grade. My father did not venture far from our home in Saginaw, MI, but he was one of the most beautiful, insightful and bright people I ever met. Because of his efforts and what he taught me, I now own a home in Newton Highlands, have held various posts in the private sector, served the City of Newton, and am currently earning a PhD here in an “elite” Boston area university. And I would never, ever consider looking down my nose at anyone or consider them “limited” because of who they are, or where they come. I don’t know whose values you are describing, but it definitely does not fit with my view of Newton values.
This is another reason I support Scott. He gets people from all walks of life. And respects them. I would hope that Ruthanne does the same. In fact, I call on Ruthanne to disown your post and what it conveys.
Robert: Fair enough.
Oh Scott.
Let me fix this ‘clarification’ for you:
“Oh wow. I am sorry that I missed the mark on this. I regrettably forgot to realize that not everyone has the economic and social privilege and support it takes to stay in the workforce throughout raising a family.
This is an example of my male privilege and it’s why I’ll surround myself with advisors and staff who will keep me informed and in check when I make mistakes like this.
I made a mistake with this and I was wrong. I strive to do better and invite your feedback when I mess up so we can build a better community together.
I will never react to criticism by blaming citizens for ‘taking my words out of context’ because there are always perspectives I might miss and it will be my job as a leader to take your concerns seriously.”
THAT is how you respond, Scott.
He put it in play, so “how about that work experience and is a good predictor of future results as a Mayor?”
A late-in-life, lifelong civil servant with no executive experience is eminently unqualified to lead anything bigger a cost center whose activities are circumscribed by statute and directives from an accountable overseer. It matters not how large the budget managed is. Staff servants, by definition, follow someone else’s rules. There is no making new rules in a Sheriff’s office; that is what a Legislature, often comprised of highly-educated lawyers, does. There is no running towards the risks of future circumstances; there is deliberateness and process. There is no leading people under uncertainty to define a new future; there is discussion, accommodation and consensus. There is no track record of declaring truths and being accountable for achieving aspirational goals set to fare-best in light of those truths; there is, well, “managing” and “serving others”. That’s great stuff as far as it goes; it just isn’t leadership. We trust civil servants to do best when someone else is calling the tune.
Scott Lennon’s record of work achievement shows him to be a limited-skill beta-male. It has been said that he is “an honest and earnest Schmo, but not a lot of light there.” Good leadership requires more. A Mayor of Newton ought to be declaring views that are much more than namby pamby. Scott has not, does not, and, so Newton must conclude, can not. For all those many years of localness he stakes as his prime virtue, has anyone heard anything but beige perspectives from Scott?
Ted Mann and Setti Warren provided leadership, and Newton rightly followed. And life has been good.
The country has an executive who is under-qualified for figuring-out the leadership role. Newton does not need to add still more disruption at the local level by voting non-executive skills into the Mayor’s office.
“Scott Lennon’s record of work achievement shows him to be a limited-skill beta-male.”
Wow, Just Wow. Sexism can work in both directions and it seem rampant among a few of RAF’s supporters her. As are the overt and covert attempts to compare SL to Trump.
What awareness, Mary P, do you have of Lennon’s work achievement?
A “beta-male”?Seriously? I think our new friend “Mary Presumptuous” needs “her” blogging card pulled until “she” learns not call others names.
Mary Presumptuous, I’ve been critical of Scott’s ad but that is a reprehensible comment and completely without basis in reality. Scott has served the city and the Commonwealth ably.
While Scott Lennon’s ad had an unfortunate sentence, people should look more closely at both candidates political contributions and contributors.
At least 80 of 163 of Ruthanne Fuller’s contributors of $1,000 are from outside of Newton. 4 of 64 of Scott Lennon’s contributors of $1,000 are from outside of Newton.
Ruthanne Fuller has made small contributions to Democrats in recent year and large contributions to Republican presidential candidates (according to FEC records back to 2000) to Bush, McCain and Romney, Republican State committees and Republican PACS (as has her husband). Only in 2016 did she contribute to a Democrat (Clinton) running for president. Scott Lennon has made small contribution to state and local Democrats.
While Ruthanne Fuller is qualified to be mayor. I am concerned about where her financial support has come from and whom she has supported.
Scott’s advertisement was at best sloppy and exhibited a lack of judgement. It is even worse that he chose to defend the ad initially rather than apologize and move on.
This is a city councilor who abstained from voting on the resolution to impeach Trump. While the vote was purely symbolic, Lennon showed a lack of leadership by not voting (yes or no) on the resolution. We have many challenges in our city. I don’t think living in the city your whole life and working as an auditor prepares you for these challenges. Ruthanne has the vision and intellect to prepare our city for the future.
@Zachary, he abstained because he felt that CC was wasting time on votes that were at best symbolic and at worst a publicity stunt. They are there to do the city’s business and that vote was a farse,
@claire Why didn’t he just vote no as some of the other city councilors (who all happened to be white and male) if he thought the vote was a farce.
I understand the argument that the vote was a farce, but I don’t agree with it as I believe the current administration is a clear and present danger to our community.
Abstaining just seems like you don’t have the courage to stand behind the argument that the vote is a farce.
Zachary his point was he didn’t think that the city council should be voting on it at all, yes or no. And what does “male and white” have to do with anything?
@claire As a person of color, it does not suprise me that all the councilors who voted against the resolution were white and male. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Other major cities such as Cambridge and LA voted near unanimously for similar resolutions.
I don’t think Lennon is a bad person, but I do believe Ruthanne understands the concerns of minorities and women better than Scott.
Zacharcy, based on what? That she isn’t a white man?
As a lower income woman that’s part of a mixed race family, I don’t think Ruthanne understands any of my family’s needs in regard to finances or race. She certainly doesn’t understand how hard it is for someone like me, a woman with financial woes, to juggle work, parenting, household chores, volunteering with the PTO, etc. Even moving my car at night for half the year because of the parking ban and lack of off-street parking is a burden on my family that I doubt she understands. (In fact, she’s in favor of the ban)
@Zachary, I think it’s difficult to read too much into a single vote without talking to the person about the reasons for their vote. I heard that Ruthanne abstained from a vote on the Clean Air Act. Does that mean she’s anti-environment? Absolutely not. I believe there’s often more going on than meet’s the eye. I also believe both candidates are empathetic and understand the challenges of those different from themselves–female/male, blue collar/white collar, white/minority. For me, the question is which candidate has the best skillset to manage our city and who is best suited to unify the divisions in the city which this election cycle seems to have exposed.
@Zachary: Ruthanne walked out on one Board/City Council resolution – on the enforcement of the Clean Air Act (yes she is marked absent but walked outside of the rail with several other colleagues)
#333-12 ALD. CROSSLEY AND HESS-MAHAN, on behalf of Green Decade Newton, requesting a discussion and possible Resolution, asking that Newton join the Center for Biological Diversity’s Clean Air Campaign by sending a Resolution to the US Administration and Environmental Protection Agency urging them to assert and enforce certain provisions of the nation’s Clean Air Act in order to help communities achieve cuts in greenhouse gas pollution. [10/11/12 @ 5:05PM] APPROVED 4-0 SUBJECT TO 2ND CALL ON JANUARY 9, 2013 ITEM RECOMMITTED TO PROGRAMS & SERVICES ON JANUARY 22, 2013 PROGRAMS & SERVICES APPROVED 5-0 (Rice not voting) APPROVED 16 YEAS, 7 ABSENT (Ald. Ciccone, Fuller, Gentile, Harney, Kalis, Rice and Swiston), 1 VACANCY Clerk’s Note: Concern was raised by several Aldermen that this type of item was not appropriate to be taken up by the Board of Aldermen.
and Ruthanne voted against this Resolution on nuclear disarmament:
REFERRED TO PROGRAMS & SERVICES COMMITTEE #356-14 ALD. HESS-MAHAN AND DANBERG, requesting a RESOLUTION of the Newton Board of Aldermen on behalf of Newton Dialogues on Peace & War, declaring support for the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ program “Mayors for Peace,” of which the City of Newton has been a member since 2005, and its goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons by 2020. [09/10/14 @ 3:15PM] PROGRAMS & SERVICES APPROVED 7-0 (Baker not voting) on December 4, 2014 ITEM POSTPONED ON DECEMBER 15, 2014 TO DATE CERTAIN OF JANUARY 5, 2015 MOTION TO AMEND TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING TEXT: “Be it further resolved that the Clerk of the Board of Aldermen shall send copies of this Resolution to the elected representatives of this municipality, including the U.S. Congressman, the U.S. Senators and the President of the United States, and further to the Boston Globe, the Boston Herald and the Newton Tab.” AMENDMENT APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED APPROVED 14 YEAS, 7 NAYS (Ald. Ciccone, Fuller, Gentile, Lappin, Laredo, Lipof, Lennon), 3 ABSENT (Ald. Baker, Cote, Johnson) Clerk’s Note: An amendment was offered and approved which instructs the Clerk where to send the resolution. Those opposed to the resolution cited the complexity of the language, the work required to get a complete understanding and the role of the Board of Aldermen in supporting national initiatives. Some felt it was well intended, but they could not support it.
Does that make her anti-environment and pro-nuclear?
@amy I am not sure you are making an effective point. If Scott voted for both the above resolutions (which would be as non binding as the Trump resolution) , why wouldn’t he vote for the Trump resolution. Going nuclear free by 2020 is absolutely unrealistic in my opinion, and by the same logic, these resolutions are not the business of the city.
The point is the ad Scott was not well thought out, and he should have apologized out of the gate. He failed the leadership test on this episode. With all due respect, Ruthanne’s response was not over the top. Lots of folks were taken aback by the ad and Scott’s initial response of defending it.
Couple corrections:
I am fairly certain Scott did not abstain on the Trump impeachment vote, because in the full Council you cannot abstain unless you walk outside the chair rail, my memory is that he voted “no” because he didn’t think it was an appropriate issue for the City Council to be weighing in on, but he said he would send his own letter to our Congressman urging exploration into impeachment. That is my memory, I would welcome correction if I’m wrong.
Re Ruthanne and overnight parking, again going by my memory, because it’s Saturday night so I cannot ask a clerk to pull the committee meeting minutes, but I believe she supported my docket item to at least reduce the winter overnight parking ban.
@Emily You are correct, he did vote against the Trump impeachment resolution. I apologize for the misstatement.
Did Lennon send a letter to Congressman Kennedy and what are the contents of that letter?
@Emily and Amy – thanks for voting for the impeachment resolution, you both are on the right side of history.
I have had the pleasure of working with both Ruthanne and Scott as a member of the city council. Both are outstanding people of sound judgement whose opinion I greatly value. We are fortunate to have two such strong leaders running for elected office. They both are highly qualified, intelligent and hardworking. It’s a difficult choice to vote for one and not the other. Whoever becomes Mayor, it will mean the other will no longer be part of the city council and that will be a great loss for the city as well as for me personally.
Greg said it perfectly, …..”it’s a shame that only one can win. Because we know these folks, not from their resumes but from years of service, and we know that they are fine people who have out city’s best interests at heart”.
Alison I am glad to her from you on this matter and it reinforces that my decision to vote for you, which I came to after watching your debate.
While I understand you are not offering an endorsement for either candidate over the other, I do take your post as a character reference that you do not believe Scott is a sexist or a racist and I appreciate that.
Good luck on the 7th
Does anyone know if Ruthanne has ever managed employees?
@Emily,
Scott Lennon did indeed vote No on the Trump impeachment inquiry resolution (one of six members if I recall correctly). And he did indeed send a letter to Rep. Kennedy asking for a Congressional probe.
@Zachary – feel free to email me for a copy of the letter Scott sent to Congressman Kennedy – who by the way – is hesistant in moving forward with the impeachment investigation.
@Zachary, you make a great point about the ad? Frankly, it made no sense. It shows a terrible lack of judgement. I did not know who I was voting for until this happened since both of the candidates seem very similar. Because of these poor choices, I’ve decided to vote for Ruth Anne. Scott isn’t a bad person but this is just stupid. I want a mayor who thinks before doing something so foolish.
@Bill Brandel “Does anyone know if Ruthanne has ever managed employees?”
From Ruthanne’s Website “In 1979, after graduating magna cum laude from Brown University with a degree in history, I took a full-time position as Manager of Education for Data Resources, Inc., an economic forecasting company in Lexington, MA. I supervised our regional education coordinators, designed and conducted professional development courses and client seminars on econometrics and computer programming, and built econometric models for clients in the consumer goods industry. After working at Data Resources, Inc., for two-and-a-half years, I returned to school to pursue my MBA at Harvard Business School. ”
So it looks like she managed education coordinators (no idea how many or exactly what they did) for 2 1/2 years when she was in her early 20s. Since she became a management consultant after getting her MBA, it seems that is the extent of her experience directly managing employees.
Claire: I asked because this is another one of those things that Mayors actually do. I’m surprised that more time has not been spent on this subject, as it is one of the most important attributes that should shape the decision. Ruthanne does have impressive credentials for consulting. However, Mayors do not spend their time drawing up strategic plans, and do not manage small teams — they manage department heads and responsible for hundreds of employees. The other factor that seems to be overlooked is that as a councilor, one’s role is to provide oversight and give approval for a budget — they don’t manage it. In fact, that is Maureen Lemieux’s job. So that is an inadequate substitute for the task.
Compare to Scott:
– Manages full-time employees
– Manages government employees
– Sets, manages department policies
– Actively manages a $70 million budget
And there is one other issue: Most of the employees of the City are union members. All of the unions have endorsed Scott. This is significant in terms of what kind of relationship and tone that will exist between the Mayor and City workers. As our current Mayor has demonstrated, you can accomplish more with unions by having a respectful relationship, and an understanding that we are all in this together.
Clearly, Scott has already demonstrated that he has, by far, the more relevant skills and knowledge to conduct this very critical aspect of being Mayor.