Over the weekend, the NTA released the following statement regarding their endorsement of Scott Lennon.
Newton Teachers Association mayoral endorsement
by Village14 | Oct 30, 2017 | Newton | 32 comments
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Well written and well stated. Scott Lennon for all the right reasons. I have know Scott for 20 years and he is a person of impeccable integrity. He will be a great Mayor of Newton.
Excellent endorsement. Well-deserved, Scott!
“And here we are at the crux of where Scott’s candidacy stands out. In a time when it has somehow become possible to call oneself a progressive while badmouthing labor unions, Scott Lennon is unabashedly proud that he has the earned the endorsements of eleven unions, including Newton’s Fire, Police, Custodial and Teachers Associations. The talented and hard-working people who keep Newton safe and clean and educate its children believe Scott is best qualified to run this city.
We do not expect him to roll over on the tough issues. But we trust Scott to work with us collaboratively and transparently on the tough issues.”
I’m particularly pleased to have Mike Zilles explain the reasoning behind an endorsement. Maybe I’m being a broken record here, but this statement, in particular, resonates with me:
“It isn’t enough for progressives to worry about the replacement of good middle class jobs with low-paying work elsewhere in the nation; middle class jobs are being threatened right here in Newton, by our own elected leaders, and it creates the same political divisiveness here it creates elsewhere. As a community, we have to care about this, and we have to elect leaders like Scott who will be decisive and firm in their support of working people.”
To my knowledge, Ruthanne Fuller has not “bad mouthed” unions. Present evidence please.
Marti: That is a direct quote pulled from the NTA statement. It apparently reflects their view.
Scott’s position on the custodians has been a huge deal to me for months. He is very straightforward that he does NOT believe in outsourcing them, while Ruthanne declines to answer. I’ve been to school committee meetings where I heard the impassioned words from our local custodians and I feel strongly about keeping them in-house.
Marti, while I have heard from some people who attended the forums and confirmed Mike Zilles’ comment, anyone there at V14 is free to edit my post to begin the quote at “Scott Lennon is unabashedly proud…”
One needs to be a strong union supporter if they claim to be a progressive. This is not lost on Scott Lennon, who has been an unwavering supporter of the working men and women in Newton throughout his life. It is only fitting that all of this City’s unions support him in turn.
Agree with Bill. If you are not in support of strong unions, you are not a progressive. (The corollary, is not necessarily true. You can not have the support of unions and still be progressive.)
It’s really difficult at the local level. People who might otherwise be for strong unions generally, are not necessarily in favor of the tax burden that comes with local municipal unions that have bargaining power. Why should municipal unions get the benefit of union leverage when private unions are shrinking?
My answer: it’s not a race to the bottom. Strong municipal unions are the starting point for more union strength.
And yet, the Co Chair of the Newton Democratic Party just endorsed Fuller who has not been a vocal advocate for unions AND has recently contributed to Republican candidate I’m left scratching my head.
Ted Hess-Mahan endorsement was obvious and when I learned that Vicki Danberg was having a unadvertised meet and greet for Fuller last Sunday I figured she was going there
I wonder if the endorsement of Fuller by Sean Fitzgibbons is a personal endorsement or is it being made by the Newton Democratic Party? Does anyone know?
@Claire, I’m incredibly disappointed that Shawn Fitzgibbons endorsed the less progressive candidate and I really hope it doesn’t reflect the position of the Newton Democratic City Committee.
Well if it does those who are in and who support unions should close their wallets to them. The Newton Democratic Committee should clarify their position.
I’ve been trying to stay away from V14 the last 48 hours but the above few posts have me once again jumping in….
First @Bill I’m assuming, & giving the benefit of the doubt to the NTA, that the following quote you reference is NOT a slam against RAF….”in a time when it has somehow become possible to call oneself a progressive while badmouthing labor unions… ” because as @Marti stated, there is NO proof that Ruthanne has ever made derogatory comments about our unions. I’m guessing the NTA made a general comment of party politics today. Unless you have evidence please refrain from this incendiary comment.
I have attended almost every forum held & never once has Ruthanne bad mouthed or negatively referred to labor unions. On the contrary, she has said she feels that although she didn’t win their endorsement she believes that she has earned their respect over the years.
Second @Claire regarding “progressive democratic values” and endorsements, FYI Shawn Fitzgibbons, Councilors Vicky Danberg, Councilor Ted Hess Mahan and Councilor Barbara Brousal-Glaser all went public this week in their support for Ruthanne Fuller.
Also, Shawn’s articulated reasons on his Facebook page were particularly strong regarding RAF’s democratic bonafides – advocating & supporting democratic concerns, national & local issues, and supporting and fundraising for Democratic national & local candidates over the years here in Newton. In addition and most importantly, her voting record illustrates that she leads with her values regarding the recent sanctuary city vote and the Trump resolution for impeachment. Lennon recently voted against the Trump resolution you know (how democratic is that?)
Shawn starts off with “I’ll be voting for…” so it’s personal. He writes:
“For mayor: I’ll be voting for Ruthanne Fuller. Many people are having a hard time with this race – here are my own personal thoughts this campaign:
My hope is to have a mayor who will run the city and its schools well AND be a vocal advocate for progressive causes.
Ruthanne is the only candidate in the race who has a strong track record in both areas – as a manager and as a values leader.
As a city councilor, she has shown a strong commitment to the city and its schools. Ruthanne has leveraged her considerable experience on behalf of issues large and small in Newton.
As a Democrat – yes, she is a strong Democrat – Ruthanne is the only Mayoral candidate who has been out there campaigning for candidates and causes reliably, again and again, since she has held elected office in Newton.
Ruthanne is the only mayoral candidate who immediately embraced and helped lead the strongest version of Newton’s Welcoming (aka Sanctuary) City Ordinance.
When citizens of Newton expressed their concern about Donald Trump by petitioning the Council to formally request he be investigated, Ruthanne is the mayoral candidate who took up that cause, and gave a voice in Newton to the near universal condemnation of and concern about our President.
Newton is a progressive stronghold in Massachusetts – our mayor needs to run the city effectively and uphold the spirit and tenor of this city’s activism. Ruthanne can be trusted to do so because this is what she has done already in Newton.
Most of all, I have found Ruthanne to be a thoughtful listener, who can hear and adapt to feedback. I am confident as the mayor she will hear and respond to citizens and represent this city’s values effectively throughout her term”
That’s all for now… gotta get back to work.
Oops Sorry! Auto correct put in my maiden name. The above is from me Gloria Gavris
I don’t understand how people are criticizing Lennon for not backing the Trump impeachment resolution but they’re not critical of the tens of thousands of dollars that Fuller has donated to the GOP and GOP candidates. Ruthanne Fuller is not a “strong Democrat” but she is an opportunist.
Gloria, haven’t I seen you commenting on other posts saying that you’re a Republican?
Sean: We agree! Yes, the cost burden is a huge factor here. However, if we want great services, we have to invest in human capital. We can’t Wal-mart our way around this. So, this is where progressives are required to walk the talk.
@Mary Mary I’m a self described RINO, Never Trumper, Hillary voter & socially liberal. Yes, republican is my party designation at city hall, but it is just a label to me for voter registration. It’s a long story and I would change it in a nano second but it would involve me leaving my volunteer position on the Newton Licensing Commission that I enjoy & have held for 3 years (Massachusetts law requires 1 Dem, 1 Unenrolled & 1 GOP on the Licensing Commission and the filing of a HomeRule Petition at the State legislature to change it). I’m disgusted by the GOP ever since Palin and have resigned from the NRCC & most people that engage me in conversation know it. Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to confess.
@Mary Mary
“I don’t understand how people are criticizing Lennon for not backing the Trump impeachment resolution but they’re not critical of the tens of thousands of dollars that Fuller has donated …” .
WHY?
Because one was over a decade ago, and the Lennon vote for Trump was this summer. Fuller votes, advocates and leads with her values, that’s why. … and Newton Dems know it.
Oh, it was not a “vote for Trump” for crying outloud!!
@Gloria Garvis ” Yes, republican is my party designation at city hall, but it is just a label to me for voter registration. It’s a long story and I would change it in a nano second but it would involve me leaving my volunteer position on the Newton Licensing Commission that I enjoy & have held for 3 years (Massachusetts law requires 1 Dem, 1 Unenrolled & 1 GOP on the Licensing Commission and the filing of a HomeRule Petition at the State legislature to change it). ”
Wait a minute so now you tell us you are a registered Republican but just so you can get around (read brake) the law so you can continue to enjoy your volunteer position?????
Gloria – You know perfectly well that Scott Lennon did not vote for Trump. Not to mention, Scott was integrally involved in developing the Welcoming City Ordinance that requires all municipal employees, including teachers, to abide by the same standards.
I also think it’s funny that the Trump resolution is the litmus test, in spite of the fact that Lennon has a consistently more progressive record ranging from environment to unions. But the silly Trump resolution is what people are picking out to downplay Scott’s progressiveness??
To Gloria Mastrocola: You said today about Fuller :
“In addition and most importantly, her voting record illustrates that she leads with her values regarding the recent sanctuary city vote and the Trump resolution for impeachment. Lennon recently voted against the Trump resolution you know (how democratic is that?)”
Get your facts straight, please. Lennon DID NOT VOTE AGAINST THE TRUMP RESOLUTION…rather he voted against it as a City Councilor, believing, as did many other Councilors, that he was elected to conduct the daily business of Newton, to remain non-partisan, without regard to polarizing national political questions. As an a private citizen, however, he did write to Congress calling for impeachment investigations as did other councilors… AS PRIVATE CITIZENS.
As for the Sanctuary City ordinance, it was Lennon, not Fuller who
worked with the Newton Police and other involved parties to craft the actual ordinance.
Do your own research and stop depending on regurgitated spin…
My understanding is that the councilors who voted against the Trump resolution, including Lennon, did so because they felt it isn’t the city council’s role to try to impeach Trump, not because they support what Trump is doing. I’m absolutely anti-Trump but I don’t see what the city council intended to accomplish by passing the resolution. Trying to impeach the president is Joe Kennedy’s job, not the Newton City Council’s. If the council was trying to send a message of opposition to Trump, I think the election results last November already did that.
There are many ways to fight the Trump agenda and abuses of power. I supported the resolution because citizens asked our city council to take it up and we need to be calling on Congress to act. I also appreciate and support that Scott sent a letter, although would’ve preferred a yes vote.
However, I believe it’s EXTREMELY dangerous to say that it’s Congress’s job to address these abuses of power. It’s all of our jobs to say this isn’t normal, this isn’t right, and all good people of conscience need to step up and say so. Whether you’re a citizen, a city councilor, or a Congressman.
“It’s all of our jobs to say this isn’t normal, this isn’t right, and all good people of conscience need to step up and say so. Whether you’re a citizen, a city councilor, or a Congressman.”
Which is what Scott did as a citizen. The real issue here however if for some RAF to continue with the misleading message that Scott supported Trump
@Bryan Barash I get what you’re saying. Personally I think the City Council should spend its time addressing other issues, specific to Newton; but ultimately the councilors do what the voters, their constituents, tell them to do.
Union characterization that GIC would cause a $20k teacher aide to have $10k in medical bills is a boldface lie. All Commonwealth of Mass employees are on the GIC and we aren’t hearing this. So are teachers in Brookline, Wellesley and other high paying districts in MA.
Lennon said every period they follow the procedure of looking at all healthcare options, including the GIC, and so far the advantages of locally funded insurance is the better deal for Newton.
Fuller said she couldn’t make a decision on healthcare until she looked at all the options to see which one is the best for Newton.
They are both saying the same thing.
There are three critical issues that pertain directly to issues that are in the purview of our next mayor to address in his or her role as mayor: outsourcing custodial work, providing employee health insurance, and working with and supporting the people who work for Newton through collaboration with their unions. The NTA trusts Scott on these issues because he takes truly progressive positions on these issues. And these local issues reverberate on a national scale.
It is morally wrong for a community with the tremendous wealth of Newton to outsource custodial work. How dare we think of ourselves as progressives and then eliminate ninety decent paying middle class jobs right here in Newton? How dare we become indignant at the divisiveness, partisanship, and declining civility in the rest of the nation, and then calmly consider policies that create those same economic conditions right here at home? And how dare Ruthanne Fuller calmly say she will keep this on the table or study it or whatever evasive nonsense she says when it has been an ongoing battle for four years? That’s right: for four years, ninety men and women have had no contract, no raise, and they have lived with constant fear of job loss.
If she still doesn’t know where she stands, then I would ask her, Ruthanne, what rock have you been hiding under? There is no new information to be had. What we need is leadership.
It is morally wrong for Ruthanne to state in public debate that we need to keep consideration of the Government Insurance Commission health insurance on the table. On one level, her statement is just a distortion of the facts. The GIC has been considered every year by the Warren administration, and every year it proves itself inferior to our current health insurance plans in just about every way. Scott Lennon said exactly that.
And let’s just be clear about this: the Government Insurance Commission (GIC) is a failing institution, and every year it gets worse. This year, things have gotten so bad that it has had to close its most popular plans to new members. The plans that remain that Newton employees could join are either very expensive, or limit provider networks so much that most employees in Newton would be forced to change doctors.
The GIC would be a bad choice both from a management and an employee perspective, and if Ruthanne Fuller does not know that, then she is not competent to hold the office of Mayor.
In fact, I would say that we can draw one of two conclusions: Either her purported managerial and strategic planning expertise is a sham, or she is playing politics with people’s health care. Or maybe it’s a bit of both. In either case, she is not competent to be mayor. We do not need a mayor who demonstrates the same callousness and willingness to play loose and ready with the facts that we see in our national dialogues on health care.
Oh, and, Ted Hess-Mahan, please don’t casually let it drop that you are in the GIC and it works fine for you. First of all, the plan you are in is probably no longer accepting new members. Check your facts. Moreover, even if it were, it may be fine for you, but is it fine for a teacher aide who has three children and earns $25,000 per year? You might be able to take $10,000 out of your pocket for a catastrophic illness, but she can’t. And what about our firefighters, whose risk of cancer is going through the roof? Really? There are times when stating things casually is just plain cavalier.
We trust Scott Lennon. But here’s the thing. I am under no illusion that negotiations with him are going to be easy. He is a smart, conscientious person, and I know he will take very seriously his fiduciary responsibility to this city and its citizens. As a negotiator, I expect that. The Newton Teachers Association is a responsible partner with the School Committee, school administration, and the Mayor’s office. We’re straight shooters. We understand fiscal constraints. We care deeply about this city and its schools. We are proud to work in Newton, and have a vested interest in the schools’ continued excellence. Most of us are in it for the long haul.
What we cannot countenance is negotiating with a Republican in Democrat’s clothing. We expect transparency. We expect honesty.
And that is why, when I hear contributors to this blog getting themselves tied up in knots about a vote on sending a letter calling for the impeachment of Trump, I am flabbergasted. This is the issue that defines Ruthanne Fuller and Scott Lennon? Really?!
I happen to disagree with Scott Lennon’s position, and agree with Ruthanne’s. But I respect the reasons Scott has given for his position. And I don’t trust Ruthanne’s position because it strikes me as political pandering.
I would trust her more if there were a history there. But Ruthanne Fuller donated $15,000 to the Republican National Party and to a Republican PAC just over ten years ago–the party of George Bush and Newt Gingrich. The party of Ronald Reagan. The party of the “southern strategy.” She supported both Mitt Romney and John McCain against Barack Obama!
She has given real money–money none of my members could afford to give–to a cause and a party that has led us, step by step, to Donald Trump.
I do not want symbolic gestures. I want a mayor who will do what’s right for the city of Newton. Who will be honest and transparent, whose motives I can trust.
I’m proud of the Newton Teachers Association support for Scott Lennon. On the scoreboard of honesty and transparency, he hits a home run. Ruthanne Fuller strikes out.
KarenN: Bold faced lie? I suggest you see for yourself: Page 16 of the GIC benefits brochure right here: http://www.mass.gov/anf/docs/gic/bdgs/fy18-municipalbdg.pdf
It is right there in a public document: Out of pocket maximum for a family: $10,000. That does not include the cost of prescription drugs. For a family on limited income, these cost would be catastrophic.
Moreover, as I said in the above post, the GICs two most popular plans are closed to new members. Newton employees would be forced to choose limited network plans or indemnity plans. The premiums of these latter plans cost more than the plans most Newton employees now use.
Oh, that sounds like a good idea. Have Newton join an insurance provider where many if not most of its employees would choose health insurance plans that have higher premiums than the plans we now offer, and out-of-pocket expenses that are triple or quadruple. Sounds like a good option to me! Come on!
There are multiple advantages to being self-insured, and Ruthanne knows this. Or maybe she doesn’t. If she doesn’t, then she is simply incompetent. I believe she does, so what is really going on here is that she is pretending to be “fiscally serious.” To be “tough.” In other words, she is pandering. And KarenN, you fell for it.