The Boston Globe has an article outlining the potential impact of the proposed change to the City charter and the people backing it.
“Supporters say the existing council is too unwieldy. …[Opponents worry that] all twelve councilors …would need to run city-wide races.”
“Donations to the pro-change campaign…include a number of real estate types. Robert Korff, who is trying to redesign a key stretch of Washington Street, gave $1,000. Scott Oran, a developer behind a Newtonville apartment project, contributed $500. The biggest donation, though, came from the private equity world: Dan Fireman of Fireman Capital Partners gave $10,000, or nearly one-sixth of the total collected through Oct. 20.”
“Yes, there’s a mayor’s race this fall, too. …But it’s the charter question that could have a much bigger impact on the Garden City’s future.”
Dan Fireman doesn’t even live in Newton, yet was inspired to contribute $10K to the Yes on Charter effort. I wonder why?
Nearly half of the funding for the NO campaign comes from two ward councilors (Norton and Baker) who are looking to save their jobs. I wonder why?
Did Councilors Norton and Baker contribute from their campaign funds that they raised even though they are running unopposed?
The last time that I checked, Norton and Baker live in Newton and don’t make much $$ being a City Councilor. However, Korff and Fireman are business partners (Fall River) who stand to make a lot of $$ with developments in Newton. There is a world of difference between the two groups. Why would Fireman give $10,000 to the YES group when he doesn’t live in Newton? Please Mr Haywood and Mr Reibman, don’t insult our intelligence with such inane comparisons.
The YES campaign has received donations from over 200 unique donors, more than double that of the NO campaign. The median donation is $100. The average, yes even with the $10k donation, is about $250 a person. 70% of the donations are $100 or less.
46% of donations to the NO campaign, however, are from sitting city councilors. People whose jobs, health benefits, and political futures are on the line.
Why would a Wellesley business partner of a Newton developer give $10,000 to the YES campaign? Since you know why Norton and Baker gave $$, you must know why Fireman donated such a large sum (not large for him) so don’t say ‘I don’t know’.
Breaking news – those with special interests on the line donate to support their interests!
So Mr. Kavanaugh you are implying that if the Charter passes that those who are elected will be bought by developers. Do you include Councilors Norton and Baker if they run and win. I find your comments insulting to all candidates who will make the sacrifice to serve the City.
Mr Haywood, very selective in your condemnation. Your fellow Charter Commission member wrote “46% of donations to the NO campaign, however, are from sitting city councilors. People whose jobs, health benefits, and political futures are on the line.”
That isn’t insulting? Oh, well.
@Howard Heywood: not “will be”.
I read both YES and NO forms line by line yesterday with growing dismay and sadness. Contributing $40, supposedly towards keeping one’s seat, even with the so-called ‘riches’ of the small stipend and health insurance, does not compare with $2,000 to $10,000 donations towards the goal of millions of dollars profit to be gained once the impediment of minority voices are out of the way.
As always, follow the money towards who has the most to gain.
@Greg: I’ll answer after you do!
Councilor Norton:
I will answer both.
Councilor Baker and you both donated heavily to No because you are fighting to save your jobs, health information and political power.
Business people are joining a wide array of other citizens because they are frustrated by the red tape and bureaucracy that holds our city back and keeps us from making our villages vibrant; creating housing for our elderly, our kids and workers and growing our commercial tax base.
@Mark: $40? Let me fix that for you:
Lisle Baker: $9,100.27
Emily Norton: $7,417.16
Jay Harney: $900
@Bryan
Yes: $63,376.97
No: $26,125
My point remains.
Who has the most to gain?
Why the large business interest contributions?
What is the end ‘prize’ and who has the most to gain from it?
TGreg, thank goodness that business people are so altruistic as opposed to those venal greedy public servants. BTW, Mr Haywood, any comment on insults?
@Mark: Indeed, the YES campaign raised double the money. From double the number of people. Funny how that works.
Not sure why you refuse to include the large in-kind contributions, but the NO side actually raised $38,679.28.
Good ballgame on right now. I’ll have to multitask.
@Greg
Okay, let’s assume that they’re fighting to save their seats and the VAST power that comes with it that seemingly lies waste to armies and decimate planets. Let’s say they are.
Still not sure how that compares to the true power wielded by these business interests.
I’m assuming there’s just tiny bit of self-interest on both ‘sides’, no?
@Bryan
My point remains. Who has the most financially to gain?
Mark
I am sure that all the good people here in Newton are aware of the perfidious effect that $$ and particularly Citizens’ United has had on our electoral system. But for some reason they are in denial that $$ influences events here in Newton. Why the disconnect?
@Greg you’re aware that developers financially benefit from their projects in Newton right? By, like, A LOT
In contrast Lisle and I earn $10K a year* in this gig, and we both have jobs that offer health insurance.
*Not enough to live on – but you probably knew that
Mr. Kavanaugh, you are suggesting that there are City officials being influenced by illegal financial payments. I believe that unsubstantiated accusation such as this is irresponsible and I challenge you to name, names , otherwise you should recant your statement.
Howard, Bryan and Greg, you want to play with numbers? OK.
Total YES $63,376.97
Top 17 donors (i.e. 8% of total donors) $40,525
Top 8% of donors account for 64% of total donations
Bryan — Thanks for saving me time and making the same flawed argument on multiple sites and listservs. Its easier to cut and paste the response….I’ll circle back on your other mistakes in another thread. You’d think with the $30,000 in high priced political consulting you’ve paid from Boston firms you’d be more on your game on this. What do you actually pay them for?
How much did City Councilors sitting for reelection next week contribute personally to the No campaign in total? The answer is $1000. In total. As a group. For all of them. This is about 2.6% of the total NO campaign spending.
How many politicians on the charter commission contributed $1000 or more INDIVIDUALLY and PERSONALLY? The answer is five. Together you and your colleagues contributed nearly $11,000. That is 10x more than all the city councilors sitting for reelection combined. In addition city funds were used for two mailings advocating for a Yes vote. What was the total cost of those mailings and how does that number compare with the total cost for the NO campaign?
Now, you are correct that three current ward-elected councilors did contribute significant campaign funds (contributed by their constituents) for three mailings to alert residents to your plan to eliminate the ward-elected seats they currently occupy to represent their constituents. In contrast to the door to door campaigning ward-elected councilors normally have to do, you essentially are leading a financially unlimited and externally funded citywide campaign against the existence of their seats, and the cost of that type of campaign is the problem No is fighting against.
Jack
http://newtondemocracy.org
@Greg R — So Bryan is the one elected official who apparently gets to be an admin on V14? Its not like Bryan has any vested interest in the content of this thread or the outcome of the election on Tuesday for his proposal right? Hasn’t Bryan already confirmed to you he continues in his role as an elected official in Newton last week?
@Emily: You’re a politician. For a lot of reasons, politicians like getting re-elected. It’s how democracy is supposed to work. But lets not pretend it’s something else.
Lest you protest, I note that your email signature is: Want to keep me as your Ward Councilor? Vote NO for charter change in November 2017!
Mr Heywood: It is known as ‘Regulatory Capture’.
Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Me, I live in ward 5, unable to vote directly for ward councillor Emily Norton (and fighting with NO to be able to keep voting for John Rice). But, if you prowl into campaign donations, you will find that I gave her $100 at a time when she was unopposed. Did I see my donation as going to her campaign for re-election? No. Before the “NO” campaign was organized, I saw my donation to Emily Norton as voting with my pocket book for the things that she was standing up for city-wide, especially Austin Street (also not in my ward). So, if, unopposed in her election, she decided to donate monies from her campaign to the NO campaign, I really doubt that you will find dissent among her small, city-wide donors like me. I wasn’t donating to her re-election campaign. I was donating to a political mutual fund with Emily Norton as fund manager. That’s really hugely different from outside influencers like Korff or Fireman or huge-monied people like Gifford or Oran. Or middle-feeders like Kidwell. These are people who will make millions from Newton real estate. I’m sure that the venerable Councilor Baker’s supporters didn’t mind that the money that they donated to an uncontested campaign went to standing up for ideals about democratic representation. Do you really think that our ward councillors are in it for the $10k salary and health insurance? Small pay-off for hours of work that reduce that compensation to below minimum wage. As for Greg’s bull about “bureaucracy that holds our city back and keeps us from making our villages vibrant; creating housing for our elderly, our kids and workers and growing our commercial tax base.” I don’t know what you’re talking about. Has there been an affordable housing project for Newton firefighters and teachers over the past 2o years that I have missed? What proposal for invigorating our city centers has been on the table? Did I miss a proposal for elderly housing? Please speak in specifics and not spin. Me, regular homeowner, citizen, middle class working person and taxpayer has seen nothing but profiteering over the past decade with no enhancements. I don’t expect a lot for my $100 donation to Emily Norton, but I’ll bet that the RE interests expect a lot more for their sizable donations.
Wow – there is a lot of money going towards the YES campaign. I’m intrigued. Why would someone from Wellesley donate $10K. That’s an awful lot of outside money going into a campaign to decide what our local government will look like, right? Does the person have Newton ties or a particular interest here in Newton?
People should be shocked and disgusted by the amount of money being poured into this campaign. Sounds like a highly financed special interest group wanting to control our local government and strip away the local voice in order to do a power grab of our city council in order to further their agenda….whatever that may be……
VOTE NO on CHARTER.
@Bryan — “The YES campaign has received donations from over 200 unique donors, more than double that of the NO campaign”
Bryan — Here is the Ballot Committee campaign finance instructions: from the Newton city website:
http://www.newtonma.gov/documents/City%20Clerk/instr_cpf_m102.pdf
“The report must itemize, alphabetically, the names and residential addresses of any receipt in excess of $50 for the reporting period. These are totaled on line 9. Receipts of $50 or less should be totaled from the committee’s records, and disclosed in the aggregate on
line 10. Lines 9 and 10 should be added , and the total shown on line 11. Total receipts (line 11) should be carried forward to page one, line 2. ”
How many donors did the NO campaign have? Can you let me know? As the treasurer I like to keep up on these things.
“Business people are joining a wide array of other citizens because they are frustrated by the red tape and bureaucracy that holds our city back and keeps us from making our villages vibrant…” claims Greg.
I have lived on Court Street for over 37 years and my village is very vibrant except for the empty Orr Building which was caused by one of the aforementioned business people
@Bryan please feel free to repeat my email signature anytime
$5000 from a Newton developer; $2100 from a retired teacher, $10,000 from an outside developer, thousands of dollars from ex-school committee members….
I know the developers know what they are voting for. The others? Well, I wonder. That’s a lot of money!
Great push back around the bureaucracy bull – @KarenN. 8 members on School Committee all elected citywide – and we are still talking about full day Kindergarten and High School start. Is that bureaucracy or something else.
@Bryan – Please do explain why did the YES spend $30K on pollsters and political consultants?
This is exactly the reason to vote NO. Keep BIG MONEY OUT, and vote NO.
I’m the treasurer for Brian Yates reelection campaign. I have been regularly depositing a lot of $10.00 and $20.00 checks from widows, retired and working folks in Upper Falls and beyond who continue to honor Brian as a quiet and dedicated public servant who is always there for the little guy with a complex, city related problem, but who is not beholden to special interests or the politically powerful. I don’t have to list all these small donations in my depository reporting to the Office of Political and Campaign Finance, but I’m going to do so because they are part of a dwindling record of how political campaigns used to be financed in Newton. It’s the best of what I term “civic democracy”.
I juxtapose this against a $10,000 donation to the YES campaign from a wealthy fellow that doesn’t even live in Newton and it’s pretty clear where slates of candidates in a totally at-large 12 member City Council would be turning to first for financial support during future election cycles. I I know and am friends with members of the Charter Commission and I’m quite certain they didn’t see factor the scenario of super wealthy mega donors into their equation when they came up with the 12 member Council plan. But it’s plain to me and a growing number of Newton voters that big bucks will come with a lot of strings attached. They always do. Concentrated power never ends well.
And if that comes to pass, it matters even more who the mayor is because a mayor with great wealth and with friends who have great wealth could easily influence the makeup of the CC and diminish it’s role as a check/balance.
The yes argument contradicts itself. Ward Councilors are donating to the No campaign to hold on to their vast amount of power – but – we need to change the charter because there are too many Councilors to get Anything done, ie Councilors have little individual power because there are too many of them.
Think global, act local. Keep big money out of politics – Vote No
Lucia,
To be fair to the Yes-ers, I think that concern about block voting by ward councilors has long been identified as one of the reasons that the Council doesn’t get enough done.
I never heard the complaint that they have too little power. Not saying someone hasn’t said it. But it’s not been my concern.
Sean, I am unclear what it is that the City Council has not gotten done. The big complaint seems to be the failure to rush thru last scale developments in Newtonville. What else are you referencing? Zoning? That should be a slow process due to its impact on us.
Robert do you know that if, for example, a restaurant in Newton Centre wants to add even one extra chair beyond what our outdated regulations say they are allowed to have or if — for another example, a homeowner wants to add a dormer to their house that’s not part of the zoning code — they need to appear before the Land Use committee and then find 16 city councilors to support it?
It’s not just the big projects that get tied up in our city bureaucracy. It’s the small ones and ever one of these hearings, deliberations, speech making and votes have earned our city a reputation as a place where its really hard to get things done.
While the vast majority of the charter focus has been on ward councilors, but the real objective is to streamline the bureaucracy.
We should want our councilors to debate and deliberate the big projects but let’s delegate these more mundane approvals (really 16 votes to add a chair or a dormer?) to professional staff or zoning committees.
Greg, I never said that I opposed zoning reform. I simply see no reason to speed the process up. Deliberation is needed on such an important topic. As for ” let’s delegate these more mundane approvals (really 16 votes to add a chair or a dormer?) to professional staff or zoning committees.” The devil is in the details. What a developer might see as mundane, an abutter might see as crucial. How big is big? For example, snow removal is an important issue for some folks, isn’t it?
Robert: Let’s say a restaurant owner figures out that by modestly rearranging a few tables he can add an extra chair or two to his restaurant, something that over course of a year could be very beneficial to his bottom line?
Why should he need to hire a lawyer, appear before Land Use and make sure he has 16 councilors approval…a process that costs him money and time?
There are good examples from other towns on the professional staff taking mundane tasks on. I also thinking that ones of the purposes of independent staff is to allow certain decisions outside of politics. Nothing huge. But some folks will object to everything, some nothing. If I choose to enclose a porch, or put in a dormer in the attic, or put up a fence or want a new cut out for parking, some if not all of that is perfect for professional staff.
And deliberation on zoning reform is fine, but sometimes deliberation becomes delay becomes never.
Greg, I think your argument should be against the regulation being too stringent, not the approval process required to overstep that regulation. If it’s really no big deal for the restaurant owner to add one or two seats without harming anyone (as it seems you are suggesting), then the regulation should accommodate that. If it needs to be revised, then let’s get on it. But the review process is for those cases when one person’s addition of one or two seats adversely impacts one or more other people, and case-by-case review of those situations requires (and deserves) money and time. (And I’m glad that your case study has the restaurant owner rearranging tables modestly. Otherwise, s/he might be running afoul of some other ordinance.)
A small correction to what I read above: The average YES donation was $310 per person (not “about $250 per person”).
Same data, different spin: Yes, 70% of donors to the YES campaign gave $100 or less. Yet over half of all YES funds came from just 10 people, averaging $3,262 per person.
Fun Fact: Each campaign received about $17,500 in total from 3 people. The NO campaign received a total of $17,448 (dollars plus in-kind) from 3 Ward Councilors (Baker, Norton, Harney) — about 10% from their personal funds and 90% from their campaign committees aggregating donations from constituents. The YES campaign received a total of $17,525 from 3 people (Fireman, Gifford, Hobson).
Those 3 sitting ward councilors all have a direct, vested interest in the outcome of this election.
By contrast:
Dan Fireman is not a developer and has no real estate interests in Newton. He is Founder and Managing Partner of Fireman Capital Partners, a private equity firm focused on consumer product companies.
Rob Gifford is a 30+ year resident of Newton Centre and a long-time civic activist. Beyond his home, Rob has no real estate interests in Newton.
Kathleen Hobson is also a long-time civic activist and also has no real estate interests in Newton beyond her home.
@Bryan, I was not talking about real estate. I was just talking about the statistics regarding concentration of donations to each campaign from a few people.
I think we all have a “direct, vested interest in the outcome of this election.” At least those of us who live in Newton do!
@Bruce: Touché. I still think my point was quite clear.
Bryan P. Barash writes: “@Emily: You’re a politician. For a lot of reasons, politicians like getting re-elected. It’s how democracy is supposed to work. But lets not pretend it’s something else.”
@Bryan P. Barash: You’ve made it abundantly clear that you are incapable of understanding competing perspectives, but because you have chosen to attack Emily’s integrity, let me say this clearly: Emily has more integrity in a single strand of hair than you could hope to ever have. As has been made crystal clear, she has dedicated much of her life to fighting against inequality and for what is right. In fact, when the current Mayor decided to balance the budget on the backs of those struggling to live in Newton, Emily was one of two City Councilors to give these residents a voice by voting against said budget. (Councilor Cote was the other.) In her own words:
“We should be making it easier for those families, not harder. Out of a $220 million school budget, I just do not believe we could not have found $150,000 elsewhere and in fact I offered some suggestions for where school administrators and the mayor’s office could look instead. Whether it’s music or drama or sports, these are things we should be encouraging students to participate in, not adding barriers… Newton prides itself on our economic diversity and being welcoming to households of all income levels, these fees send the opposite message.”
In the case of this whole charter debate, Emily is continuing to fight against inequality because she understands the importance and value of ward-based representation. Her understanding is based on firsthand experience – something you don’t have and never will have.
In the context of this debate, I’d further highlight that your attempt to paint Councilor Baker and Councilor Norton as “bad” while at the same time paint the owner of a private equity firm with zero connection to Newton as “good” is beneath us all. According to filings, Dan Fireman is a control person of Windrose Advisors LLC, which in turn controls numerous real estate funds and other high net worth investment vehicles. Furthermore, under the same filings, he is the only indirect owner listed as a control person, and he is listed as owning 75% or more of said ownership. You clearly stand with special interests and big money.
When it comes to the charter debate, I’d finally add that you are not supposed to be a politician who plays with facts, but rather you are an agent of the City of Newton who has a fiduciary obligation to present objective information in good faith. More to come on this later. In the meantime, perhaps your fancy $30,000 political consultants advised you to use the aforementioned line of attack on our dedicated public servants, but as someone who would prefer that we stick to debating the substance of this issue in good faith, I’d encourage you cut it out as it just makes you look bad.
@TomDavis
CRUSHED IT
Bryan, you’re being unfair to Emily. We need people like her on the City Council. She is one of the councillors who repeatedly stands up against inequality. If she had been on the council earlier, maybe we wouldn’t have the ridiculous and classist winter parking $25 parking fines. What have YOU done for the lower income families of Newton??
@Tom Davis, why aren’t you running for something? Anything? Please?
Tom, escalating what you see as ad hominem attacks adds nothing of substance to this debate. I hope you take your own advice and cut it out.
Folks:
Conflicts large and small abound. It isn’t mean or a slight to Emily to point out she is advocating for the no campaign, which will also likely save her elected position. With that said, having debated Emily on this blog for years, I’m also 100% confident she’d be against the charter if she wasn’t running for anything. For me, the conflict isn’t worth much as an argument and Emily is very capable of pointing that out. But it isn’t unfair to point out the conflict, and it isn’t an insult to Emily.
I personally think Tom’s post was over the top in terms of rhetoric, but mostly because I think questioning our public officials is part of our duty as citizens, and that raising criticisms of their actions if presented in a fair and public manner should be welcomed and debated. That’s how we get better folks. By advocating. By pointing out conflicts. Ideally Emily and the mayors and others learn from the comments and maybe adjust, however slightly. I do know that politicians recognize pressure, even if they don’t always recognize logic.
For the record, it doesn’t make sense to point out the conflict with developers and investors donating to the yes campaign as a conflict like Tom does, and not acknowledge Emily’s conflict as well. Both are conflicts of one sort or another. Both have been disclosed. Folks can draw their own conclusions. I think the donations in question aren’t that big a deal either. Again, just because something or somone has the potential for a personal interest in a political matter, doesn’t mean it is wrong or evil for them to participate in the process.
For the record, if I was running the no campaign, I wouldn’t have made a sitting councilor as the face of the campaign. But Emily is passionate and effective spokesperson, even if I don’t agree with her arguments (or frankly think they are always the most fair). Clearly the charters weak point was the ward councilor issue, which is why I wanted the 4 plus 8 option, which would have been easier for folks to understand and accept.
As for Bryan and his conflicts, those are the most open of all. He supports the charter being passed. He voted to put it forward and spent months crafting it. For him to sit back and not be an advocate is not logical either.
I’ll say also this. Emily and Bryan and others are public figures to some extent. When folks point out conflicts, say we disagree with them, criticize them for actions or inactions, that’s our system. For me it is never personal, even if it is highly criticical. I don’t think Emily or Bryan or Amy or Setti are bad people, I think they are great people for donating so much time to Newton. But I’m permitted and frankly I think I should be able to have equally passionate feelings about my city and the issues before it, and since they are the ones directing those issues, expressing myself and potentially criticizing them is part of the process. I’d like to believe our city councilors and charter folks understand that. It is damn hard to not make it personal, and it is damn hard not to take it personally. But both sides should try. Many times on this blog I’ve seen the political side snap and say something inappropriate (or sometimes in my view do something inappropriate) in response to criticism. I’ve tried to let that pass, because posting here is a good thing by those folks, even if they sometimes react like human beings and not public figures.
Ok, back to the same 20 people posting the same 20 opinions for the next 6 days.
Fig wrote: “I’m also 100% confident she’d be against the charter if she wasn’t running for anything.”
Your confidence is warranted!
@fig – Keep in mind, this is not the first time Bryan has questioned Emily’s integrity, or that of Amy. And his questioning is gossipy and unsubstantiated.
After most elections, you develop a respect for your opponents – John McCain or even Kelly Ann Conway (yep u heard me right). But Bryan’s scorched earth approach leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
I hope his allies realize liability he is for them, and end his political future soon. No one like people like these at local level.
In my house, my wife’s been a firm No on the charter and I’ve been leaning Yes but not in any passionate way.
I just saw Marc Laredo’s speech from a few weeks ago, making a very lucid and articulate case for a No vote. He did an incredibly good job as a communicator. I has no idea he had such rhetorical skills.
He did definitely get me thinking, which frankly at this point in the campaign I don’t welcome :-) Will it change my vote on Tuesday? I don’t know. He definitely did give me some things to think about though.
The charter is definitely an important issue worth careful consideration. Frankly, I really do believe we would be well served by a smaller Council. Mr Laredo has made a good case about potential problems with the proposed solution. For me the choice comes down to whether my desire for a smaller council outweighs the possible undesired side effects of going to an all at-large configuration. For the record, the alternative 11th hour proposal for an 8 at large, 8 ward council I believe is the worst of all worlds and was nothing more than cheesy political gamesmanship.
After an endless acrimonious campaign, two days before the vote, it turns out I haven’t quite made up mind – damn you Laredo!
Presidency of Council?
Marc Laredo is truly a skilled orator, but it’s form over substance. His words don’t have the same impact when you read them.
Here’s a quote…with dramatic emphasis: “I’ve run for office at-large for a while and it’s hard. It takes money, it takes time, it takes political network.”
Marc has never had an opponent for his city council seat. But he has you feeling his pain for all the work he puts in running.
And: “Let’s be honest. This Yes vote is not about reducing the size of the city council. If the charter commission really wanted to reduce the size of the city council it could have done so very easily with the plan that my colleagues and I have put forth.”
Come again? Because we propose to downsize the council, but not the way *they* want it done, it’s not really about downsizing the council?? We studied best practices models and interviewed real-world city councilors. We rejected the 8-8 model for multiple reasons.
We also held 7 public hearings and found no consensus for the 16-member proposal. The city council has held zero public hearings but wants you to vote NO so they can give you what you really want.
Because we went with 12 instead of 16, we aim to “make it easier for special interests in this city to influence the city council. I think that’s bad government, bad policy, a bad way to run the city.” He doesn’t substantiate why a 12-member council will be so corrupt, but he has you pretty angry about all the bad outcomes.
The average city council size in Massachusetts is 10. But Newton needs at least 16 to avoid corruption.
After my citing actual data on why it’s not cheaper or easier to run for a ward seat, Marc responds: “As far as running for a citywide seat, Rhanna, let’s use some common sense that doesn’t require statistics or detailed analysis. [Yes, he literally said that.] What’s easier and cheaper, folks? To walk a 2-mile radius of a ward? To go out and knock on doors and send out some emails and send out a small mailing? Or to do it citywide?”
Just knock some doors and send some emails, a piece of cake.
To knock 3,000 doors of a ward takes 6 months, if you can go both days every single weekend. PLUS all the other stuff, like house parties, fundraising, events.
Marc cites Brenda Noel, and he has clearly never talked to her about her campaign. Brenda is working every bit as hard as anyone running for citywide office—I know because I see all of them out on the campaign trail. Emily Norton raised $9,000 and spent 6 months working to get elected. The truth is, getting elected to our city council in a contested race is a tremendous amount of work, regardless of the type of seat.
Marc and his 15 colleagues who are leading the Vote No effort have clear self-interest in keeping 24 seats. Try re-listening to the debate with that in mind.
YES campaign in problem???
I just saw on the facebook page, they cancelled a Sun eve event on the day of. Could it be because people have read the Globe column and asking uncomfortable questions about $$$ from non-Newton investor or how the YES campaign spent $$$ on political consultants and pollsters?
BTW – only a campaign that is out of touch with people needs a pollster to tell what people actually think. :)
Is there a link to a study (or data) that directly shows differences in the cost of ward versus at-large elections? Such a finding would contradict my view of things. Thanks.
Just say NO…
@Bryan — re: your two statements above: “The YES campaign has received donations from over 200 unique donors, more than double that of the NO campaign. ” “Indeed, the YES campaign raised double the money. From double the number of people. Funny how that works.”
I pointed out these two statements were erroneous in my comment above on October 31, 2017 at 10:00 pm. I was hoping you would have correct or retracted them by now. As a serving elected city official, on the eve of an vote for your proposal, that is probably an appropriate thing to do.
It was an understandably mistake — the calculation neglected the $3380 in small donations of $50 or less that NO received. The filing instructions direct those to be aggregated and reported on line 10 of the filing. It they had been considered, it would be clear that at least ($3750/50=) 68 contributors were left out of the statements above, if they were all $50, which they were not.
YES and No did have a similar number of low dollar contributors. The difference is that a group of only 24 individuals, two from outside of Newton, provided $45, 000 in funding to the YES campaign. This constituted 93.4% of YES’s reported spending and liabilities through 10/20. Essentially those 24 individuals paid the $30,000 in fees directed to three downtown Boston consulting firms and for the first mailing, with the remainder paying for last week’s mailing, which prominently featured a sitting candidate for Governor.
@Rhanna — “The average city council size in Massachusetts is 10. ”
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BysZP1gxJGFmaVJYRDM4Yk1Ea0U/view
For reference, here is Marc’s debate closing. https://www.facebook.com/newtondemocracy/videos/1489886587765452/
@Rhanne Kidwell –
I said he got me “thinking” not “angry.
In fact the anger on both the Yes and No sides of the charter debate has amazed me. Who would have seen that coming at the outset? Definitely not me.
Kid you not, there is a draw for common sense application; either one has it or doesn’t, working hand in hand with a sense of humor..
O’ Jerry master of ceremonial humor.
@Bryan – “Dan Fireman is not a developer and has no real estate interests in Newton. He is Founder and Managing Partner of Fireman Capital Partners, a private equity firm focused on consumer product companies”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/article/20111223/news/312239386