It’s pretty clear from the discussions over the past few weeks that people on Village14 have some STRONG opinions. But no candidate can live up to all of our expectations or agree with every position we would like them to have. Unless you run yourself, you’ll always have to settle for someone who will hopefully listen to you all the time, but not always agree.
So what are your dealbreakers? What is a line you just can’t cross with a candidate you like on other issues?
In the mayor’s race I need at least one deal maker, not a “dealbreaker. ” To earn my vote for mayor a candidate would have to give me one of three critical things I’m looking for…
The most important thing to me is changing high school start times, because the health and well being of 4000 teenage students is at stake. So I want a Mayor who is willing to stand up to the School Committee and finally get that change made…
My second most important thing in a mayoral candidate is someone who will twist the arm of wealthy institutions [like BC] to pay their fair share of property taxes. This city cannot afford to spend millions supporting institutions that pay us back pennies on the dollar…
The third “deal maker” that could earn my vote in the mayor’s race, is a commitment to honor the ballot initiative that legalized cannabis. No moratorium, no ban, treat cannabis just like alcohol in the City’s zoning regs. In other words, respect democracy and the will of the voters.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe either of the mayoral candidates have given me what I need to vote for them. Both are highly qualified to be mayor. Both seem like nice people. But unless one of them gives me something to chew on in the next couple of days, I’ll be leaving my mayoral ballot blank.
When a councilor makes veiled racially charged comments by using the term “ghetto” to describe affordable housing options in Newton Center. #dealbreaker
For me, my biggest dealbreaker is opposition to the Welcoming City ordinance. As soon as that vote happened, I knew I would never vote for Jay Ciccone again.
For those who don’t know, he is the only candidate who voted against the ordinance. I’m voting for Alison Leary and Nicole Castillo in that race. They would be replacing incumbent Ciccone and the retiring (potentially to become Mayor) Scott Lennon.
@Claudia Dumond-Henderson Newton Center councilor? Which one was it?
I’d like to know more about the councilor who used the term “ghetto”. Was this a story in the Tab (maybe I’ll have to begin reading it again). Where was it used and in what context?
Opposition to the Welcoming City Ordinance is one. But donating to Republicans, including a presidential ticket with Sarah Palin on it, is close to another. Maybe not completely a dealbreaker, but it’s very, very close.
@Ralph: Yeah, I wish I had never been exposed to that McCain-Palin donation. I am still probably voting for RF, but not with 100% conviction.
The Republican donations were a dealbreaker to me. Especially the $10,000 donation. I was undecided among Fuller/Lennon/Sangiolo until I read about that. If Fuller would have been more honest about it (i.e. “I used to be a Republican but now I’m not”) maybe it would not have been a dealbreaker, but her explanations were flippant.
Being against the welcoming ordinance is another dealbreaker and I wouldn’t vote for anyone who opposed it.
I think this City started to split during the two high school constructions and the attendant override votes. Mayor Cohen won Re-Election and his overrides with huge majorities coming out of the South side Wards. Since then, no effort has been made (imho) to bridge that divide. For me, candidates who exacerbate or look to profit from that split are no-go, and anyone committed (actually, not just verbally) to working to help bridge that gap has me all-in.
@gooseman – Only three choices. Councilor Danberg, Councilor Blazar or Councilor Schwartz
Deal breaker: running for a ward seat, knowing it is easier to rally your friends to vote for you, while at the same time suddenly supporting voting yes on the Charter Commission’s recommended changes to eliminate ward representation and our local voice.
Go Blazer!
@soccermommy #dealbreaker for me is when an article of men’s clothing and/or a Chevy SUV is a choice in an election. I am voting for the Clear Choice for Ward 6 – Brenda Noel.
Alex! Thank you so much for your childish correction! I misspelled his name (or maybe it was auto-correct)! Apologies!
Go Blazar! Yay!
I prefer a candidate which puts Newton Residents first.
– prevent overcrowding of schools, Newton children have priority
– don’t waste time on national issues which do not affect Newton residents directly
– tough on crime. Newton has a higher than usual home break-ins. This is not a victimless crime to be brushed under the carpet
– incentivize Newton residents to use public transportation rather can car. Create an ‘uber bus’ service if needed and give credits to Newton residents who give up their cars
Dealbreaker for me is when at the last minute a flyer is dropped in my doorway that misstates Brenda Noel’s position and falsely claims she would jeopardize funding for schools, public safety and other municipal services. If you think your candidate is doing a great job, speak of his accomplishments as to why he should be re-elected, rather than try to fabricate lies and use scare tactics about his opponent. I think Mansfield, Parker and Shapiro did their candidate Dick Blazar a big disservice with their flyer. Too bad politics gets so unnecessarily nasty.
I am voting for Brenda Noel.
Dealbreaker for me was when Ruthanne decided to exploit words in Scott’s advertisement, which was an attempt to illustrate differences and contained nothing that was factually incorrect, and accuse him of explicitly of sexism and more subtly of racism. I really wanted to elect our first female president last year and I had hoped I would have assessed Ruthanne as the best PERSON for the job so we might elect of first female mayor of Newton, but that is not my assessment.
I am offended by her blatant ongoing appeal to voters based on her gender. I am outraged at her willingness to engage in what is (to me)pretty closed to character assassination in her claims regarding Scott.
But in reality it isn’t a dealbreaker against Ruthanne since I had already made my choice. However it is a dealbreaker for me against any of Scott’s peers who have endorsed Ruthanne but haven’t spoken out to disavow Ruthanne’s claim. They can stand by their endorsement and still speak out that they know Scott and know that he would never attack a woman for personal choices that she makes in the best interest of her family. The silence has been deafening!
The idea that we could use “business growth” to fund Newton.
Business growth doesn’t fund Newton. (The 2.5% raise in existing tax revenue + new tax from development does.) New business development might; but That doesn’t seem to be what they’re promoting.
Seeing that phrase in a candidate’s material or hearing it in a debate tells me this person is so out of touch with how the town is funded that I should be sceptical of everything else they say too.
For me it was when a candidate blatantly ignored the “NO SOLICITORS” sign and rang the doorbell at suppertime during a weeknight.
@JME – A friend of mine told me this afternoon that he made up his mind when a candidate broke his robocall rule. “If I receive a robocall from a candidate I WILL NOT vote for them” he said.
Hmm I thought, in some elections that might make him have to stay home on election day. I’ll be interested to see if we get a plague of robocalls in the final 24 hours of this campaign. So far it hasn’t been bad, at least at my house.
I’m not certain it’s a deal breaker but I’m less inclined to support any candidate who says they would take the state health insurance GIC plan off the table before sitting down to union contract talks.
As in the past, it may be determined that Newton’s self-insured plan is the best, but the GIC is a legitimate option that gets positive reviews from employees in other municipalities.
If switching to the GIC saves teachers, firefighters, police from losing jobs and still provides quality converge for our employees then it should be a consideration.
What ought to be a dealbreaker in this election is any campaign that tries to use class resentment to get votes. That is right out of the Donald Trump playbook, and just like him, the people who use it will forget about you a nanosecond after the election is over and they’ve won.
I don’t believe any candidate said they would take it off the table. What Lennon said is that each and every year it is evaluated in the mix (this is typically done on the spring), but that each year it has fallen short. The die is cast for this open enrollment, but there is no reason to believe that it won’t get evaluated in the mix next spring
He pointed out that the most attractive plans are closed to new enrollment so that the plans the city employee could pick from would not be as competitive.
Also I think you argument “if teachers, firefighters and police could save their jobs ” is a bit heavy handed.
I received a robocall from the Yes campaign about 15 minutes ago. My first this election season
We cannot afford to take anything off the table, but we have to keep our eyes on the prize.
It is not just the jobs of public employees that I am concerned about. I want to be sure that they will have pensions and medical benefits for them when they retire. And if we don’t reign in costs and fully fund post retirement benefits, there is no way on God’s green Earth that the state or federal government is going to bail us out. If we can save money by self-insuring great, if GIC is cheaper, that would be great too. Of course, my first choice would be single payer medical coverage for the entire country like every other civilized country has.
Yup. Just got a robocall from the Yes to Charter crew. Mr Warren himself. Another reason to vote No to the Charter.
@Greg: Taking the GIC off the table this year – was the right thing to do – given that the GIC had to make some dramatic changes to the plans they were offering and actually limit participation in some of their plans. What we need to do, is evaluate all of the plans – not just the GIC to see what is out there and continue to work with our unions to ensure that their members have the health insurance benefits that they need. Having union support, in my mind, signals that the union is willing to work with the candidate. That speaks volumes to me because the last thing we need is to have a long, drawn out, potentially ugly contract debate with all of our unions.
@Ted Hess_Mahan What ought to be a dealbreaker in this election is any campaign that tries to use class resentment to get votes.
Agreed! Lets add gender resentment to that list
Amy’s analysis is on the mark in every way. Being self-insured has resulted in the retention of valued employees who live far from Newton. Our salary scale has simply not kept up with comparable communities, so we have to have something to attract and retain the best teachers and staff.
The GIC is not a good health plan as one of the mayoral candidates has stated. If it were a good health insurance program, city employees would be clamoring to get into it.
The GIC is a program that’s several hundred million dollars in debt, with the debt growing by leaps and bounds every year. If I were a bettor, I’d say it’ll fold within 5 years and cause chaos in the 39 of the 351 communities in the state that have bought into it.
Not only that, the GIC hasn’t been the most cost-effective plan when compared to being self-insured for Newton for over 6 years and isn’t likely to save the city any time in the coming years, given its poor performance. Being self-insured has actually saved the city money.
Amy, that’s not what Greg said.
Amy and Jane you seem to agree with Ruthanne on this issue, not Scott.
Here’s Greg’s comments on the differences between Ruthanne and Scott:
If this is Scott’s position, it’s a huge mistake.
@Tom: No I am agreeing with the Health Advisory Commission’s Report from 2013 that was created by the Programs and Services Committee and NOT ACTED on by our current administration.
Tom – Please do not put words into my mouth. That was Greg’s comment and does not represent the views of Newton employees.
I do not agree with the statement that the GIC is a good health plan. It is not and will cost the city valued employees and we will lose new recruits who can do better in over 300 communities that do not subscribe to it – and work closer to their homes to boot.
Putting employees in GIC without collective bargaining is a deal breaker for every Newton employee I know with the exception of one person. You may not like to hear it, but it’s the case.
@Jon Yup. Just got a robocall from the Yes to Charter crew. Mr Warren himself. Another reason to vote No to the Charter.
Has Setti previously come out in favor of “Yes? Is so, I wasn’t aware. I don’t like the 11th pitch
11th hour pitch
Mayor Warren officially endorsed the Yes vote about two to three weeks ago in a statement that was widely distributed.
Thanks Jane. I missed that
Amy, whether you like it or not, you’re agreeing with Ruthanne on this critical issue.
Jane, you said Amy’s analysis was “on the mark in every way” which says:
“What we need to do, is evaluate all of the plans – not just the GIC to see what is out there and continue to work with our unions to ensure that their members have the health insurance benefits that they need. ”
Amy’s analysis includes keeping the GIC on the table.
Not this: “Lennon says, if elected, the GIC would be off the table”
Can it be any more clear than this??
Both of you agree with Ruthanne on this issue. No one is going to take your vote away if you disagree with Scott on an issue. It’s Ok to disagree.
@Claire, I agree that anyone who resents a women for having a different career path from that which is considered to be traditional does not deserve my vote.
Tom, I remember Scott’s comments clearly. He said he had looked at both plans and the GIC is currently offers worse coverage for more money, so it is rightly off the table. He also said that if, in the future, that changes, it would be worth a second look. 30 some communities out of over 350 cities and towns Re in it. That’s not a majority.
Ruthanne seems to have a knee-jerk fondness for outsourcing anything and everything, not realizing that Cities aren’t Private Companies.
Also props to the typically silly Ted H-M for saying something with which I can agree, National Health would make this problem go away for cities and states, General Motors and all of American Industry.
@Tom: Did you review the recommendations by the Health Care Advisory Committee that I mentioned earlier? Here’s the link: http://amysangiolo.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HCAC-First-Report-12-03-13-2.pdf. I have been very clear that this is not a good time to move into the GIC.
@Ted Hess-Mahan – We are indeed blessed with a candidate who deserves your vote, Scott Lennon! Your comment is baffling:
“@Claire, I agree that anyone who resents a women for having a different career path from that which is considered to be traditional does not deserve my vote.” There isn’t a candidate who resents a woman for having a different career path……..
The definition of resentment is: bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly.
Scott doesn’t resent his opponent, in fact he respects her contributions to the City.
You may have been trying to get some laughs from the crowd at the story slam, but I didn’t appreciate your comment to Scott that Ruthanne called Mitt Romney and that there is a binder of women for him. Not in good taste. Women don’t belong in binders for one, and Scott doesn’t need a “binder of women” candidates for hiring for all of the open positions in the City. Scott has management skills and leadership experience and will hire the most qualified people for the positions.
Tom – The city does a comparison of a number of self-insured plans and the GIC is in the mix every year, and every year, the self-insured plans come out ahead. It’s a myth that the GIC saves money.
What Amy said. To move to a program that is in such flux at this particular moment is a mistake.
Matt’s comments are exactly what Scott said.
Amy and Jane- Nobody has said that we should move to the GIC. NOBODY. The question was where the candidates stand on the GIC and the quote from Scott that was placed on this blog was that it should be off the table:
“In contrast Lennon says, if elected, the GIC would be off the table…..”
You are agreeing with Ruthanne in saying we dont know what the future holds and it should be on the table.
Amy you agree with the Health Care Advisory Committee,Ruthanne agrees with the HCAC….ergo, you agree with Ruthanne.
What Tom said.