The four Area Councils (Newtonville, Highlands, Waban and Upper Falls) have joined together to host debates in each of the contested seats in the City Council and School Committee races.
On Oct 20 they’ll hold six debates at Newton North for the ward 1 – 4 seats
On Oct 27 they’ll hold six debates at the Zervas School for ward 5 and 6 seats
One curious detail involves the debate for the ward councilor seat being vacated by John Rice.
Last month the city held a preliminary election in a single ward (Ward 5) to whittle the list of candidates from 3 down to 2 for the final election next month. Rena Getz lost that election, though she did lead the vote in Upper Falls, most likely due to her opposition to the Upper Falls hot-button issue – the Northland project.
She announced after the election that she would continue campaigning as a write-in candidate in the Nov election, which she of course has every right to do.
The curiosity is that she is being included in the Area Council Ward 5 debate. I’m of two minds about this.
On the one hand, she campaigned actively for the preliminary. Despite the fact she lost, she garnered a substantial fraction of the vote, clearly struck a chord in one corner of the ward, and is definitely representing a constituency.
On the other hand, the city runs preliminary elections, at some expense, specifically to reduce the field of candidates to two choices for the November final election. Given that, does it make sense for another arm of the same city government to include the losing candidate in its debate. If so, is there any point in having a preliminary election? What purpose does it serve?
In any case, it should be a good debate hosted by Andy Levin.
What an unfortunate decision by the area councils. And this is likely most unfair to Kathy Winters, who arguably falls somewhere between Bill Humphy and Getz on the political spectrum. Elections are supposed to have consequences.
Losing a preliminary should mean you don’t get a seat at a forum, especially one organized by officially elected bodies like our area councils.
Meanwhile, I hope Andy Levin asks Paul Coletti to clarify his allegation that “many, many” of his former colleagues benefited financially from serving as aldermen and why he never reported this at the time.
The Area Councils did not cover themselves with glory here.
The city spends money and effort on a preliminary for the sole purpose of eliminating ONE person from the official ballot.
To Greg’s point on the practical politics of this: It brings into question the neutrality of those who make up the Area Councils. Was the decision influenced by a desire to help a candidate?Who specifically made this decision?
Rena Getz is an area council vice president.
I am guessing the organizers may feel need to respect this write-in candidate precedent:
https://village14.com/2017/10/29/video-christopher-markiewicz-and-allison-sharma-for-ward-4-city-council/#axzz61o53dG5s
The LWVN also included Rena in the general-election debate (they re-debated after the preliminary, and it has been posted to NewTV). The rationale was the same that they used for including Allison Sharma in the Ward 4 councilor debate 2 years ago when she was a write-in candidate.
My own opinion (not the League’s)…I realize there was no preliminary in Allison’s race, but if Rena had lost decisively in the preliminary she probably wouldn’t be running as a write-in now. Given the preliminary results, it’s plausible that she could win the whole thing in November–any of the 3 could. So if she’s willing to put in the effort for a serious write-in campaign, I favor including her in the democratic process.
I don’t agree with this decision at all. The debates should be for the people that are on the ballot in November. Simple.
I am not a Ward 5 voter but I am very disappointed in the decision to include Ms. Getz in these debates. Preliminary elections are meant to be decisive. If not, why should voters bother to turn out for a preliminary? Why should the city pay for them? Ms. Getz ran a close and respectable race but she didn’t get the votes. Allowing her a platform in these debates opens up questions: would they really make the same choice for anyone else? Why should any new voices consider running in a system that supports insiders and discounts the election process? I sincerely hope the councils rethink their decision and messaging.
Rena’s still a candidate and the race was extremely close with a low turnout so it seems fair to include her in the debate. Why do you want to limit the opprotunities for voters to get to know the candidates. It’s not like a debate with 10 candidates !!!
@Joyce, The ward 5 preliminary race was anything but decisive, although it did decide one thing: Rena will not be named on the ballot in the fall. That puts her at a significant disadvantage, which is a consequence. But write-ins are part of the democratic process, and given the preliminary tally, she’s a legitimate contender. Voters are not limited to voting for who is on the ballot, so why not acknowledge that and include any realistic challenger? If organizations promoting voter education choose to include her, I see that as a benefit to voters.
Newton suffers from far too little participation in local elections–sitting elected officials are uncontested most of the time, and open seats too often attract only one candidate. For this race to be so closely fought among three people means we have attracted three very strong candidates. We need more of that!
Let’s not compare this situation to the Ward 4 ward-only race last election, shall we?
In 2017, the Ward 4 voters were nearly deprived of a choice when Jay Harney dropped out of the race after the filing deadline. Allison Sharma stepping in and stepping up to run a write-in campaign created a choice. Exigent circumstances. More democracy.
In 2019, the Ward 5 voters had, in the preliminary, an opportunity to select Rena Getz as a candidate for the general election. They rejected her. Narrowly, sure. But, they chose two other candidates. They would have had a choice of candidates in the general election whether or not Candidate Getz ran her write-in campaign. Now, they are nearly assured that none of the three candidates will have a clear majority of votes, which was exactly what the preliminary was designed to prevent. Less democracy.
Sadly, electoral politics being a zero-sum game, Candidate Getz mounting a write-in campaign will draw more votes from one candidate than the other, possibly making her a spoiler in what will almost certainly be another close race.
Prediction, and you read it here first: Candidate Getz will get fewer votes in the general than she did in the preliminary. But, she could still be a spoiler.
Rena Getz running a write-in campaign, great. League of Women including her on the debate, great. They set their rules, and for all the reasons mentioned above they thought she should be included.
But for the City of Newton (i.e. Area Council) debates, how can they justify her inclusion after the City just ran the primary election. For those who see no problem in that, what purpose did the Sept preliminary election serve – with its attendant expense to the taxpayer?
I agree with Jerry and Sean.
It’s a terrible move to allow Getz to participate in the debates. Isn’t the point of the preliminary to winnow the field to 2? Voters are being done a disservice by having the 3rd candidate on the stage. Candidates Humphrey & Winters are being done a disservice since they actually finished top 2 and legitimately advanced to the final election. Getz did not. If she wants to run a write-in campaign that’s her prerogative, but just because the LWV is misguided on including write-in candidates (and no, this is not the same as the W4 race in 2017) the voters & legitimate candidates from W5 shouldn’t pay the price. It’s never too late to make changes — do the right thing and limit these debates to the 2 legitimate contenders.
LWV has been around 99 years. There’s bound to be institutional knowledge of policy and precedent regarding write-in candidates for elections.
If there isn’t any precedent, rather than say no to putting Rena back on stage after losing the runoff, maybe there’s nothing wrong with letting *anyone* who self-declares as a write-in candidate participate in LWV debates. It’s an idea odd enough it just might work: encourage citizen participation and push candidates on stage to be more substantive.
@Dulles – we’re not talking primarily about the LWV debates but the city run Area Council debates.
Over Development, Excess Density, Frustrating Traffic Snarls , Over Crowded Schools, and Fiscal Responsibility are hot button issues in Newton ( and especially in ward 5 ), today.
These are issues that Rena’s competitors, and the vast majority of V14 ‘s respondents, choose to whitewash (denigrate?), and together , generally like to sweep under the rug.
It’s great that Rena is running as a write in , to offer a real choice to voters , who perhaps were not, at the time of the preliminary aware of,.. issues that she brings to the forefront of what’s happening to the city today, and offer a real choice in .
Rank choice voting would have saved the run-off costs and treated bot voters and candidates fairly:
https://lwvnewton.org/2019/04/lwvns-ranked-choice-voting-forum-2/
Thanks Jerry did not realize.
But my point stands. There must be precedent out there somewhere how to treat write-ins, and any decision should be mindful of past precedent. If we allowed Allison Sharma in 2017 and Rena Getz in 2019 and that’s now our precedent, seems like anyone who declares themselves to be a write-in candidate should be allowed.
Now if only Anatol Zukerman still lived in Newton…
@Dulles – I’m not sure there is a precedent. I don’t believe the Area Council have ever had a write-in candidate in a debate before. I’m pretty certain that last time around they did not hold a debate for the seat that Allison Sharma ran for – not because of her write-in’edness but because they didn’t hold debates for all the city council seats.
@blueprintbill – Yes those are good reasons for Rena Getz to be waging her write-in campaign and also good reasons for the League of Women voters to have considered including her in their debate.
I’m afraid though that I keep coming back to the same questions. By what logic does it make sense for the City of Newton to spend the energy and expense to hold a preliminary election, and then to ignore the outcome when organizing the City sponsored debates. Does the preliminary election serve any purpose? If so, what is it?