We have invited all candidates running for contested seats in the upcoming Newton election to submit a guest post to Village 14. The format and content of the post is entirely up to them.
City Council candidate Brenda Noel, who is running for one of the Ward 6 seat, has submitted the following post.
Thank you Village 14 for indulging me in a slightly non-traditional post from your sitting Ward 6 Councilor. I have shared my perspective on issues related to the environment, transportation and housing, among other things on a variety of platforms, and you will hear more from me in the coming days. Today, I would like very much to share my perspective on an issue that matters a great deal to Ward 6 right now and invite constituents to join me for a special office hours session on Saturday November 2nd from 9am-10am. Thank you for listening and do not hesitate to reach out to me via Instagram, Facebook or website www.brendafornewton.com
Brenda – Your video is deceptive.
You leave out the critical key fact that you — and your cohort on the City Council who were determined to have you way an open this City up for recreational pot shops— frustrated any chance of getting a clear cut statement of local voter will. Laredo, Schwartz, Auchincloss, Norton, Kelley, Cote and Rice made that perfectly clear to you at the time what you were doing Was a it-democratic and totally results oriented.
Opt Out overcame every hurdle you and your cohort placed in its path to put the question in the ballot On whether or not to allow recreational pot shops in town. It collected ~9,000 voter signatures in a matter of weeks (an unprecedented accomplishment!) to get that clear question on the ballot so citizens could simply say whether on not they wanted to have recreational pot shops in Newton. A simple straightforward question of YES or NO, just like an every other surrounding community had voted on.
But you and your cohort weren’t done yet. You and your cohort then intentional put a conflicting question on the ballot (which you did with ZERO citizen signatures) on whether to limit to 2-4 shops. That, BTW, was an illusory question anyway because, as Josh Krintzman made clear in his speech at the Council meeting, even if that question passed the Council could, at any time, allow more than 4 if it wanted to. …
You and your cohort were advised by the Law Department that the voters in this community would not be allowed to rank their votes If there were conflicting questions. They would have to vote on each conflicting question independently — which meant inevitably and mathematically that NEITHER question could pass (Read Arrow’s Theorem, if you need the math lesson all over again)
You were either too intellectually dull to understand the mathematical point Laredo, Auchincloss, Rice, Cote, Kelley and Norton were making or you were just determined to have it your way and to clear the path for 8 pot shops in Newton. I don’t know which of those alternatives it was — but both are terrible marks of your being unfit for office.
You Opted (pun intended) for the undemocratic path – you acted to put a convoluted conflicting set of questions on the ballot. You and your cohort instigated virtually unparalleled community conflict.
We could have had a simple and clear measure of community sentiment but YOU stood in the way of that democratic option.
Shame on you all over again — and for posting your revisionist history campaign video.
It’s funny that cannabis prohibitionists see Brenda as the enemy, because she actually voted for a moratorium to ban cannabis in Newton after her constituents voted to legalize it. And her call for “appointment only” cannabis shops clearly shows she still doesn’t understand that Newton voted to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.”
@Brenda, although you don’t come out and clearly state it on this 4 1/2 minute video, I gather that you are in favor of the Union Twist cannabis store going in at 4 Corners, but you want to discuss whether there should be changes to operating hours, security and an appointments-only provision.
I believe you said at the community meeting that you thought that appointments-only should just be for the first few months and then reviewed but correct me if I am wrong.
I would also like an explanation of why you approved the convoluted, confusing 2-question ballot structure in favor of a more clear-cut, logical alternative that Greg Schwartz proposed, which was — Do we want cannabis stores (yes or no) and if yes, do you want to limit the number?
I agree with Abe that that was incredibly poor judgment. Those who voted in favor of that non-transparent, un-democratic ballot structure should be held accountable, regardless of anyone’s opinion of whether cannabis stores in Newton are desirable.
What Sarah said. In spades!
@Mike, It’s not a matter of whether Brenda is an enemy, it is a matter of whether voters should expect a fair and transparent process.
While there are good arguments to be made on both sides about the commercialization of cannabis, I believe that you and I should be in agreement that the marijuana ballot structure we got was a low point for the city council. I remember you said quite clearly on this site that “this ballot structure violates the rights of those who voted in favor of the 2016 law.” Let’s be happy we agree on at least one thing!
@Sarah– I do not agree with you. Here’s the way I see it…
In 2016 Newtonians voted to regulate marijuana like alcohol. A group of elected officials decided to obstruct implementation of the law. Greg Schwartz appears to have been the ringleader of that clown show. They aligned themselves with the losers of the 2016 ballot initiative and manipulated a revote…
Meanwhile, a pair of well meaning but misguided city councilors decided that appeasing the prohibitionists would be better than opting out of the new law entirely, so they unnecessarily offered a compromise to cut the number of cannabis shops in half…
Voters finally got to reaffirm their support of legalized cannabis, rejecting both the revote effort and the compromise…
Unfortunately, as demonstrated by Brenda’s video above, there are still elected officials who don’t understand what it means to “regulate marijuana like alcohol.” The truth is that all of Newton’s elected “leaders” got this wrong right out of the gate. Instead of respecting the vote of their constituents, many officials tried to undermine the outcome. The entire city council even voted in favor of blocking the voter approved law. To my mind, a clear demonstration of how little respect the city council has for voters and the democratic process.
I would agree with Abe. For me how councilors voted on that convoluted ballot structure will be a major factor on who I’ll vote for on 11/5 and in 2020.
Greg Schwartz’s proposal was very clear. Vote Opt Out up or down. If if not opting out, vote 2-4 limitation up or down.
Somehow our voters couldn’t be trusted with a clear choice, so they got game theory puzzle. The result was the opt-out folks fighting to defeat a limitation and the pro folks fighting for a limitation.
That ballot, along with $330K in dark business money (spending reported AFTER the election for reportable liabilities incurred prior to the 8-day report), impacted results. It certainly bought a lot of door knocking and polling to know how to win the game. It also paid for $5k in signs of which I didn’t see one planted on a lawn.
Does anyone have the roll call handy on that vote? If not, I’ll look it up.
@Mike S. — You can continue to quote the portion of the law that you liked, and deny its opt-opt provision that voters also approved, but that doesn’t make it less of a reality or less of a right that voters were entitled to.
Ex-Opt Out is out in full force to promote their former organization’s treasurer Lisa Gordon and disparage her opponent Brenda Noel. As a Ward 6 voter, I wish this election were about issues the city currently faces, instead of making it about settling old scores.
@Dulles — I wasn’t a supporter of out out (check their donation log) — Garden Remedies has been fine in Newtonville — but I supported residents right to a clear and fair vote, and a majority of the city council denied them that. Many will see that as a savvy tactic, and can make their choices accordingly.
@Abe, please do not falsely cite Arrow’s Theorem. While it is a fair complaint that the ballot questions were confusing, it is factually incorrect to state that the set up meant “mathematically that NEITHER question could pass” as you said. Arrow’s Theorem states that with three or more distinct choices, there is no possible perfect voting system. Absolutely nothing from the theorem could lead you to conclude that any specific outcome is impossible.
Your opinions and arguments lose a great deal of legitimacy in my eye when you falsely wield “mathematics”, yet call others “intellectually dull”.
My bigger problem with Councilor Noel is not that she voted for the confusing ballot initiative. My concern is that she thinks single family zoning is racist and wants to get rid of it for Newton. Yet another example of pro-development agitprop disguised as virtue signaling.
Right Size Newton! Don’t let us become Brookline.
I am confident that a large majority of voters in Ward 6 could not care much less about the issues rehashed in this thread. MJ can be purchased in Newton, and the sun will rise tomorrow.
I especially appreciate it when people like Jack Prior and especially Councilor Emily Norton, who were NOT opt out supporters, stand up for the right to have a transparent ballot instead of supporting a ballot structure that would help their preferred outcome.
I also appreciate them and Jake Auchincloss for being one of the few voices that have decried the REAL corporate influence that has taken place in our elections in Newton. There’s been a lot of hue and cry this last week or so on the Vibrant Newton PAC which spent all of $25 and yet few have expressed concern about what happened in the last election, when two corporations with business before the city spent over $328K to support the Respect the Vote ballot committee, and didn’t report most of it until after the election. It was all done legally and could very well happen again. It will be more likely to happen if those of us who are concerned about transparency don’t express our consternation, independent of your thoughts on cannabis commercialization (and there are legitimate positions on both sides).
.
Except that was a ballot question and I believe the rules are different here. Certainly Vibrant Newton has very clear, commendable, rules limiting who can donate and how much.
Still waiting for Newton Democracy to publish its policy.
@Greg, good point. I was primarily referring to ballot committees, which according to state law, can accept unlimited funds from any entity. Massachusetts PACs are more tightly controlled.
Hey Folks-
My goal is to hear from the folks in Ward 6 to make sure we thoughtfully implement whatever may or may not happen in four corners. I appreciate the engagement in this thread and I hope to see Ward 6 folks on November 2nd from 9-10am at the Dunks in four corners.
And as an aside- and a point of clarification-
@Bruce Wang- I never stated I want to ban single family zoning throughout Newton, it is neither reasonable nor feasible.
@Sarah- at the Union Twist community meeting I state more then once that the “appointment only” provision needs to be in perpetuity.
Thanks for allowing me this opportunity to clarify.
@Jack, I’m with you on this one. I strongly support cannabis legalization, but I don’t like the way the ballot was stacked, and I detest the way big money influenced the election. I rarely comment on blogs, but it shouldn’t just be Opt Out supporters that are pointing this out.
I’ve been appalled by the way tRump supporters have blown off election irregularities because it worked in their favor, and on principle, I don’t want to follow the same path on this one. I’d like to know which city councilors, besides Brenda Noel, voted for that stacked ballot also. It won’t be the only factor in my voting decision, but it will definitely influence it.
Jack Prior & Jay Mitchell: We were on different sides on the pot shop issue, but I’m glad to see we are all on the same side for voter democracy.
Jack Prior: You nailed it when you wrote: “ I wasn’t a supporter of opt out (check their donation log) — Garden Remedies has been fine in Newtonville — but I supported residents right to a clear and fair vote, and a majority of the city council denied them that. Many will see that as a savvy tactic, and can make their choices accordingly”
You asked about the roll call of the vote that gave us the convoluted ballot structure. Here is the voting record on this issue for those Councilor who are in contested elections:
CLEAR BALLOT:
Jake Auchincloss
Jim Cote
Andrea Kelley
Emily Norton
Greg Schwartz
CONFLICTING QUESTIONS, CONVOLUTED BALLOT:
Susan Albright
Deb Crossley
Vicki Danberg
Andreae Downs
Maria Greenberg
Brenda Noel
Now it’s time for the citizens to vote on whether to re-elect Councilors who (1) trusted the electorate, acted for democracy and wanted to let voters clearly state their desires on this important issue — and those who (2) connived to set up a convoluted ballot with conflicting questions to muddy the waters and undemocratically frustrate a clear and fair vote.
Brenda Noel: in addition to following this thread, you should respond to comments by Sarah on the Conflict of Interests thread.
Voters deserve to know your answer!
When this was first posted there was a link to a video of Brenda talking about her views on the proposed cannabis shop in 4 corners. Now that link seems to have disappeared. What happened?
Brenda Noel – What a cop out answer to the legitimate Conflicts of Interests question from Sarah you posted in that thread. I guess you aren’t responding to the cross post on your own thread here because you know that the fewer people who see it, the better for you.
Basically your response in that other thread came down to “Trust me, trust me — I’ll ask the City Law Department what I should do.” Lame. Totally lame.
You shouldn’t need the Law Department — or anybody else — to tell you that you shouldn’t be involved in ANY of the applications of those who fund your company and your salary.
If Mark Development is funding the company you work for as Executive Director. and is thereby funding YOUR PERSONAL SALARY, you have a clear cut conflict of interests. The least(!) you could do is recognize the conflict, own up to it and recuse yourself from all matters relating to Mark Development projects.
I too hope that, as Sarah said on her post in RE other thread, Mark Development continues to fund the charitable projects of the company you work for. But YOU owe it to the City to be forthright and forthcoming enough to own up to your conflict of interests problem and recuse yourself.
Councilors Lipof and Lapin recused themselves from the recreational pot shops deliberations and votes because their brother was legal counsel to a pot shop interest — and therefore even though they had no personal financial skin in the game they had at least an indirect conflict that would give the appearance of impropriety. So they did the right thing and refused themselves
You have a DIRECT Conflict of Interests and are too craven to own up to it.
Donald Trump hasn’t seen a conflict of interests that he can’t cozy up to and take economic advantage of. Here in Newton we deserve higher standards of ethics in government.
You are a complete disappointment on this basic issue of ethics in government.
Whoa, whoa, whoa Abe. Slow your roll, dude, and don’t be a dickhead.
Brenda Noel works for a nonprofit that connects disabled adults with housing and services. Newton Wellesley Weston Committee for Community Living, Inc. depends upon many sources of funding, of which private donations are one very small part. Moreover, her salary is determined by her Board of Directors, without regard to who is making charitable donations to the organization. And she follows the Conflict of Interest laws to the letter by filing written disclosures of potential conflicts and by seeking legal guidance from the Law Department. As I said on the other thread, in my fourteen years on the Board of Aldermen/City Council, there were times when other aldermen/councilors failed to even recognize potential conflicts of interest, much less disclose or seek legal guidance about them. Brenda should be commended, not condemned, for doing so.
So, you should apologize to her, man, and just back away.
What Ted Hess-Mahan said. Every word.
@Abe, the bullying here is really uncalled for.
Of course Councilor Noel should consult with the law department on these issues. That’s exactly the proper procedure.
Ted, no objection to the substance, but let’s keep the insults out of it.
Abe, I do agree with Ted that you aren’t being fair to Brenda and how conflict of interests policies work. First, her non-profit has a conflict policy, it is required by the IRS. Second the city has a policy.
Folks on the forum too easily question the honesty and honor of folks who serve in our govt. It gets tiresome. And for those who serve and who have served, it has got to be insulting. I’ve lost track of how many folks described posters as being in the pocket of big development, big pot, etc.
It is the last refuge of a losing argument in my view. If all else fails, your opponents must be crooked or being paid by “big” something or other.
Or it could be they are just doing what they’ve always done, voted the way they have always voted…but you just don’t like it.
Once again Fignewtonville reminds us why he’s the Obi-Wan Kenobi of Village 14.
Wow @Abe. Here’s what’s fascinating: the person who works on behalf of disabled adults (not making fun of them like Trump), who advocates for affordable housing (again, not so aligned with Trump) is being accused of being Trump-like. What’s Trump-like is to use misleading, non data-informed comments on platforms like this to invoke fear and confuse people. Councilors are required to file disclosures and to consult with counsel when potential conflicts exist, and it seems like that’s what Councilor Noel is suggesting. I keep getting disappointed when I see posts like yours and am reminded that Trump’s isolationist, insular, non-data driven approach has made its way to our city and I firmly believe that we are way better than that. I would end by saying #sad but that line has been taken and I’m not into him.
Ted- the Conflicts of Interests policy (COIP) at her employer is irrelevant to her responsibilities as an elected official. The City’s policy is the only applicable one. No question that her company does good works. But interesting that Mark Development which, like her company has been around for a long time, only started to support her company at about the time when it ramped up its development charge in Newton. I hope Mark Development continues — and increases — its support for the charity. It will be interesting to see whether, if Benda Noel does recuse herself from all involvement in Mark Development projects, they keep up the same level of support. Maybe they will — I sincerely hope so. Let’s see.
Greg – No bullying here— not a contest of unequals — just robust discussion of the record of an elected official. Brenda can handle it. And if Brenda is somehow too cowed when challenged to stand up for her record when criticized, she should pick something else to do.
Fig- Her company’s COIP under IRS regulations has exactly ZERO relationship to Brenda’s role as an elected official. And as somebody who has been on the Board of a charity I can tell you for certain that the company’s financial condition and ability to fund salaries is a major factor in salary setting, especially for an Executive Director who rose to that role from the Develpment Office (i.e, the office responsible for getting donor support for the charity) and, as Executive Director, has leadership responsibility for soliciting support for the charity.
Brenda has recused herself on Village Bank matters. She should be doing the same in relation to Mark Development projects. But she ain’t.
Abe:
Just out of curiousity, how much did village bank and mark development donate? Do you even know?
Context matters. Disclosure matters.
If you are going to accuse someone of a conflict and undue influence, and basically a violation of the responsibilities of office, how about some further details about how you came to that conclusion?
For the record a tax exempt COIP would definitely cover this. Any influence in exchange for obtainment of funds would be forbidden. My point is that neither institution would want to be included in the exchange. No donation would be worth the reputational hit.
And the idea that her job would be affected by one donation is just not true. I do some board service, that just is not how tax exempts of any size operate.
Both Village Bank and Mark Development are listed — with logos— as corporate sponsor donors on the company website. Website “advertising” for corporate sponsors is usually reserved for key donors.
Again— Brenda Noel has recused herself from Village Bank matters. Why not Mark Development as well?
Abe, I changed my mind.
You should apologize to Brenda Noel, hang your head in shame, and then slink away with your tail between your legs.
Nice way to elevate the discussion, Ted.
But we are still waiting for a real, substantive response from Brenda Noel…
Abe, I seriously doubt you have even looked at the Massachusetts Conflict of Interest Law regarding municipal employees, including elected officials. Because you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.
MGL ch. 268A, sec. 19 concerns conflicts arising from a financial interest. It provides that there is a conflict of interest where an elected official or other municipal employee “participates as such an employee in a particular matter in which to his knowledge he, his immediate family or partner, a business organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest.”
Please note that the conflict arises from participating in a “matter” in which an elected official, in this case, ir her employer, has a financial interest. With respect to the proposed Riverside Station project, Brenda Noel’s employer, NWW, has no financial interest. The guidance provided by the state explains further that “The financial interest must be direct and immediate or reasonably foreseeable to create a conflict. Financial interests which are remote, speculative or not sufficiently identifiable do not create conflicts.” In this instance, neither NWW nor Councilor Noel has any “direct and immediate” financial interest in the Riverside Station project. Thus, there is no conflict.
But to the extent you may argue that Mark Development’s contribution to NWW creates even an appearance of impropriety, pursuant to Section 23(b)(3) of Chapter 268A, Councilor Noel need only file a written disclosure explaining the relationship between NWW and Korff with the City Clerk.
My harsh words may offend you. I offer no apology, because you, sir, are engaged in a smear campaign against Brenda Noel based on a false premise. You remind me of an old story about LBJ when he was running in a close race for Congress in Texas. His opponent was a pig farmer. LBJ told his campaign manager to spread a rumor that his opponent was a “pig f**ker.” His campaign manager said, “but LBJ, you can’t prove that.” LBJ said “I don’t want to prove it. I just want to make him deny it.”
I completely agree with Abe Zoe’s first message (though indeed I don’t think Arrow’s theorem is relevant here). Please also consider this point. Suppose you didn’t want to opt out, but merely wanted to limit the number of stores. Well, you would have had little chance of winning, because the administration rules forced the opt out people to vote against you. I wonder if the way the ballot was posed is not only unclear, unfair, and undemocratic, but is even illegal.
I forgot one important point. The marijuana issue is *not* over. Indeed, we are now discussing the possibility of opening a new store on Beacon Street. Many other issues to be discussed include hours and mode of operations, marijuana cafes’, etc. Our elected officials will need to vote on all such things.
Manu:
I understand your point, but the store ARE limited. To 8.
I don’t smoke and I hope I never have to for health reasons. I don’t want my kids to smoke pot and eat edibles. I’m a functional prude. I’m your target audience.
The fact is that marijuana stores thus far have been a huge non-issue. If you have the vote now on any type of restriction you’d lose by a even greater margin. Because except for the crowds surrounding the Brookline store, I haven’t heard any complaints. Because I now know 4 different folks who are getting edibles to treat various ailments (I think personally there is a placebo effect going on, but who the hell am I to tell them it doesn’t actually work to relieve back pain medically or mentally). Once a few more stores open it will be a complete dud of an issue for most folks.
There are still details to be worked out I agree. I want the edibles to be clearly labeled. I’ve had to tell my kids not to eat baked goods or candies where they can’t see the wrappers, but frankly I did that before, just not to the same degree. And folks who obtain these things and sell these things need to be responsible, just like they need to be responsible with their liquor cabinet.
Hour and mode of operations should match liquor stores. I agree if you want to have a sit down marijuana cafe we’d need to discuss, but that’s really not what this is about.
Again, this isn’t my issue. But I can’t see you winning any referendum, and folks just don’t vote in enough numbers on this issue in my opinion to drive election results. We tried open marijuana and the sky didn’t fall. Life goes on.
As for Brenda, seems like she followed the rules. I’ll also note that thinking someone would change their vote or decline to vote over a minor donation to their day job is…insulting, and feels like politics by other means to eliminate a vote. Or to put this another way, if the shoe was on the other foot and someone donated to Emily Norton’s day job, would you feel the same outrage Abe?
Final note. On the plus side, I didn’t know about this particular charity and now I’m glad I do. I hope to support it in the future. Other readers should as well. Seems like one of the good ones. Let’s not let that fact get lost in a political mud throwing event.
@fignewtonville
Thank you for your message.
I certainly do hope that the stores are a non-issue. But if they really are, then why did the surrounding communities (Needham, Wellesley, etc.) ban them, and why did the administration had to trick voters, and why did people who don’t live in Newton had to spend 300K+ to win the election?
I pass by the Brookline store on Route 9 often (I work in Boston). I would prefer not to have similar things in Newton. I know many people who live in Brookline and are worried about the resale value of their home. There’s cops on the streets, signs reminding people that smoking in public is illegal, etc. I take walks in my Newton neighborhood multiple times a day, and I don’t like to be forced to walk through this. Sure, life goes on, but when I moved to Newton I didn’t have this in mind. And most importantly, opening stores is *completely unnecessary*.
Oh and what about the vaping crisis? Now the administration is all worried about kids vaping marijuana etc., and there’s a 4-month ban. And what are they vaping? Marijjuana (among other things).
Manu:
Again, this isn’t really my issue. But the Brookline store is already seeing smaller crowds, and additional stores open in Boston each month. Once Brookline, Boston and Newton and others open stores, any one store will have fewer crowds. Basically each community has a small percentage of stores available to be opened. So the ones that are open are having all the demand sent their way. Unless the Brookline store has a real competitive advantage due to superior product or staff, this is a temporary problem.
As for the vaping and pot, pretty sure that the pot stores aren’t selling the bad THC products that have caused so many problems. and lets agree that kids shouldn’t be smoking pot, vaping, or vaping pot. But the stores aren’t supposed to sell to kids, and they have to sell regulated products. Unlike the basement THC vapes on the internet… So basically that last paragraph has nothing to do with the local pot stores in my view.
Anyway, give it 6 months. More stores are opening each month, crowds will get less, and it will end up like Denver, where no store has a line. (I just took a trip to Denver, and the stores I walked past were ghost towns).
@Manu – the situation with the Brookline store is greatly exacerbated because it was the first to open in or adjacent to Boston that’s easily T-accessible.
With that said Manu, if that store was in my immediate neighborhood I would certainly be upset. Not disregarding your comment, I just don’t think it is likely to happen in Newton.
Btw Manu, you posted under two different names. Same picture though, so I assume it was unintentional. Welcome to the discussion, just pick one.
And with that, I’m done posting on this thread. It should probably be closed based on the discussion about disinformation in another thread. I’ll note for Manu/Meredith that we can certainly have a pot discussion another time. Good day to all.
Hi Brenda,
My concern about your position on zoning comes from this letter from you:
https://patch.com/massachusetts/newton/why-you-should-care-changes-newtons-zoning-noel
I would prefer to keep Newton as it is and not more dense.