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 Bryan Barash, who is running for the Ward 2 ward seat, has submitted the following post.
When I sat down to write this post, I asked myself, “With a week left before the election, what would I like to say to the voters of Ward 2?”“What message can I share that people can’t already find on my website, www.bryanbarash.com, or haven’t already read in my literature or mailers? Or heard in the two debates I’ve participated in?”
So I decided that I would share two more things. The first is this video. Over the past year, I’ve learned that a lot of voters find our confusing municipal election system, well, confusing. So I wanted to do something to explain it. Please send it on to any friends who may be unsure about who can vote for which candidates. (If you live in Ward 2, you can vote for me, and I hope you will!)
The other message I’d like to share is, “Thank you.”
Thank you to my wife Claudia, for supporting me in this endeavor and for being the best partner, and the best campaign manager, I could ask for.
Thank you to all the Ward 2 voters who are planning to vote for me. I’ve worked hard to earn your vote and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your confidence in me.
Thank you to the current and former elected officials, community leaders, grassroots organizations, and unions who have endorsed me.
Thank you to my amazing team of over 100 volunteers, for all the time and energy you’ve given to our campaign.
Thank you to everyone who has talked to me about your hopes for our community. I believe that the biggest issues facing Newton right now — transportation, housing and development, environmental sustainability, maintaining our excellent schools, supporting our growing senior population, ensuring our fiscal health, making our village centers more enjoyable and functional — are interrelated, and we need a holistic approach to addressing them. I will work every day to make Newton work for you.
And thank you to Village 14 for providing a forum for this post today, and a forum for impassioned discussion of local issues every day. Thank you also to all the commenters here for providing your perspectives. You help me refine my thinking and I really enjoy participating.
—
Wow. Cool video, adorable dog and great civics’ lesson. And finally a video to share with friends and neighbors who are always confused about all this ward and at-large stuff once every two years.
Thanks Greg! I hope it is helpful for some folks.
I would be remiss if I didn’t give credit to the incredible Eli Katzoff, former Mayoral candidate and current video extraordinaire.
If you’re interested in something a little more substantive, we have a few videos of myself, my wife Claudia, and my boss Senator Harriette Chandler talking about what I bring to the table on our Vimeo account. See here: https://vimeo.com/user102665610
@Bryan
The voters that don’t know that we have Ward only and at-large City Councilors, should also know that you tried to get rid of the position that you’re now pursuing, as a member of the Charter Commission.
Ward 2 needs a Ward-only councilor that is focused on what’s best for Ward 2. It’s hypocritical to run for a position that you don’t believe should exist.
Emily Norton has been a strong advocate for Ward 2, while also leading on citywide changes.
Run for the at-large position if that’s the role that you believe in.
Hi there William. I don’t know that we’ve met, although anyone can post on Village14 under any name, so perhaps we have.
I believe every person has a right to run for every seat. I ran for this one because I believed it was where I could make the biggest impact to support my community. I’ve knocked on over 6,000 doors in Ward 2, and now I’m ready to bring the voters’ diversity of opinion and priorities to City Hall.
I am deeply committed to representing every person in Ward 2, from Newtonville to Newton Centre to West Newton to Newton Corner, from City Hall to Albemarle to Edmands Park. I hope Ward 2 voters will agree that I’m the best person for the job.
I don’t care what seat Bryan runs for. There’s nothing “hypocritical” involved. Bryan has a track record of trying to reduce the size of the City Council, an idea that most Newton voters support.
Bryan Barash served on the Charter Commission, which gives him insight into the issues that our city government faces that most new candidates would not have. Yes, the Charter Commission recommended that we eliminate ward-only seats, and the Charter did not pass. Nonetheless I have great respect for the members of the Charter Commission, who faced difficult choices and worked incredibly hard. I don’t see serving on the Charter Commission as a negative for Bryan at all.
Instead, I see the excellent qualifications, understanding, and long record of service to our city that Bryan brings to the Council .
@Mike Striar: Emily Norton led the charge to reduce the size of the City Council and got 17 votes from existing City Councilors to do so – reduce the size while retaining Ward representation – which I believe, is what most voters wanted. Unfortunately, that was vetoed by Setti and I believe Ruthanne is on record saying she would have vetoed it too.
For folks who are concerned that another attempt may be made to get rid of local representation, I urge you to look at all of the candidates who are running who supported getting rid of local representation.
What Amy said!
What Amy said II !!
I had a long talk with Emily during the referendum campaign two years ago. It was abundantly clear that she had absolutely no problem with a 16 member City Council composed of 8 ward and 8 at-large candidates. In fact, I got the clear impression that this was her clear preference. What she didn’t want, what most Newton voters didn’t want and what I didn’t want was the at-large 12 member council that the Charter Commission recommended. I won’t go into detail why most voters came to reject this arrangement suffice it to say a clear majority felt it would be far less representative of the City and its villages than either the existing 24 member arrangement or the 16 member compromise. Who favored and who opposed the Charter Commission recommendations should be a guiding signpost in this election campaign because I sense there are movements afoot to change or compromise the clear preference of voters in 2017.
We talk a lot about the huge city council and how it’s difficult to keep names and faces straight. But it’s always been important to Newton community members to have local representation.
I have no issue with Bryan running for a seat that he personally worked to get rid of. He’s clearly ambitious and it’s a logical next step for him in his political career. For those of you who are on the fence about Brian, please watch the debate between him and Emily hosted by the Waban Area Council. At about the 19:14 mark when asked to respond to Emily saying he was running for a seat he had recommend to remove from the council he responded this way:
“..I did support a smaller city council. I supported one way to do that. I thought it was a good idea to have a smaller city council. It was something I heard over and over again from voters that they were interested in. And the voters decided that they wanted to keep the current system.”
That’s the real problem with this candidate. That answer wasn’t the truth. How many of your neighbors want to “keep the current system”? The Vote No campaign did not “want to keep the current system”. The Charter Commission came through with a flawed recommendation and that’s why the town voted no. His answer was not truthful and far too political. You can be pro development. But you should still tell the truth about the commission’s findings and why the town voted no. He doesn’t even hold a council seat yet and this is how he’s campaigning. Based off of this, do you truly believe he’ll bring transparency to Newton government? http://www.newtondemocracy.org/why-vote-no.html
@Casey – Hmm, that’s not how I remember it.
I didn’t follow the proceedings too closely but I thought what happened is that the Commission’s charge was to come up with a proposal to reduce the size of the Council. They met for I think over a year and held a large number of sparsely attended public meetings. At the end of the process they put forward their proposal to reduce the size of the council by eliminating the ward councilors and that proposal went to the ballot.
As I remember it, the loud and clear public opposition to eliminating the ward councilors only became apparent after the commission’s work was completed and the plan was heading toward a vote.
If my memory is wrong (it often is) feel free to correct me.
@Casey, your quote only reinforces to me that Brian is a representative who would put voter’s choices and preferences before his. The voters said no. NO public official has 100% foresight in how people will vote or what ALL of the people want ALL of the time.
Brian cares about the many, many people in this town who can’t afford to buy even a small home and need access to other options including rentals and condos or multifamily. Many of these people are elderly or single parents, which Brian is not. This conveys to me he cares about the people in this town, and what THEY want. Unlike many elected officials in office now.
I’ll be honest with you Jerry and tell you that I did not follow the commission prior to the time close to the vote. I was one of the people who heard the vote was coming and thought it was a great idea that the council was shrinking and then agreed that losing local representation was sub-optimal. Friends shared the Vote No campaign with me, and I voted no. We assumed that there’d be a new solution presented at some point in the future.
That doesn’t change the fact that Bryan’s answer in the debate was a deliberate untruthful misinterpretation of the Vote No campaign and the mood of the town in general. Our votes weren’t asking to maintain the status quo , we were voting that we didn’t like the charter commission’s recommendation. He offered up a political, roundabout answer and someone who moved here in the past year or so would have missed it. That’s not transparent. I don’t want to have to remember all my facts every time I talk to someone who represents me.
What Casey said.
Bryan is similarly quoted in the Boston Globe article, with statements that aren’t fully truthful. He stated that he just wanted to reduce the Council size, and implied he didn’t have a preference to remove the position that he is now pursuing. That isn’t an accurate statement. Bryan made clear that he preferred a Council that only had Councilors elected Citywide. Bryan’s comments on this very recent history are consistently incomplete and deceitful. As Casey said, if he’s already talking this way before he gets into office, what would happen once he’s there and has to make tough decisions.
Honesty and transparency are important characteristics for our representatives. I’m not comfortable with how Bryan addresses a tough issue from his past.
Someone can correct me, but I believe the only vote available was a straight up or down vote on the Charter Commission recommendations. After nearly two years of work, the current Councilors got a bit panicky and in October decided to ‘offer’ up a compromise fully knowing that it was not something anyone could legally vote on. Additionally, the ‘compromise’ didn’t offer term limits which was another key point of the commission. It as a smokescreen to confuse the issue, just like many on the council do today when they state they ‘support reasonable development’, they are just creating a bit of a smokescreen that fails to address the issues the city faces, and derive benefits from the benefits that we could attain.
The issues they focus on are emotional around traffic gridlock, overcrowded schools, and current fiscal concerns of the city that they state will get worse.
Those accusing some candidates of a false narrative should consider their own positions.
@Jerry — I think the Yes Campaign and those who pushed for elimination of locally-elected representation in Newton knew that the majority (or at least ~50%) of public opinion was against them. I suspect they had the citywide polls that we all got well before the proposal was finalized. They can cite a few dozen supportive letters they received (largely from Engine 6) as support for their viewpoint, but that was not the reality.
I recognize they personally sincerely believe that locally-elected representation has big drawbacks for “efficiency” and for-profit development. They had invested time in the petition to create the commission, so they were entitled to advance their position with the support of key interest groups and leaders.
The key problem with the charter commission was the same as the problem with their proposal — not one of the nine members “represented” the ward-elected viewpoint, or spoke to the benefits of local representation. Why — because a largely like-minded group was elected in a city-wide slate. While they certainly didn’t agree on everything (mega-district seats were debated), they knew to be successful they needed to be unanimous on their output. The 8-8 option didn’t get any discussion or debate (check the April transcripts — its just not there).
I thought Josh did an outstanding job chairing the commission. My only complaint to him was not putting the 8-8 council in a powerpoint summary he created at one point of various council options in August 2016. The rationale was that the commissioners were absolutely 100% against it, so it didn’t need to be enumerated.
To have an effective government, we need diversity of viewpoints on our city council, so that issues are debated and good outcomes are reached for the city. Having a portion of the city council elected locally provides a at least a hope of achieving that. Another method is multi-member ranked-choice voting, such as used in Cambridge. Ironically the Yes campaign and a charter commissioner claimed that Cambridge had a 100% at-large council as justification for what they were proposing, but that was a lie. If 49% of Cambridge strongly holds a particular view, ~49% of the council gets elected with that view. In the Charter commissions at-large proposal, that 49% becomes 0%.
Today’s council is 50% bigger than it might be otherwise because, after the charter commission failed, Bryan and the Yes campaign turned out to stop the 8-8 proposal from being put in front of the voters for an up or down vote. I personally naively thought those wanting a smaller city council would be pleased to be able to get 2/3rds of the way to their stated goal despite losing, but it became apparent that their goal was not a smaller city council, but the elimination of ward-elected representation. They prefer the current 24 over a 16 with a higher percentage of ward-elected representation, and do not want residents to have the chance to choose.
To their credit, Jake Auchincloss and Rick Lipof, both strong charter commission supporters, voted along with 15 other councilors for the 8-8 proposal (which originated with Rick) after the charter was defeated,as a means to give RESIDENTS the option to decrease the size of the city council.
Thumbs up to Jake for both this stance, as well as his support for a clear up or down vote on opt-out.
I appreciate Bryan’s unwavering support for Newton Public Schools and our teachers and city employees, which earned him NTA’s endorsement.
Bryan Barash is a highly qualified candidates for the city council. He has demonstrated a deep understanding of the issues facing the city at the many candidates’ events. His integrity is second to none and I hope that in this day and age of when you can say anything you want about anyone without boundaries that Newton is better than that.
In addition, Bryan is unfailingly respectful to all and will treat all constituents citywide with the same level of respect as he does those in Ward 2, and that’s extremely important in my mind.
The whole, “running for a seat (he) fought against” thing is less about legality and more about optics.
After all my public comments around mega-developments, if I were to win the lottery or find a genie lamp, the LAST thing I would ever do is pitch to build a large, luxury apartment complex in Newton. It would just seem creepy.
And on that note, if I had a Ward 2 vote, it would be to Emily…because of her more measured position on development, “it’s needed, but let’s do it right” (my words, not hers).
I just get the warm and fuzzies that she REALLY cares and listens to her ward constituents.
Good luck to you both!
People in general tend to remember things differently depending on their perspective at the time and over the years since an event occurred.
From the vote, which I thought gave us a group that was a bit homogeneous, I followed the process from day one and watched as the commissioners carefully researched and came to good conclusions on changes to the Charter. My recollection is that, although I appreciate the time and effort put into working on the Charter Commission, I found their handling of “creating a smaller council” to have a very limited viewpoint on the manner in which to carry that out. The all at-large council seemed to be the only real alternative from the start -it passed unanimously for back to back straw votes and for the final vote. There was a lot of discussion about how this particular part of the charter was handled as it happened – not just right before the final charter was put on the ballot.
There was an up and down vote on the entire chanter change, including their selection of the makeup of the city council.
Regardless of the charter commission’s final decision, pushing the council size of 8 ward councilors and 8 at-large councilors did not surface until the end. I do not support having no ward representation but I also do not support – nor did a majority of residents or councilors when it came down to actually having to vote on it – having an equal number of ward and at-large councilors. I haven’t heard anyone say they preferred the council size to remain at 24, except a few councilors, but I did hear that many residents preferred a 24 member council to either an 8-8 or an all at-large makeup.
The tactics used to defeat the charter proposal is a topic for another time.
Currently the city (and Ward 2 as well) feels very divided to many who live and work here and Bryan is widely recognized for his collaboration skills and unifying voice. This alone would make him a unique asset to the council.
I especially appreciate that Bryan always has his ear to the ground and pays attention to challenges in Newton that others may downplay or overlook. However, development is of course a main focus during local elections. Bryan has talked one-on-one with hundreds of Ward 2 voters about his thoughtful and responsible stance on development and his message is well received. He is a person of exceptional integrity and I am proud to support him.
I definitely support Bryan Barash for several reasons – just a few – he’s knowledgeable, he brings people together, he has integrity, he will represent everyone in the Ward.
Bryan, if elected what specifically will you do to reduce the size of the Newton City Council? What proposal are you willing to offer and fight for?
Marti – Totally off topic, but the charter commission took four votes related to the size and composition of the council and only the first one was unanimous. The other three were divided and the last two were 5-4 and 4-5 against the configuration that was adopted.
But Hillary’s emails! But Bengazi! Obama’s tan suit! This constant rehashing of the charter process is a distraction from issues that are relevant right now. In four days we’re electing members of a 24 person city council. Let’s pick the right folks for that 24 person body.
True dat, Greg. Sorry.
Jane, thanks for the correction.
I would vote for him if I lived in his ward, but I had to roll my eyes a bit when I read this post on FB:
“Thanks to Phoebe for helping me remind people to vote for better transportation! #BostonTParty Day 5.
I’ve been at the Newtonville Commuter Rail all week asking riders to vote for transit champions. #NewtonMA #MaPoli”
Bryan drives to work! And he works in Boston so it isn’t as if he works in say Dedham or Framingham where commuting there via T would be almost impossible.
It just seems really phony to me and I don’t like it.
@MMQC – Actually, I take a combination of commuter rail, express bus, and my car to work. I do use my car more than I would like – Like a lot of people, I’m trying to use it less frequently.
But I hope everyone supports better public transportation as a policy no matter what individual choices they make. Better public transportation is good for everyone.
@Greg- I believe Newton voters would like to know where the candidates stand on reducing the size of the City Council.
I will not vote for a candidate without knowing their position. Election time is the best time to get candidates on the record.
Let the discourse continue.
Visited a thread that questioned his integrity using a direct quote from last week. Decided not to stoop to my level? I’m not name calling, I’m not gossiping, I’m not “but her emails! and benghazi-ing” this, Greg. We have in our midst a true politician who easily says smooth words that people like to hear, but is evasive when it comes to details and tough questions.
Bryan said that he heard from Newton community members “over and over again that they were dissatisfied with the size of the council.”
No On Charter was a movement that was dissatisfied with the commission’s recommendation. Period.
He’s literally rewriting history and saying no on charter signified a desire for the status quo. That’s not true. Not. True.
I was lucky that the No On Charter website was still up to back up my point last night and there’s a video of the debate. But like I said before, I can’t carry a notebook of dates and facts every time I speak with my rep. Are we going to have to do this with Bryan?
You like what he says and that indicates integrity to you? He’s not even your representative yet and he already has a history of fact changing. Those of you who were hoping for some sort of fresh start, this is not it.
Emily listens to her constituents and brings their voice to the floor of the chamber, even if they might be unpopular. That is what an elected representative does.
Greer, I think Emily is an excellent Ward councilor in most respects, she is there when most folks need her, but the voice she brings to the city council represents only a part of the ward. She rarely listens to we constituents who disagree with her – her mind is already made up without considering other viewpoints.
I could even disregard that as it is refreshing to have a councilor who stands her ground even when it’s not the popular thing to do.
I was on the fence in who to support and was willing to leave past differences in the past until Emily started mischaracterizing and misrepresenting several things going on during this election season. I have seen and heard her use an “ends justify the means” philosophy not only in campaigning but in defending her positions – instead of just using the valid reasoning she believes her position is based on – breeding division instead of cohesion.
Bryan has real integrity, uses fact based defendable data, is knowledgeable and well versed on most issues affecting Newton and Ward 2. He is very good at bringing people with differing positions together and working with them to find where they might agree. He may have misstated something from his time on the charter commission – but his election to the charter commission and the work he did then and continues to do in Newton are genuine assets.
I’m disappointed in the timing of this post by V14. Any basic rules of fairness related to elections always give each candidate the same opportunity at the same time.
Letting one candidate, Bryan address voters just before the election while the other candidate, Emily was asked to address the same group weeks ago is not fair or good policy.
I know the organizers of this blog have attacked Emily over and over with no questioning of any of Bryan ‘s positions, but posting this message just before the election is another black mark for the credibility of this blog.
@Bryan, picking up the transportation topic, would you like to expand on the resume you have on your website and tell us if and how you worked on that issue for the Senate President–specifically with regard to MBTA issues? For example, was there any legislation enacted that you helped develop during your time with her that enhanced the funding and/or performance of the T? Thanks!
@Paul – There have been a lot of things I’ve worked on over the years, but the most recent big-ticket item I worked on was as the Senate staff lead for this report: A Vision for the Future of Massachusetts’ Regional Transit Authorities (https://www.mass.gov/doc/a-vision-for-the-future-of-massachusetts-regional-transit-authorities/download)
As a result of that report, we were able to increase funding for our regional transit authorities. We weren’t able to get the funding indexed to inflation as we recommended, but we’ll be back for that again next year.
I’ve also been representing Sen. Chandler on the Senate’s transportation working group, although that has yet to produce a report. I was able to find this report from the Mass Municipal Association (MMA) about the formation of it: https://www.mma.org/senate-convenes-transportation-working-group/
Thanks, @Bryan. The RTAs across the state are important and have been somewhat neglected over the years. That group of transit agencies does not include the MBTA. However, legislative action to enhance the T has often been stymied because legislators outside the MBTA district have sometimes felt that the T gets more priority from the state, compared to their local RTAs. I’ve always felt that there needs to be a stronger coalition built between inside-the-T legislators and those in RTA districts to get the votes needed to help all of these systems.
Bryan has campaigned hard and campaigned clean. He’s a candidate of integrity. There are substantive disagreements between Bryan & Emily – which I thought the Boston Globe article did an excellent job of expositing – that offer plenty to discuss here without questioning either candidate’s integrity.
@Greg — “constant rehashing of the charter process”
Rather than discuss hypothetically how Bryan might serve as a councilor, the charter commission is Bryan’s one elected office and his major political focus of 2015-2017 (even though it merits only 5 words on his campaign website). His group led with the tag line “Retains Ward Representation” when the main thing the proposal did was try to eliminate it. He did nothing to stop that misinformation. If residency is representation as Yes proposed, he didn’t one even give lip service to the merits of the role he now seeks to hold (Lordy, there ARE tapes), even though it was the majority opinion in the ward he resided in.
Bryan in a ward-elected seat is like Betsy DeVoss heading the Department of Education or Mic Mulvaney heading Consumer Protection — leading something you don’t think should exist.
If the Yes group would like to review the “tactics” of the No campaign, that’s fine. Let’s discuss.
What Jack said.
Bryan’s stint in an elected role for Newton was divisive and
ended in failure. And he’s not being fully truthful about his positions.
That’s completely relevant and something all voters in Newton should know.
Both candidates should have headlining threads posted at the same time. (or combined into 1 thread).
Anything else demonstrates a media (or blog) bias.
This race is likely the most contentious in the city. It deserves fairness without bias. Right now, that’s not what is happening and it’s just plain wrong.
Charlie,
Didn’t hear you complaining when we posted Emily’s submission without Bryan’s.
That’s bias.
Charlie: All candidates in contested races were invited by Jerry to publish columns. Some choose to do so, others didn’t. They were published when they were received.
The deadline was yesterday. No new candidate columns will be published before this election.
Greg R likes to rehash material about Emily almost daily, but hey, we can’t do that with HIS candidate
Emily truly represents Ward 2 in that she solves problems- big and small. and that’s what local representation is all about. Bryan is not going to solve anyone’s housing crisis or issues they might have. Sure, he listens. I haven’t heard any solutions. And even if he had some ideas, he alone can’t execute on them. And here lies the chasm between the two candidates. Emily has been a Ward rep and has been solving the day to day issues, everyday. She also listens to housing concerns and knows that this is not a one-sided issue. She knows Newtonites want a balance. That’s the reality. Not everyone will be able to live in Newton the way THEY want. That’s life. She’s not going to make empty promises. That’s why Emily has broad support.
@Soccer Mom: I don’t recall having written anything about Councilor Norton in weeks or stopping others. But have a great weekend.
@Sean – Yes, because like 95% of the rest of the voters, I didn’t see it and I was not paying attention until just before the election.
@Greg – Then you in your role as Blog-Lord should have put in fairer rules and you should be re-publishing all.
But I won’t hold my breath on that.
Charlie: what’s unfair about inviting each candidate to submit one column at a time of their choosing (with a common deadline)?
Really. Please be specific.
Charlie,
Thanks for the feedback.
Charlie,
One other quick thing. How is it biased to publish in the order received? We didn’t have any control over when either Emily or Bryan submitted.
We could have held candidate columns until all candidates in the race submitted or until a deadline. Maybe we will next time. We have in other similar situations.
But, some candidates may get a benefit from getting exposure earlier. Politics is zero-sum. Any system you put in place is going to help one candidate over another. Maybe it was biased of us to let Emily get the jump. Tough to know.
In any case, glad you’ve joined us. Hope you enjoy all the content, newer and older.
@Greg- Question: Is the result of the structure fair and unbiased? Answer: No.
I’m surprise that Bryan has chosen not to respond on this blog giving a position regarding reducing the size of the City Council. What specific proposal is he willing to offer to accomplish reducing the Council size? I’m also troubled by Bryan running for a Ward Councilor position that he sought to eliminate as a Charter Commission Member.
1. C’mon V14. It’s easy enough to create a pinned post with all the candidates submissions.
2. Greg: You may have not said something negative about Emily in the past few days, but when you try to shame posters here by accusing them of using Trumpian tactics against a liberal candidate in an effort to quiet them down – you are trying to change and control the narrative instead of address the issue. What’s that? A Trumpian tactic.
3. Sean: I’m wondering (hoping?) that perhaps you’ve had an eye opening experience. You can judge someone a bit by the company they keep. Bryan really came into focus for me when I saw how lock step he was with a certain school committee member. Same one who you had a Twitter squabble with recently and, rightfully, lost your vote. Reminder: An adult school committee member responded to publicly with a “Whatever” gif along with a number of false accusations. That’s one of 12 people who votes on policies that affect all of Newton’s school children.
4. I have many examples questioning Bryan’s true dedication to Ward 2 and Newton’s community at large. I specifically chose one that was well documented from both sides. Need more? I haven’t brought up the false accusations he’s made about Emily that’s she’s had to repudiate.
Perhaps just address the timing inequity with a link:
https://village14.com/2019/10/10/guest-post-from-city-council-candidate-emily-norton/
V14 seems to have crippled the ability to find posts and comments that are not immediately recent.
Whos, whoa, whoa everybody.
Sorry I missed all these comments until just now. Please let me clarify and respond.
First off the candidate columns have nothing to do with Greg or Sean. The idea and management of the Candidate Columns was completely mine so aim any criticism my way.
Here’s how it worked. On Oct 5 I sent an email inviting all candidates for contested office to submit a guest post with whatever content they wanted to include and we would publish it on Village14 un-edited. There was a deadline of Nov 1 included in that email.
Since then candidate posts have been being sent to me in fits and starts. I’ve put each and every one up on Village14 as they arrived with usually no more than an hour or two delay from when I received it.
Some candidates submitted early and their posts got more attention because their were fewer other posts. Some people submitted later closer to the deadline but mixed close by other candidates posts. If candidates wanted to guess how to maximize their impact by when they submitted their post, sure, go ahead, no problem.
To whatever degree a candidate believes the timing of their post may have been sub-optimal, that was entirely in their hands and I exercised no editorial control in the timing of them. The only mimimal input from me was in cases that a candidate omitted to send a photo, I chose a photo thanks to the wonderfully handy Googe Images search
Just today, now that the deadline has passed I posted a single post with links to all submitted candidate posts in one post.
So that was the entire process. Feel free to tell me where I went wrong.
Wow, this thread went to a dark place.
Looks like Jerry/Greg/Sean did the right thing and posted all of the candidates statements. But if they were published in the order received, I think Jack/Charlie /Peter and others should realize not everything is about Emily Norton and offer up an apology. Many of the other candidates (Pam Gordon for instance) who don’t fit Greg/Sean’s world view published later than Bryan. Was that a grand conspiracy to benefit the Right Size Newton slate?
I’ve tried to call the forum out on issues when I’ve disagreed on items. This isn’t one of them. The forum allows candidates to post. Some posted early, some late. There is no rhyme or reason to the timing from what I can tell, and I don’t see any evidence of bias. If Emily has an email where she was mislead, I will immediately post an apology. But Pam G. and Jim C. just posted yesterday. I’m having trouble finding the bias pattern in favor of any particular cause.
What is funny is that the race that really fascinates me is Julia and Carolina’s race in Ward 3. But almost no comments on Carolina’s post, and Julia didn’t even submit one! For folks on the various slates, isn’t that race just as important as Emily/Bryan? No comments on Jim Cote’s post either. Same question. Greg and Vicky didn’t even submit one…
Politics in Newton is weird. Ward 2 race seems very personal, ward 3 race seems very congenial and non-controversial. But again, same singular vote at stake.
Perhaps it is just because Ward 3 is an open seat. But the Ward 2 at large challengers and races don’t seem the same way either.
Jerry, your post hit after I was writing mine. But I now really think Charlie and Jack owe you an apology.
It is wrong to do an overall community service and get crapped on for it. I’ve found these candidate statements to be very useful in making choices. So thank you.
@Fig — I wasn’t criticizing Jerry at all — just the difficulty finding posts/comments that are not in the last few they way the v14 WordPress blog has been configured– but I do see now the “older posts” links work at bottom of each page to navigate back — so it is possible (I was trying to use RSS). Tried to help out by finding post in google for Emily and more recently Jennifer. I think the timing of the posts have been fine for the reasons cited — you can’t herd cats to get this to work out in terms of submission timing. The most recent summary post is great service.
And I would say Sean, while having very strong opinions on some candidates, had done quite a bit of great work to get available information and videos out in a balanced manner on the election.
Humorous how often Sean, Jerry and I are often blamed for each other’s comments, posts and plots.
Jack, I appreciate you responding. Perhaps after all this is over folks can discuss a best practices for dealing with candidate statements and debates.
While I have had my differences with Emily over the years, I have decided that she is deserving of re-election this Tuesday.
I want to see Emily take a leadership position in her next term and bring forth a proposal to cut the size of the City Council.
Hopefully, Emily will become a better listener and value the opinions of others even though she may disagree.