Right Size Newton, which is organizing the referendum to reverse the Northland decision has filed a complaint with Office of Campaign and Political Finance against Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, John Hilliard reports for the Globe.
Right Size files a complaint with state against Fuller
by village14 | Jan 3, 2020 | Newton, Ruthanne Fuller | 24 comments
I have never before heard anyone claim that a mayors did not have the right to express their opinions on municipal issues in newsletters or on municipal websites (and the same for governors/states). Mayors are elected to lead cities. Their views of how the cities should be run and the reasoning behind those views are important for citizens to know.
It would be different if the newsletter or website were being used for electioneering – that would be using the resources for personal gain. But this suit is saying that mayors are damned if they do and damned if they don’t – they’ll be criticized for not explaining their positions and actions and criticized if they do.
Meredith,
I believe that since the decision-making is now part of the official city referendum process, which process is paid for by the city, the Mayor can’t simultaneously use city resources to campaign against it.
* * *
On another point, the Globe article also states:
“Council President Susan Albright, who supported the Northland project, said she will ask councilors to begin deliberations on the Northland referendum next week.”
I’d ask, what’s to deliberate? That should have occurred by a more savvy City Council knowing the referendum was coming, before the signatures were submitted. Now it’s too late, the referendum is in process and can’t be called back.
Jim,
Please give it a rest. We know. You’ve typed essentially these same words dozens of times onto Village14. You’re not doing anyone any good repeating them again.
If you have new material I’d be happy to read what you have to say. But repetition is one of the poorer forms of persuasion.
Doug L,
I believe mine is an extremely valid and now more pertinent than ever, question, especially since, as I read, this is THE FIRST TIME that City Council — in fact, President of City Council NOW — wants to deliberate the Northland referendum — now being sadly too late!
There’s no way to persuade on Northland (that’s as I say, too late), but future projects are coming up, such as Washington Street in West Newton, and learning to avoid past mistakes makes sense.
Hey folks: Journalism cost money to produce. Please refrain from cutting and pasting large excerpts from articles that are behind a pay wall. It’s undermines the media’s ability to pay its reporters. Thanks.
@Jim: The City Council deliberated Northland for two years. When President Albright says they need to deliberate now, I’m quite certain that’s because the ballot petition requires them to either reverse its 17-0 vote or place it on the ballot. My understanding is that they need a 2/3rd vote to overturn their decision (in other words 16 no votes). That’s never going to happen. But they still have to bring it to a vote (aka “deliberate”)
There is no third option on the table. Legally, there can’t be. It’s either this project as approved or no project.
It’s a complicated case, but I agree with Right Size on this issue. I think the Mayor should either refrain from using City resources on this ballot issue, or [preferably] offer equal space to Right Size in the newsletter and on the website. Equal space would embrace freedom of speech [rather than infringe on it] and allow both sides to fairly state their positions.
This both sides-ism is BS. Giving Right Size Newton equal space? If that’s the case, then give equal space to groups like Green Newton, the pro-affordable housing group Engine 6, the Newton Housing Partnership, the League of Women Voters of Newton, and the Newton-Needham Regional Chamber.
http://files.ocpf.us/pdf/guides/guidemunibq.pdf
>No public resource may be expended or utilized in order to promote or oppose any ballot question placed before the voters. Examples of public resources include: paid staff time of public employees, office equipment, vehicles, buildings and supplies.
And to recap, the Mayor used City resources to tell everyone, “I hope you will join me in voting ‘yes’ to allow this project to be built.”
Note the Mayor didn’t merely state their opinion or talk about the project in a way that might influence people–she literally asked people to vote “yes”, which is a clear violation.
If my memory serves me correctly, previous mayors have publicly advocated for overrides.
And Mayor Cohen certainly used his position to lobby for the Newton North ballot referendum.
It is a complicated situation. The mayor may have been OK suggesting residents not sign the circulating petition, but at the moment the signatures were filed or verified, it certainly became a ballot question governed by ocpf campaign finance.
As much as Mayor Warren’s statements/likeness was used to promote the Yes side of the 2017 ballot question, that wasn’t done with city resources.
The Mayor can lobby for a position, but can’t do it with city assets or financial resources. She can use her political committee assets and resources, and her emailing list might be the later.
Presently, there is no “ballot question placed before the voters” with which to attempt skewering a mayor, however likely that (a ballot question) might be in the future. The words are plain Competent lawyers know that …
@Greg – I try to be very careful about how much I quote from articles because I understand the importance of paying for journalism. I thought 3 sentences fell within reasonable fair-use limits and wanted to give enough context for my comment to make sense. Please let us know what you consider reasonable.
@Meredith: Thanks for asking. The amount you quoted feels right to me. But right after you, Jim added another short excerpt. Also fine. I posted my comment only because I didn’t want the trend to continue, which would cumulatively be concerning.
If we take it to its logical conclusion, the Mayor is not allowed to express any opinion for or against using email or the website. So that means:
– Urging folks to use 100% green electricity in her newsletter? Ethics complaint – anti-competitive against coal generated electricity.
– Black Earth composting? Same thing, only against waste companies like JRM.
– Posting pictures of her standing with winners of a robotics competition? Ethics complaint – favoritism of certain students.
This is absurd and makes Right Size look like a bunch of whiners grasping at straws to score any political points, winning a meaningless battle but losing the overall war.
If the Mayor had said “Right Size are whiners, don’t listen to them, approve Northland” then they’d have a legitimate complaint. Right now, Right Size doesn’t.
I agree with you, @Meredith. A few lines from a story is fair use. Indeed, it’s more likely to have readers go back to the original story than paraphrasing would.
On the merits of this complaint, as @Mary noted, there is not yet a ballot question.
Also, I wonder if use of a zero incremental cost modality (email, website) would be interpreted as use of city resources.
@Mary P. – At what moment would you consider the ballot question “placed before voters?”Is it OK for RightSize and Northland to spend dark money until then?
With the petition signatures certified, a ballot question is the default path forward. Would it wait until council votes up or down on rescinding their action?
I would think Northland will need to do some type of filing if they are going to expend funds to influence the vote, just as those on each side of charter and opt-out did.
Not sure I agree with Right Size filing a formal complaint vs working it out with Mayor Fuller directly, but the comments in John Hilliard’s article are a good read.
Will likely fall on deaf ears to the members of the I Love Northland fan club.
A few months ago I wrote about the dangers of a referendum, and it’s effect on a democratically elected representative council. Many responded that they thought it would be difficult to gAther the required signatures. It has been my experience that in Newton it is far easier to organize voters around no. No change, no disruption to their lives, don’t take away my convenience, no, don’t make me think to hard about facts. So, here we are, and we will be governed by referendum, rather than by an elected body.
I do appreciate the legal maneuver of trying to silence the mayor, it is a great tactic to distract energy from the matter at hand. So will city resources be used to defend the mayor so she can actually do her job? Expressing opinions, facts and her vision for the future of Newton. That’s her job.
Here’s what the OCPF regulations say.
“A city, town or other governmental unit may not give, pay,
expend or contribute money or anything of value to a ballot
question committee, or promise to do so, nor may a city,
town or other governmental unit make expenditures or use
public resources to promote or oppose any question that
appears on a state or municipal ballot. ”
Seems pretty clear that the Mayor used her city resources to oppose this ballot question. Not a “high crimes and misdemeanors” situation, but an unfortunate error.
Jim, continued reading of the article directly after your quote from Councilor Albright regarding “deliberations”answers your question. None of the deliberations are with Right Size or Northland as you keep repeating.
The city council must decide two things – first they will decide if they will rescind their approval of Northland and if not, then decide on a date for the referendum vote.
Here is a link to the ocpf municipal ballot question guide people are quoting from:
http://files.ocpf.us/pdf/guides/guidemunibq.pdf
Reading this, I think RightSide may also need to set up a ballot question committee now with the city of Newton now that the process has been set in motion by the petition filing.
“Q: What is the difference between a ballot question committee and a political action committee?
A: While they are frequently confused with each other, ballot question committees and PACs differ in several ways. A ballot question committee is organized to favor or oppose a specific question submitted to voters at an election. A PAC is organized to influence the nomination or election of candidates, not the adoption of a ballot question. A ballot question committee must dissolve after the final resolution of the question, while a PAC may continue in existence indefinitely.”
The State ballot question guide has a bit more text:
“Q: What is the difference between a ballot question committee and a political action committee?
A: While they are frequently confused with each other, ballot question committees and PACs differ in several ways. A ballot question committee is organized to favor or oppose a specific question submitted to voters at an election. A PAC is organized to influence the nomination or election of candidates, not the adoption of a ballot question. A ballot question committee must dissolve after the final resolution of the question, while a PAC may continue in existence indefinitely. Finally, a ballot question committee may not
contribute to a PAC, but a PAC may contribute to a ballot question committee.”
It may be helpful if the City Clerk can put together an educational format with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF). Such a session can be held some evening at the Newton Library. It will give an opportunity to ask questions and clarify what is and what is not allowed.