I am posting this on behalf of the Area Councils Debate working group (of which I am a member) to clear up any confusion.
All candidates received the February 17, 2021 email and attachment reprinted in their entirety at the end of this statement.
As was clearly stated in the procedures, at item #9:
“We ask you to make your Zoom backgrounds as neutral as possible by removing campaign or social statement paraphernalia and to emulate what we do in an auditorium or other live setting.”
This policy is consistent with the procedures used in prior debates held in public spaces and sponsored by the Area Councils during which campaign literature and paraphernalia also were not permitted on stage.
The candidates were asked to enter the Zoom 10 minutes prior to the start of the debate to confirm that they could be seen and heard and to discuss any final procedural questions. During the pre-air session, one candidate was asked to remove a social statement sign that was in the background of his room (i.e., a flag-like sign thanking essential workers) and he removed the sign upon request. Mr. Barash was also asked to remove the social statement banner in his background and a discussion with him ensued. Mr. Barash was never told that he would be barred from participating in the debate if he did not comply. Instead, it was suggested that the Zoom host remotely change Mr. Barash’s background to a neutral greenscreen. One of the working group members reminded him that the guidelines had been clear that no social statement signs were to be displayed. When it was determined that it was technically infeasible for the Zoom host to modify his background remotely, the suggestion was made that the moderator could explain that Mr. Barash’s social statement display was inconsistent with the previously distributed debate guidelines. At that point, Mr. Barash removed the display.
The debate working group was accommodating to requests from the candidates about various issues such as scheduling. Had Mr. Barash notified the working group of any concerns he had about the procedural guidelines prior to air time, the matter could have been discussed in advance and any procedural changes distributed to all candidates. Mr. Barash did not raise any concerns about the procedural guidelines.
The four Area Councils have produced debates for every contested seat in Newton over the last 8 years which have included Mayoral, City Council, and School Committee races. Videos of this and previous debates are available on YouTube, Facebook, and NewTV’s Vimeo channel.
From: Rena Getz
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 8:47 PM
To: John Oliver <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Sallee Lipshutz <[email protected]>
Subject: Final Procedural Update for 4AC Debate – Sunday, February 21st, 2 – 4:30pm
Dear Candidates
We are looking forward to your participation at our Four Area Council Debate, this coming Sunday, February 21st: 2:00 – 4:30 pm.
Please take a moment to review the attached revised guidelines for the event. We have updated the process with additional details so that everyone participating would have a better understanding of the Debate set-up.
If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to reach out to our working group or to Sallee Lipshutz ([email protected]).
On behalf of the Four Area Council Working Group,
Rena Getz
When responding, please be aware that the Massachusetts Secretary of State has determined that most email is public record and therefore cannot be kept confidential.
ATTACHMENT:
Date: February 17, 2021
To: Candidates Barash, Lucas, Micley, Oliver and Ranalli:
From: The Four Area Council Debate Showcase Committee:
This is a procedure update on your participation in the Zoom Area Councils’ debate taking place on Sunday, February 21.
There have been several changes, so please read this closely. While we have guidelines for our debate process, we do give our moderator plenty of latitude to make her own decisions and adjust things as she sees fit.
- The debate time frame has been extended, beginning at 2pm and ending at about 4:30pm.
- We ask you to register for this Zoom meeting as soon as possible at: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZcpf-mrqT0tG9ZvrnYqyo-BULJAS3sf1zVX so that you will be admitted to the event and not sent to an overflow screen.
- We also ask you to arrive 10 minutes early (1:50pm)
- There will be no opening statements from the candidates. The moderator will introduce you with the bio you submitted.
- Answers, in general, should be under 45 seconds but the moderator may allow more time.
- Rebuttals will be limited to 30 seconds, but the moderator will have the discretion to extend, and/or allow a counter.
- All candidates and our moderator will see a 15-second warning before their time allotment and then a STOP.
- Moderator may ask her own questions and probe into answers as she sees fit.
- At the end of each debate, the candidates will be given the opportunity to ask one question. In the two-person Ward 1 debate, the question will go to the candidate’s opponent. In the Ward 2 three-way race, each candidate will have the opportunity to decide whether to direct their question to one or both of their opponents.
- Candidates closing statements are limited to 30 – 45 seconds.
- We ask you to make your Zoom backgrounds as neutral as possible by removing campaign or social statement paraphernalia and to emulate what we do in an auditorium or other live setting.
- To further this policy, we ask that all candidates not use or read from any prepared notes or receive information or coaching during the debates.
- Ward 1 is expected to be 1 hour and Ward 2 will be 90 minutes as there are 3 candidates.
- The order in which the two debates will be determined will be by the flip of a coin at the beginning of the debate.
Any questions from the public that we do not cover will be forwarded to the campaigns so that you may choose to answer them afterward.
These procedural specifications supersede the previous instructions on your original invitation. The changes have been made to accommodate the number of candidates in the limited time frame.
This is consistent with what Sallee said on WGBH:
Sallee Lipshutz, a Waban area council member and debate organizer, says she had called on Barash to remove the flag as a matter of procedure — but it was nothing personal.
“When they would come up onto an auditorium dais, they would not have … such a thing,” Lipshutz told GBH News, “and when we have run debates in prior times, we have always asked the candidates not to bring any campaign materials into the auditorium with them. Under COVID, it’s very hard to set a level playing field for everybody, and so we asked that there not be any signs or buttons or anything else that made a social statement.”
So now can everyone settle down and put out a polite and respectful joint statement of reconciliation? Can’t we even get a community agreement to do that among our elected and hope-to-be elected citizens, or have things become so polarized and divisive?
Actually, it’s not Paul. Sallee told GBH they also asked for the removal of the American flag, even though an American flag is clearly visible.
Also, how is a bookcase, with book titles clearly visible, considered “as neutral as possible by removing campaign or social statement paraphernalia and to emulate what we do in an auditorium or other live setting.” For that matter, a lovely image of the Charles and a small child isn’t anything you’d see on a debate stage either.
Why were those things allowed? (This is rhetorical, they all should have been kosher)
Paul, it’s nice that you want a kumbaya moment but the reality is one candidate was treated very differently — violated his constructional rights, as Ted notes — from the others and that’s on the organizers. That calls for a humble apology Sallee. They messed up. Once you acknowledge it, that’s when we move on.
Sigh. I’m sure there was a way for the NACs to take the high road here. This isn’t it. Especially after the interview with WGBH, which I thought did no one any favors on the NAC either.
the NACs are all volunteers, but that doesn’t make them right here. When you become the story, you’ve not done your job as a debate organizer. At least, you haven’t done it well.
For the record, the NACs tend to be a bit more conservative than the Newton populace as a whole, especially the Newtonville Area Council. This is getting political at this point. I would prefer the NACs leave the debates to LWV from now on. It’s a shame because it was actually a good debate and I thought the moderator did a good job.
Paul, Sallee’s statement doesn’t give any space for that. I think in this particular special election, the NACs are a bit conflicted, especially certain members of the NACs. Hard to ignore that here.
Fig, I’m sure there’s something in what you’re saying, but it’s a bit opaque. Are you saying that the rules of the debate were somehow influenced by the political preference of individual Area Councilors? Or that they were applied unequally? That the NACs are favoring one candidate over another? If so, I didn’t see evidence of that during the debate, which was really well done, with an excellent moderator. It served a good purpose and brought out areas of agreement and disagreement among the candidates. I’m sorry, but I just don’t get what your point is.
As for Sallee’s statement not giving any space, there’s always space. Perhaps the NACs and the candidates can figure out how to make this issue into something positive.
I am very appreciative of the NAC debates. They are much better executed than the LWV debates. Competition is good. The word “debate” can’t even be used to describe the LWV format. There is no back-and-forth between candidates. There is no possibility of questioning an incumbent about their record.
Marjorie Arons-Barron put a lot of effort in coming up with great questions. The LWV simply opens emails. The sure way to NOT get a question asked at the LWV debates is to do research and ask number-oriented questions or questions that are based on the public record. The League does not have the bandwidth to vet these questions.
The League has skin-in-game on local issues. Their agenda always has a left tilt. When the Charter was on the ballot SC candidates were asked whether they supported the Charter. Ridiculous. Who cares?
I have already posted this, but the NACs violated the free speech rights of the candidates. The NACs are part of city government, and the 1st and 14th amendments to the Constitution forbid federal, state, and municipal goverment from abridging citizens’ right of free speech. Their rules were also void for vagueness.
Sallee, et al. suck it up, admit you made a mistake, and apologize. You violated the civil rights of the candidates. Be better.
Two thoughts:
1 – Between the WGBH story and Sallee’s additional detail I think it’s safe to say Bryan wasn’t specifically singled out here with Tarik also being asked to remove a sign thanking essential workers. Thoughts on the rule itself aside it does seem like they were consistent in asking both of the candidates to take down flags/signs, and they backed themselves into a bit of a corner once they asked the first person to remove their sign/flag.
2 – Regarding the rule itself I feel like this is a good example of trying to enforce the letter of the rule rather than the spirit of the rule. In a formal auditorium setting it makes sense to restrict signage since all of the candidates are sharing one stage – wouldn’t really be fair to have say a giant Tarik Lucas banner behind the stage as everyone is walking up. A Zoom debate doesn’t have that issue since every candidate has their own dedicated portion of the session. It’s also not exactly uncommon to see backgrounds leveraged in this fashion – we see this all the time in council meetings from both members of the public and sometimes councilors.
That they were technically correct in having the rule called out side steps the actual issue that this isn’t the same as a physical auditorium so trying to apply the exact same rules isn’t necessarily the right approach. Enforcing those rules on an LGBTQ+ pride flag and sign thanking essential workers of all things was basically asking for controversy – it’s not like they had giant pictures of their mailing flyers or political signage as props. The doubling down nature of the tone also doesn’t help – regardless of being correct this is an opportunity to review, improve and hopefully avoid this type of situation in the future.
If Ted is correct, the rights of all 5 candidates were violated, as you have no idea what they felt required to remove from their scenes as a result of accepting the rules.
Really, Greg, I don’t want kumbaya. I just hope and expect that people can accept that there were good intentions on all sides that got caught up in a disagreement. What I’ve mainly seen here and in the other posting are accusations of bad faith. Is it so unreasonable for someone to step up and try to get the parties to reach an understanding of what went awry so the community doesn’t have to go through this kind of thing again? Indeed, wouldn’t it be a sign of leadership from one or another candidate to help bring about that understanding?
Paul, I actually thought they did a great job on the debate itself. It is the follow-up response to this little disagreement where I find some bias. The interview with WGBH and this post just seem more focused on trying to punish Bryan for speaking up than moving past this.
My response would have been:
“Look, zoom debates from candidates homes are a new thing. We tried to make things consistent among the candidates regarding the backgrounds. Looks like we could have done a bit better with that, clearly we caught some of our candidates by surprise by our request. It was only our intent to be consistent across the candidates. We feel the debate was high quality, and we’d like to focus on that going forward, and we thank our candidates and our moderator for participating.”
A bit of defense, a bit of grace, a bit of let’s move on.
Instead, we get a discussion in an interview on WGBH where: “He could have said, ‘I’m gay,’ if that was what was important and identified him, it certainly wouldn’t have caused any any controversy,” Lipshutz said. “And it would have been read, because it was submitted by the candidates and read aloud to describe who they were.”
And now we get a very defensive post here, that it is all the candidate’s fault.
Look, these debates are not easy things to run. I applaud the NACs for running them. I feel like I’m criticizing volunteers and I’m not a fan of that. I’m guessing none of this would be an issue if we all could get in a room and talk like we used to. This is, in the end, going to be forgotten, and it should be. I’m just saying that the NACs could have done a bit better with this, and the constant defensive responses aren’t the right look.
This is my last post on this issue though. There are far more important things to talk about, and frankly I regret diving in so deeply at this point.
Cheers (and peace) to all.
So, here’s a think. NACs, because they are governmental bodies, should not be sponsoring or hosting political debates at all. The LWV is a private nonprofit, as is the Commission on Presidential Debates. They can negotiate with the candidates and make their own rules. The NACs, as governmental bodies, must abide by the state and federal constitution and laws. They should stay the hell out of hosting debates. Period.
@ted – I trust your knowledge of the law and you’re more right than wrong on the legalities commented above. But I also think it’s important to consider context and intent.
Context: Whether the NAC should have hosted the debate or not, it provided a service to hundreds if not more Newton voters who watched both live and recorded. They volunteer per their personal time to provide a valuable community service within good intentions.
Context: when I read Bryan’s Facebook post yesterday morning, I too thought an apology was owed. But after seeing that Sally’s response that ground rules were provide in advance, perhaps I judged too quickly. We may not agree with all the rules, but rules are still rules.
In hindsight…on the one hand, this issue may not have needed to be dialed up to a 10. On the other, Newton’s history of special election turnout is historically abysmal so if this controversy inspires people to do engaged in the civic duty of voting, as the old adage goes, “there’s no such thing as bad PR?”
Lastly while the City Council (this one in particular) tends to continually scope creep into regional, start, federal and global matters, we can always count on the NACs to focus on their Villages and Newton first.
@sallee or @v14editors – you may want to edit Rena’s email above, unless the candidates have confirmed it’s ok to share their personal email addresses.
Hi Sallee – Thanks for posting the clear and reasonable guidelines. The Area Council debates were fair, informative, and professional – and I think most attendees appreciate the thoughtfulness and hard work that went into achieving this.
Frankly, I never noticed the little flag on the side of Bryan Barash’s bookshelf during the debate. That’s probably why he was not asked to remove it.
I only noticed it when I went back and replayed the video.
My fellow Area Councillors worked so hard to produce a great debate, isn’t that what counts the most?
Maybe a statement from the candidate about overreacting would help. Maybe he has a good reason for not reading directions thoroughly?
For those of you who offer so much free advice, let me just say that there are lots of opportunities for people to volunteer and help improve the work of the Neighborhood Area Councils. Attending our meetings and offering to help will clear up a lot of misconceptions some people have about who we are and what we do. Nothing special and nothing spectacular, but those who join us will get to know the people and places in their village in a unique and personal way and come to appreciate just how much our distinct village districts add to the quality of life here.
@Greg, you’re back? Regarding American flags I presume those would be OK as it would likely be in a debate hall. The Thank You Heroes yard sign that Tarik removed has an American flag, but this show of support for front line workers was likely viewed as a social statement by the organizers.
While the validity of the debate rule in question certainly can and should be discussed, especially as remote political events are likely to stay with us, several facts in the Area Council statement are very relevant.
1) The debate rule in question was communicated to all participants in advance of the ZOOM debate.
2) No Ward 1 or Ward 2 candidates objected to the rule prior to the event.
3) The organizer’s alerted Bryan that he could leave his flag in view and the moderator would say one candidate did not want to follow one of the rules.
Bryan chose not to take that option and state his beliefs during the Q&A period. Rather than risk looking like he would not follow the rules, he agree to the request. Following the debate which was excellent, Bryan turned to Facebook & public media to present a different statement of facts. I hope to be able to see the missing up front portion of the debate video to see if ‘voices were raised’, what demands were made by the organizers and if Bryan was not given the option to leave the flag up. Those who watched live already know.
@Matt, the NACs could easily have used identical background filters to make it fair and not violate free speech rights. Whether they performed a valuable public service or not, the fact is that they violated at least two of the candidates’ right of free speech and expression. The government is prohibited from abridging citizens’ rights of free speech (with a few, very narrow exceptions). For you folks who are members of Area Councils, if you want to be part of government, learn the rules.
T H-M Has Tarik Lucas complained that they violated his right of free speech and expression? Not that I have heard. Why? Because he seems mature and has emotional intelligence. I would say the same of David Micley.
These are qualities I highly value. On issues, I agree with one of them more than the other, but I would be comfortable with either in terms of temperament
Did anybody happen notice anything happening in the foreground during the candidate’s debate?
@Claire, who complains and why is not the issue. The violation of civil rights by a governmental body is. When I was a public servant, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I kept my oath, and I will continue to do so.
@THM
I don’t think you’re right on the constitutional element.
This was a debate with rules, which were agreed to by all parties. Even after breaking the rules, the NAC allowed Bryan to keep his background as is, but would note that it was in violation of the rules. It was his choice not to do so. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences. He made a mistake agreeing to rules that he did not want to abide by, and voluntarily made the choice to restrict his speech.
It is like having rules of debate, 2 minutes per side, and then one candidate fully ignoring them, and claiming it was a violation of free speech. Equal opportunity for speech to all sides is what is fair. Allowing one candidate to make a political statement in their background, and not affording all candidates the same opportunity is unfair. The rules of debate are agreed to by all parties.
@THM: About governmental bodies hosting political forums…..does this mean that the Youth Commission and the Council on Aging’s Candidate forums also are in violation? Who regulates that?
Alec Wilson just stole my thunder and put the debate about the debate into proper context. History suggests this is a question or agreed to rules between sponsors and participants, not in any way a free speech issue. As far as I can determine, there were no debates between or among candidates for any national or statewide political office until 1956 when Estes Kefauver and Adlai Stevenson participated in a one hour national ABC television forum just before the California primary. It was certainly the first nationally televised debate for any office. The one thing from that debate that remains constant today is the strict level playing field it established for the candidates and the way it was visually presented. I cannot recall any debate for any office since then where strict rules to prevent even a hint of bias haven’t been established and agreed to by all participants. The rules today aren’t much different than those that Keafauver and Stevenson readily agreed to. I also can’t recall any candidate complaining about free speech violations. The only “freedom of speech” issue I’ve seen raised comes from low polling candidates who haven’t made the cut for a specific debate and that certainly isn’t an issue in this particular election.
Yes, the virus and the advent of ZOOM debates have complicated things a bit, but not the consensus for a level playing field between sponsors and participants for a level playing field and a bland or generic background that encompassed all the candidates both visually and politically. Check back on the two post COVID debates between Bernie and Joe Biden, the Kennedy Markey debates and the debates for the 4th District primary here.
And yes, it’s been noted that anyone following cable news in this pandemic era has seen interviews with officials from their homes with fireplaces and books prominently featured in the background setting. True, but that’s an interview and not a debate. Far different circumstances and far fewer consequences.
BTW. Check out the Stevenson Kefauver debate. The substance and dialogue were head and shoulders above what we have today.
Few thoughts – trying this for the third time as v14 seems to be eating posts:
-Based on the details provided by Sallee it’s safe to say at this point Bryan wasn’t specifically singled out here – Tarik was also asked to remove an object thanking essential workers under the no social statements rule. Thoughts on the rule itself aside it seems like they were applying it to all candidates, no special treatment here.
-The rules did specifically call out both social statement and campaign paraphernalia under the ask. This doesn’t appear to be a case of selective interpretation of political statements as Bryan seems to be implying in the WGBH article, the rule was very clear in wording and scope.
-The rule itself went too far (questions of legality aside) – I would have left it just at no campaign or political paraphernalia. Especially in today’s climate, having the “no social statements” rule was pretty much begging for the exact scenario we find ourselves discussing. I can see the reasoning in an actual auditorium where the candidates all share a stage but Zoom is not the same setting and the rules need to take that into account. Seems like a textbook example of “letter of the law vs spirit of the law”.
-There are some discrepancies between the NACs version of events and Bryan’s statements – Sallee mentions that they did provide an option for him to keep the flag up with a statement that it was not in alignment with the rules while Bryan describes it more as a shouting match and no mention of that option. Subtle but very different implications around the tone of the argument.
Overall I think this was a misstep by the planners but not malicious or capricious in how they applied the rules. The rule itself was too strict – and the way Bryan had the flag aligned in the background being off center (but still present) leads me to think he didn’t just throw that up for the debate. That they made Tarik take down an object put them in a corner – if they didn’t say anything to Bryan we’d be instead talking about why did he get special treatment compared to Tarik. This is a case where the rule was technically correct as applied but shouldn’t have been a rule to begin with, hopefully this can be seen as an opportunity to improve for the next debate.
PS – mods are there hard checks between email and name? Had to change my email address as the original no longer works and posts have been getting lost in the ether posting under the new address.
* Definitely a misguided rule on the part of the Area Council
* Bryan Barash should have read the rules and objected before hand
@Bob Burke – THM is pointing out that different free speech issues come into play when (unlike the presidential debates) a goverenment body hosts the debate.
I did like the Area Council debate and thought it was otherwise well done. It always did strike me as a big odd though that an elected body hosts these …. sort of like the School Committee being the host of a mayoral debate.
Initially, a few years back, the rationale seemed to be that a local area council was hosting a local debate to hear what candidates had to say specifically about issues affecting their village. Now with four Area Councils from different corners of the city as hosts of a single debate, and particularly when done on-line via Zoom, these are now just general city-wide events.
Serious question, perhaps off topic: With 24 city councilors, why do we need area neighborhood councils and do they fully represent the citizens at large who are not very active in the political landscape of Newton?
We started doing these debates 8 years ago because we saw a need for Newtonites to hear different perspectives on candidates. We are all volunteers, nobody gets paid. We were fortunate to have a highly experienced moderator who lives in Waban and knows quite well the issues that our surveys, public comment at meetings, and emails have shown Newtonites care about. What I can say is we learn and listen and always try to do better. Here’s a video from our first debate where the incumbent evidently felt his challenger presented no threat to his seat so he decided not to come. Time would show he was probably wrong about that.
https://youtu.be/ihOCCudqS5A?t=2553
@Jerry. These are all legitimate points that you and Ted raise although I’d caution that area councils may be elected, but we have absolutely no authority to block, veto, alter or amend any action the Mayor and City Council decide to take. We certainly have no taxing authority. This is not an “elected” body in the traditional sense of elected bodies with specific powers and authorities. We have none of substance.
Almost all our operating revenue is generated within the Highlands village from activities during our annual Village Day in June to generous donations from businesses, groups and individuals. Folks are barking up the wrong tree if they think they will exercise power over anyone by becoming a member of our area council. Our only “power” is the power to influence, but even that is qualified because I’d bet we are influenced more by the people we represent than the other way around. Anyone who attends our monthly meetings will attest to our diligence in making certain that any group or any individual can raise a village related issue or concern to higher public visibility with us than almost anywhere else. Again, I was on the planning committee for this debate and will reiterate here that we bent over backwards to be fair to all candidates. Our influence ultimately depends on our credibility and credibility is the essential ingredient to our influence. We reacted strongly to the push back on the sign issue because we saw it as a threat to the credibility of all 4 area councils. It should not have been. We tried to be fair and I’m almost certain that we were.
Bruce:
Your question:
“With 24 city councilors, why do we need area neighborhood councils and do they fully represent the citizens at large who are not very active in the political landscape of Newton?”
That’s a very good question. I think the area councils fill an important role, and in general they can do some great things (Village Days, pre-vetting local projects, highlighting local issues, a place for city councilors to gather concerns, etc.).
Part of the issue though is that it really depends on the 9 people elected to serve. That’s a lot of people for these councils, and at times folks who care about certain issues have run as a block. So for Newtonville Area Council, you have mostly folks who align with a certain worldview on development for instance. Doesn’t mean they don’t add value to a host of other issues. It just means they aren’t neutral.
So, in short, I think they do terrific work at times, but I don’t think they represent the at-large interests of Newton very well. The positions tend to get filled with partisans, especially on zoning and development. And the positions are rarely contested in full. So those partisans tend to win. I believe most of the folks on the NACs would align more with the Rightsize Newton side of the development debate.
I’m not trying to start an argument on this point, it is just my view based on multiple meetings in Newtonville and observations on who runs and who is supporting Tarik vs Bryan. Tarik has more of the NAC members as supporters, Bryan has more of the city council.
Fig,
On development, when 90% residents can support large development but in someone else’s backyard (north of the pike) then area councilors give those residents a much needed voice.
I also welcome councilors who focus on the needs of their immediate neighbors rather than the needs of any ‘agenda’
I agree with what you say Fig. I live in Newton Centre so we we don’t have an NAC. I am more familiar with the political advocacy of an NAC, specifically in regards to historic districts than with their organization of village days so thanks for the clarification.
I don’t want to start a debate about whether NACs are pro or anti development. My only point is that we have city councilors to represent the citizens of Newton and by extension a ward councilor should represent the concerns of their respective neighborhoods. It seems overkill to have another elected body, regardless of their political stances. I also wonder how many residents of a village which has a council vote for the NAC and are aware of what they do or the stances they take. Why not have a volunteer council that is not elected and non-partisan that focuses on building village cohesion by organizing events such as village days?
@Fig I would say that the Newton Highlands Area Council is different than the Newtonville one. The NHAC meetings are an opportunity for the residents to hear what is going on in the Village. I find their minutes, a draft of which goes out typically the same night as the meeting truly informative. Because I am on their mailing list I feel I am much more aware of what is going on in the village than my neighbors. Presentations are given to them regarding potential projects often giving the chance for input by the community early on in the process, Though I pay attention to things citywide it is a lot harder to find out via city information what is going on. The Volunteers who make up the NHAC are truly dedicated to community service. I feel they are always trying to do the best they can to make our village vibrant.
I’d agree with Newton Highlands Mom. Each of the four Area Councils have distinctly different personalities and approaches and. To Bruce C’s point, yes much of what the Council’s do could be done by a non-elected community group. Indeed the Nonantum Neighborhood Association and the Waban Improvement Society are non-government volunteer groups that do a great job on community village-level projects and events. Interestingly Waban has both.
Here in Upper Falls I think the Area Council provides a good and valuable service as a focal point for neighborhood issues and concerns and supporting community events. The Upper Falls Council seems to be more informal than the others but no less effective.
Could those things be done by a different non-elected group? Sure, but the Area Council does a good job and I’m glad it exists.
Disclaimer: I’ve been sleeping with one of the councilors
I am a Waban Area councilor who was not involved with the recent debate except to attend it- I listened without watching the screen. The whole discussion was terrific, in my view, and two of the candidates involved, from opposite ends of the spectrum, told me that it provided them a welcome chance to express their views. They also praised the moderator.
Presumably, the conflict over what is permitted in the background of the candidates’ screens will be resolved before any future Zoom debates occur. Honestly, I doubt that it affected anything much as far as the many residents attending the event are concerned. Let’s get it right the next time.
As for the area council, it has no power beyond the right to provide a platform for community members to attend and air their grievances and opinions, and for area councilors to do the same through pronouncements and letters and so forth. I really appreciate it when our Ward 5 city councilors attend, which they often do, to answer questions, to hear their constituents’ concerns, and to offer suggestions for future steps.
I have enjoyed serving on the council though the Zoom experience is wearing thin on me. Our views are not in lockstep; frankly, I detest the factionalism in Newton politics and prefer to address issues one at a time. In my role as activist of various causes, I enjoy working with councilors holding a range of views…so what?
Thanks to you all who organized these debates. They were excellent and informative. I think it’s a shame that the good they accomplished might be overshadowed in any way by a misunderstanding and what seems to be a desire by some people to keep pounding, as opposed to constructively moving on.
@fig – what you said about NAC partisanship on development and zoning…I’ve been saying the exact same thing about the City Council.
So at least in that regard, THANK GOODNESS for NACs to offer a balance in The Force!
So, Matt, here is my thing: you are proving my point. Neither the City Council, the School Committee, nor the Mayor’s office will ever sponsor a debate. The NACs, as governmental bodies, should probably forgo hosting debates in the future. Because it is obvious that the members do not understand their obligation to support and defendant the Constitution.
Matt, that’s fine by me. As long as the NACs do lots of things and don’t become focused on that one issue, if folks want to run for the NACs and are passionate about their communities, I don’t need to agree with them on everything. I just don’t view them as independent and neutral.
You know what guys….this thread reminds me of The League of Women Voters’ biased favoritism towards Northland last year, not to mention the WBUR interview. Perhaps with the abundance of access to news and opinion, impartiality got pushed out by the Internet? If video killed the radio star, the arguably Al Gore did the same to “independent and neutral”?
And what happened to the Celtics’ defense tonight? They are really soft without Marcus Smart!
Jerry, re: “Disclaimer: I’ve been sleeping with one of the councilors.”
Recall Mayor John Lindsay, who when asked by a reporter how it was that he was disagreeing publicly on an issue with his wife, said: “Bedfellows make strange politics.”
@THM: “So, Matt, here is my thing: you are proving my point. Neither the City Council, the School Committee, nor the Mayor’s office will ever sponsor a debate. The NACs, as governmental bodies, should probably forgo hosting debates in the future. Because it is obvious that the members do not understand their obligation to support and defendant the Constitution.”
Why single the Area Councils out? Why is it okay for the Youth Commission and the Council on Aging to host Meet the Candidate Forums and not the Area Councils? The Youth Commission and the Council on Aging are also governmental bodies and are appointed not elected.
Clearly some mistakes were made here. It sounds like the organizers weren’t able to give a generic background as they hoped to do at the last minute for Bryan. Ideally they should have just planned to give everyone a generic background but hey we are not all tech whizzes. This is a different time and I don’t feel the intent was to give anyone a disadvantage. They just hadn’t figured everything out. I feel instead of making a public statement that he was wronged, Bryan should have met privately with the organizers possibly with some neutral parties pulled in and tried to educate them on why he felt wronged. Use the experience to bring understanding. I think a big problem today is people just try to talk their own point rather trying to work at solving the issue. If he wasn’t satisfied with that then fine make your public statement.
As far as the Area Councils organizing the debate, from what I watched it was a great debate. It is important to get the candidates and their viewpoints out there in ways they and their statements are challenged. The more opportunity the better. Sure next time they might want to get input on their rules, etc to make sure there aren’t any issues. I think it is a bit if a funny thing calling the NACs elected bodies. Yes the members are voted on but they have no power only a voice. Maybe some changes need to occurs with how they are organized to be more consistent with their “power”.
@Amy, I am so glad you asked. I am not singling out the NACs; the NACs made a singularly poor, uninformed choice, and should apologize, and clean up their acts.
Here is an article on the Newton Youth Commission’s candidates forum, with a photo of the Zoom session. Notice anything? They didn’t censor the candidates’ rights of free speech and expression. The NACs did.
The Kids Are Alright.
@THM: You are not answering my question. I thought you had said earlier, that NAC’s are governmental bodies and have no business hosting candidate forums. I am asking why you are singling out the NACs for hosting the forum when two governmental bodies – the Youth Commission and the Council on Aging both held candidate events.
@Amy, please reread the quote you asked about. I’ll wait.
Never mind, here it is:
“The NACs, as governmental bodies, should probably forgo hosting debates in the future. Because it is obvious that the members do not understand their obligation to support and defendant the Constitution.”
But before you said that you said:
NACs, because they are governmental bodies, should not be sponsoring or hosting political debates at all.
According to an email I received today from the City of Newton Law Department, “… after review of the facts relevant to the recent debate sponsored by the Area Councils. Our conclusion is that the Area Councils were within their rights to impose reasonable restrictions on expression (here, the display of signs) for the purpose of ensuring an orderly debate.”
Thank you Area Councils for providing this important service to the voters. It is unfortunate attention has been diverted from the content of the debate, because I believe the voters would find it quite illuminating.
@THM: Sorry – wrong quote. Here’s the correct one: “So, here’s a think. NACs, because they are governmental bodies, should not be sponsoring or hosting political debates at all. “
@Trish: Thank you!