Right Size Newton and Engine 6 are Newton organizations that nearly always end up on opposite sides of the fence for decisions having to do with development projects in the city. Each organization has recently announced their candidate endorsements for the upcoming Newton election.
Right Size Newton announced their endorsements for November’s election:
Mayor: Amy Sangiolo
At Large Councilors: John Oliver, Pam Wright, Rena Getz, Lisa Gordon
Ward Councilors: 1 – Kevin Riffe, 2 – Emily Norton, 3 – Julia Malakie, 5 Deb Waller, 6 Barry Bergman
Engine 6 announced their endorsements based on their responses to this questionnaire, as well as experience, and voting records (if incumbents)
At-Large Councilors
Ward 1 – Alison Leary
Ward 3 – Andrea Kelley, Meryl Kessler
Ward 5 – Deb Crossley, Andreae Downs
Ward 6 – Alicia Bowman, Vicki Danberg
Ward-only Councilors
Ward 1 – Maria Scibelli Greenberg
Ward 3 – Jim Cote
Ward 5 – Bill Humphrey
Ward 6 – Brenda Noel
Note: the original post was updated to include Engine 6’s endorsements
Shocking.
Now we are seeing so called progressives supporting the Republican James Cote because they don’t like this endorsement for Julia.
Jerry, I believe you spelled Kevin Riffe’s name incorrectly
Housing policy is a topic where Councilors may deviate from their party platform. The GOP fears zoning deregulation per the 2016 platform and comments from 45, while Cote seems open to discussion. The Dem party from Biden to Bernie to Booker to our state delegation wants to address exclusionary zoning and tie incentives to progress…
MMQC, both Jim Cote and Julia Malakie now have track records of service and interaction with constituents to provide a comparison. I see public personality, constituent engagement for a wide range of constituents, and the ability to work constructively with other City Councilors and city staff as more of a factor in this race. There certainly are contrasts.
Personally, on a variety of day to day pedestrian issues (literally and figuratively) in Ward 3, I found Councilor Cote to be have been more involved, more responsive, and more interested in what I thought than Councilor Malakie has. In the face of that, R and D matters a lot less at the Ward Councilor level, at least to me.
I completely agree, Mike Halle. So Jim is Republican… That matters not to me as my ward councilor. He is responsive, interested, communicative, involved, caring and kind. He will have my vote. Thanks, Right Size, for outlining who I will NOT vote for.
Good for Right Size for getting out in front of this so quickly. I’m sure it will help motivate their base.
But could this backfire for Amy Sangiolo at a time when most voters are just getting to know her?
Isn’t it surprising not to see Tarik Lucas on this list? RSN endorsed him for the special election just a few months ago.
BTW I do love the graphic design of Right Size Newton’s logo. That said, I always think those blocks look like apartment buildings.
It takes some really twisted logic to vote for any Republican these days. You’d have to be willing to set aside [or support] what the Republican party actually stands for, in order to vote for a candidate with that affiliation. Just because a candidate is viewed as “responsive” or “communicative,” does not mean they share your values.
@John White: Tarik is not being challenged.
@Lauren Berman: thanks! I obviously still have research to do before November.
MMQC – In 2017, I actively supported Jim Cote, had a lawn sign for him, spoke to all the endorsing groups about his positive qualities as a councilor, sent an email encouraging my friends to vote for him, etc. and I’m a strong Democrat.
This is a nonpartisan race for a position that requires the councilor to understand and be able to act on a wide range of issues that are apolitical by nature. Show me a Republican/Democratic pothole. An athletic field or park with a political affiliation. A Republican/Democratic intersection that needs attention because it’s unsafe.
As a councilor, Jim was able to attend to a variety of very local constituent issues without concern about anyone’s political affiliation. The best city councilors are those who can address constituent concerns as well as city issues in a way that isn’t divisive. Jim is able to do that. I wish I could vote for him.
I voted for Jim in the elections previous to 2017 as well for the same reasons.
Plenty of things that the council deals with are political. Public school budgets, public libraries, marijuana stores, transportation. These things often fall within party lines. I can’t trust anyone who still identifies with the party that contains Trump and I don’t feel comfortable with them contributing to the decision making in our city. I agree that Jim is responsive and loves our city, but I can’t imagine voting for him or anyone else who is in the GOP.
I’m a Democrat and probably voting for Julia. But 74 million Americans voted for the last President, including some very decent family and friends. I pray that partisans on both sides intent on de-humanizing the opposition don’t drag us into civil war. One my young sons could be drafted into.
I don’t understand the infatuation with party politics, especially in such a heavily democratic community such as Newton.
I don’t remember seeing a R or a D next to a councilors name when voting. I want a councilor who will be resposnive to local problems and solve issues for their constituents A progressive or conservative councilor who would not help me with a city issue is of no value to me.
Sure Trump is toxic, and if Tom Mountain were running, I might think differently, but all of the candidates running seem focused on local issues and that is what will determine which candidate I choose.
Also @Greg, I’m not convinced this will backfire on Amy. I’m not a big fan of Right Size (though I am obviously a fan of Amy) but their endorsed candidates have been seeing a reasonable amount of success. Mostly I’m not sure their endorsement matters for the bulk of voters.
I will give anybody a chance, and Julia Malakie lost her chance with me back in May with the whole “testimonial commendation marking fair housing month” debacle.
I submitted the following comment about supporting the testimonial commendation marking fair housing month.
—-
I recently read the testimonial commendation marking fair housing month, which will come to the floor next Monday. I appreciate that the city is acknowledging the historic housing discrimination which occurred here in Newton, and I believe this testimonial is an essential step towards redeeming itself by unequivocally stating its commitment to fair housing practices. I urge you, as my representatives and voice on the council, to vote for it as written. Amending or rejecting the commendation rebukes the voices of experts regarding the role that multifamily zoning plays in creating fair housing opportunities. The amendment would fail to acknowledge the historically discriminatory effects of Newton’s zoning and diminish the commendation. This commendation is largely symbolic, but it represents a commitment from Newton to move beyond past injustice and towards a brighter future. I hope I can count on you to move Newton forward on housing justice.
—
Julia did not get back to me before the vote, and she was the lone “no” vote on the record. I can respect that she had the gumption to take a stance seeing as the rest of the “right size” crowd dodged taking a stance – which I’m sorry but if you’re not for fair housing you’re against it – and that goes double for a nonbinding symbolic gesture, but I digress.
After the vote I wrote to her personally to set up a constituent meeting. At this meeting Julia refused to acknowledge basic facts regarding the effects of the zoning code on the housing market, and the exclusionary history of zoning here in Newton. I can understand making a vote I disagree with, but to be so willfully committed to disregarding experts – that’s not someone who shares my values.
I would rather take a chance with someone new, and if Jim Cote wins and then proves to be disappointing I will support whoever his challenger is in 2 years.
These are non-partisan elections. Nobody is running on behalf of either political party.
As for the candidate, I totally agree with Jane that Jim Cote was an excellent City Councilor and would be a good choice in November.
As for MMQC and Mike Striar’s concerns … a Newton candidates personal voter registration is of no interest to me. The only time it would enter into my calculus if I saw evidence that a candidate was acting in sync with or on behalf of the incredibly destructive instincts of 2021’s national Republican party. I’ve seen zero evidence of that with Jim Cote.
Happy birthday, Jerry Reilly!!
Thanks Matt
HBD!! The weather is heavenly today..enjoy the day!
If Sean Roche finds these endorsements “shocking”, I find them refreshing. They range across the political spectrum, both locally and nationally and they are all free spirits who often march to different drummers. Everyone wants diversity and that’s what you get with these candidates. I like that. I agree that Jim Cote is a great asset to Newton, but I also know that Julia Malakie brings a much needed voice for saving our natural resources and dwindling historic and architectural assets. Please look carefully at Barry Bergman in Ward 6. I have seldom met a more solid, practical wise and fair minded individual in all my years covering Newton. Pam Wright brings common sense and a solid engineering and planning background to the Council. It would be a shame to lose her. I’m with Lisa Gordon because I trust her judgment, fairness and capacity to think things through. I will always be with my good friend Rena Getz because of the way she listens and picks up points from people of all political persuasions and I don’t have to add anything to what Emily Norton brings to political discourse in Newton. I got to know both John Oliver and Tarik Lucas during the special election and they won as much by who they are personally as the positions they were advocating. I will never bad mouth candidates who aren’t on this list because they are passionate advocates for many of the things I also endorse. And I will never call them shocking, but I think they sometimes have trouble REALLY listening to people or positions their rather uniform set of beliefs and positions don’t jibe with. I’m deeply concerned with what’s happening to this nation and not very optimistic about the way it’s likely to trend, but I won’t lose any sleep if all my candidates don’t make it here in Newton.
The same sentiments go with my endorsement for Amy in the Mayor’s race, but I also have a lot of respect for Mayor Fuller and she does sometimes get to much of a bum rap for things that are beyond her control. Can’t we all just see everyone else’s humanity. Not that tall an order.
Oh and Happy Birthday Jerry. Many, many more. We used to celebrate my Aunt Minnie’s birthday every year. She passed away at 97, and once she reached her 90s she would quip “it’s just another year closer to the grave”; but she would be laughing because that was a West Cork way of saying that everything is okay.
I shouldn’t have had 4 cups of coffee today. It’s really got me wired to the brim. I also missed Tour De Newton but assume it went off without a hitch.
@Bob Burke “Please look carefully at Barry Bergman in Ward 6. I have seldom met a more solid, practical wise and fair minded individual in all my years covering Newton.”
Agree 100%. I enjoyed two hours today canvassing with Barry and your descriptions fits like a glove. He is so thoughtful but also completely and always true to why he is running but always above the fray. And a sincere and great listener with no hidden agenda
Let me add that if we are looking for an antidote for the current discord and divisiveness across the City Council, Barry would be a great addition
Thank you to all for the nice words regarding the value I bring to the residents. I have served the community in some capacity since I was 18 years old, and view City Council as the perfect place to put all of my experiences into practice for setting goals and solving challenges.
@ Right Size: Like many of the special interest groups in the city, and state, Right Size passed out a questionnaire to all of the candidates. Candidates could then either complete the questionnaire or not, and then Right Size would use some proprietary formula and make their endorsements. They would like to maintain confidentiality of the responses as its probably in their best interests to do so. In the sake of transparency, I will make my answers available to anyone who would like them, and in reading my responses I’m sure many of you would conclude that I would be an ideal candidate to endorse based on their mission statement.
Now before one would vote for any candidate, sitting or challenging, I recommend that you ask them to release their responses to the Right Size questions. This transparency would prove a much better read than the endorsements from the group. Realistically, are all of the new candidates hand picked to just say no, or have they been coached up on their answers. Only their answers will tell us?
Jim,
Thank you for running. I’ve come to realize the key to getting things done for the day to day issues for residents is not
– tweeting
– trying to push your agenda
– wasting time on national issues
But… “building relationships” with department personnel and councilors. This requires getting along with the actual ppl who are responsible for issues.
I feel we are missing now of this on the council: councilors whose sole focus is day to day issues of residents.
Jim Cote,
I agree on the questionnaire transparency issue generally. That’s why I’ve posted my response to the Newton Teachers Association and the Newton Gun Violence Prevention Collaborative on my School Campaign Website: https://www.paulevy.org/surveys I think the public and the members of these organizations ought to have an opportunity to know what candidates have said in response to these surveys.
Paul
The ‘high-density’ folks oughta’ go give Jamaica, Queens, where I grew up, a try for a while! Believe me, Newton is PARADISE! I sure do agree it should still be affordable and open to all, like when i first got here. But packing it with high-rises and mansions? There’s gotta be a better way!
BBurke Does everyone really want diversity? I mean really, really?
I’ve never seen a community so hung up on diversity when in fact they want nothing of the kind.
Agree w Jerry these are local elections and party affiliation is irrelevant.
I think the take away from the last few elections is that residents don’t want change all at once.
If you look at candidate websites pre COVID you’d be hard pressed to tell if they’re running for city council or Congress.
If I was to give one piece of advice to all candidates running is to keep the focus local.
People absolutely care about larger issues, but mostly people care about their family, their immediate neighborhood, their job, and how to keep water out of their basement … And that’s a lot to care about!
It’s true that how we think is largely a function of who we associate with and the media we are exposed to regularly.
For years I relied on V14 to learn about my community. But I now believe it gave a skewed version of who we are and I often found myself in the odd position of arguing against issues that I believed in.
After our last few elections, I no longer believe Newton is a liberal-progressive state. I think Newton is much more diverse.
But not some idyllic version of diverse, I think Newton is diverse in ways that infuriate many who champion diversity.
We certainly did have a movement here for big change, but I think those who led the charge miscalculated the extent that big change can be legislated.
Ultimately, the rate of change is driven by the community and a lot of hard work that most people don’t have patience for.
I support honest, personable, patient, smart, communicative hyper-local candidates for City Council and then let the issues fall as they may.
“I often found myself in the odd position of arguing against issues that I believed in.”
Mike, this has happened to me here with things like biking and development.
@Mike Ciolino. I was only making the point that the term “diversity” can have several meanings depending on what points or values those uttering it are trying to make. I used it to describe my preference for city councilor candidates who are locally focused, engaged with all their constituents, strong enough to buck their constituents and fellow councilors when they deem it necessary to do so, who come from different professional and lifestyle backgrounds. I also tend to gravitate to candidates with a good sense of humor who don’t take themselves or me too seriously. Those are my definitions of “free spirit” candidates.
Maybe this will be interpreted as “conservative”, but it raises the question of why I so willingly became Bernie Sander’s co-coordinator of his 2016 Presidential campaign. I did so because he was the first serious candidate to have a comprehensive outline of all the things that had to be done to turn back the impending disaster of climate change, establish a horribly overdue Second New Deal, improve health care and the way we run and fund national elections. But the thing I liked most about him was the way he knew how to wheel and deal for the public good during his tenure as Mayor of Burlington. He wound up being allies and even friends with developers and left an indelibly positive set of accomplishments for the City. U.S. News and World Report named him one of America’s top 10 mayors in 1989. He was my definition of a free spirit and honest broker. That’s what I look for in all the candidates I back and they can come from different backgrounds and political persuasions.
@Bob Burke-
Always appreciate your clear headed take. I always vote candidates and issues rather than parties.
Many Newton Democrats have
an inexplicable vitriolic reaction to any candidates without a “D”after their name. You’re either all-in or your the enemy.
For a city stuffed with the best and the brightest who fancy themselves as “progressive”, i have never understood that.
Newton is really not the place for
diversity of thought, at least political.
Paul, I won’t use the 7-letter F word. Jerry gets mad at me. But I think it’s fair to say everyone has a line where political movements become an existential threat. Some people in your community feel the Republican party has gone far past this line. To them, it’s no longer a matter of different viewpoints on economic or social policies.
When I wrote, “It takes some really twisted logic to vote for any Republican these days,” I didn’t expect so many of you would run out and buy pretzels.
While party affiliation may not be important to everyone in local elections, it is certainly not irrelevant. I can think of several political party affiliations that would be immediate disqualifiers for any candidate in Newton. Even membership in certain private clubs would [and should] be a disqualifying factor for local office here.
It is true that Newton’s best Mayor of the last half century was a Republican. But that party is over. Today’s Republican party is all about Trump, voter suppression, reversing women’s rights, and heavily restricting immigration. If you’re comfortable voting for a candidate who belongs to that party, pretzels are on sale at Star.
There is diversity of thought (I am all for it!), but then there is support for Donald Trump. This charlatan attempted to overturn the legitimate results of the presidential election and, in effect, overthrow American democracy. He continues these efforts to this day. As information comes out, we are becoming increasingly aware of how close to success he came, with the support of fawning and fearful followers.
Hence, I practice zero tolerance for Trump and his supporters. True Republicans like Frank Sargent and Dwight Eisenhower and the late senator John McCain would not consider Donald Trump a true Republican. Nor would Teddy Mann, I suspect, who was a great mayor.
Mike-
I don’t see any of the candidates espousing views that support voter suppression, reversing women’s rights, and heavily restricting immigration. While the GOP may be dominated by the Trump wing, there are reasonable moderates that do exist still. I would think we would want to support those moderates before the party is completely abandoned. That being said, they are not running for Congress. It would be a shame if local politics take a parallel tract to the toxic party politics of national elections.
How would you suggest one vote if a hypothetical Republican candidate advocates for local policy issues important to a voter and the hypothetical democratic candidate takes an opposing view. Again, the emphasis is on a local issue (zoning, schools, overrides, parks, etc.)?
To me, if a candidate for any role continues to be a part of a party that espouses sexist, racist, homophobic, and xenophobic ideals, that’s a deal breaker. Just because we don’t see evidence of it now, the knowledge that they identify with that party is disconcerting and it doesn’t mean these issues will never pop up. Even with local issues – the GOP has been terrible for public schools. The GOP advocates for privatization, what could that mean for Crystal Lake or Gath down the road? How about city wide mask mandates and vaccine mandates? Plenty of Republicans deny that COVID is real, how do I know that this doesn’t influence a Republican councilor?? What about climate change denial?? How will that affect our green initiatives?
To say it doesn’t matter in a local election is absurd. Of course it matters.
MMQC- This is why we have debates to hear the viewpoints of candidates. Again, I don’t know any candidates who are advocating for privatizing schools. I am very interested in their views on Crystal lake and Gath Pool. It is a local issue. Hearing their views on local mask and vaccine mandates are legitimate precisely because it pertains to local policies, not because I care about whether they are Rep or Dem. I will choose to vote for the individual and whether their policy stances on local issues align with mine, not their party affiliation if they even have one.
Yes, yes the current Republican Party is problematic. Problematic, not yet apocalyptic. Not even the worst ever.
Take a look at Fears of a Setting Sun: The Disillusionment of America’s Founders by Dennis C. Rasmussen for some much needed perspective about how bad American politics can be.
I am sure that I will get blasted got this comment but given the choice between voting for a Democrat or a Republican, I will always vote for the Democrat. It’s a dealbreaker for me. I’m one of those party line kind of voters.
One of the Republican strategies is to get people from their party elected to any office, no matter how local. It could be the dog catcher and promote them up from there.
I don’t actually think that’s the case with Cote however I find Julia’s perspective refreshing and I appreciate that. Be wary.
After all this country has been through over the last 5 years I can’t understand why anyone would actually vote for a person who still identifies with the Republican Party.
(I do love my bubble!)
Lisa-
As a former city councilor, Jim has a track record so you can see how he voted on particular policies. If you agree with him on those votes and value his constituent services more than you would Julia, why wouldn’t you vote for him? I hardly think we need to be wary that Jim is somehow crouching in the weeds waiting to pounce and advocate for Trumpian policies.
For the record, I don’t vote in their Ward. I might be more apt to vote for Jim, but that has more to do with Julia’s very strong views about zoning and development issues more than anything else.
I also don’t remember Jim saying he is running as a Republican for City Council. The ballots don’t say R or D.
I get that our city’s elections are non-partisan, however it’s the mindset or perspective that I object to. I too don’t vote in Ward 3 but know many who do. I will support her race by sending her $$ regardless.
I’m curious Bruce, what do you understand Julia’s very strong views about zoning and development issues to be?
In a nutshell, that she opposes new development..Is there reason to believe otherwise?
Bruce – That’s a rather blanket statement. Last week for example, Julia voted for the special permit for Riverside.
You are correct, Lisa. It is a blanket statment. Is it any more of a blanket statement than saying I won’t vote for anyone who is a Republican under any circumstances?
Bruce,
I am not sure how one would compare Malakie and Cote on zoning and development. Cote doesn’t say anything about it on his Website. Oddly, he doesn’t list any goals or priorities.
Malakie has a pretty substantial content on the subject. You may agree or disagree with her, but it is out there
https://www.juliamalakie.org/zoning-redesign.html
MaryLee- Given that Jim was a city councilor for eight years, there is an ample record to see how he voted on issues related to zoning and development. I am not endorsing Jim. As I mentioned I live in a different ward. My point is that when it comes to development, Julia would aligns herself much more closely with RightSize. By the same token, Jim certainly doesn’t take the Sean approach to development.
As for websites, I agree with you. I have not looked at Jim’s website and I’m sure he can chime in. All candidates for any office need to have effective and detailed websites nowadays, especially with the lack of local news coverage.
Thanks Mary. Will Cote will be the reliable vote with the pro-development bloc on the CC?
The most salient part of Julia’s candidacy is her focus on preserving the city’s trees and historic buildings. Both are things that I value and support.
My impression is that both Julia Malakie and Pam Wright are quite attentive to constituent issues in Ward 3.
I haven’t talked much with Pam, but I’ve enjoyed all of the conversations I’ve had with Julia. She listens well and looks out for the neighborhood. I have met her on various occasions and saw her at the farmers market often when it was in West Newton. I’ve never met Jim I can’t comment on that. I know he cares immensely about the neighborhood and I respect that, but I’m voting for Julia.
MMQC, Pam is great in the Zoning and Planning meetings. I actually encourage anyone who is still open minded here, if that exists, to tune into some of those meetings on NewTV. They offer so much insight into the Councilors and because of the zoning redesign initiative they get participation from many of the Councilors, not just those on the committee.
I recall this was a lively one on June 29,2020: https://vimeo.com/433801861
Bruce, I agree Jim has a record, but it is unrealistic to expect people to hunt for his positions. Perhaps his Website is still a work in progress. I have no formed opinion of Jim Cote although I did meet him and his wife when I worked on Scott Lennon’s campaign. We were both strong supporters so there is that.
While not in his Ward, I appreciated what Jim brought to the table in his prior stint on the Council.
That said, 2 things come to mind regarding Jim’s record….
1. Did Jim vote I support or opposed to Northland at the end of 2019?
2. Why did Jim abstain from much of the Webster Woods related voting?
Voting accountability matters. It’s a shame in nearly 4 years in office, the Mayor has not put any measures or process in place to make voting transparency accessible. Not even her lengthy weekly emails share voting results.
@Adam-
I’m going back many years here.
I’m not talking about the last election or the last administration and orange man bad/Trump. That hatred is still very current and visceral, despite the fact that he hasn’t been President for 8 months. It’s still all Trump 24/7. There’s no escaping that and there probably won’t be for the foreseeable future, so buckle up. This fixation with Democrat-only candidates in Newton I’m talking about goes back at least to the early 2000’s.
Bob Burke may be open minded to independent candidates but many Newtonians aren’t having it. When I
knocked doors in a run for Ward 5 alderman in 2002(?), I may as well have been a conservative Republican instead of an independent candidate.
“You people want to starve the schools” was the type of stuff I heard
from people who didn’t know me or bother to learn that my candidacy was
mostly motivated by the disgusting overcrowded, dilapidated condition that the Countryside school was in.
Twenty years later thanks to the efforts of solid Blue “Progressive”
Democrats(D)the school is still a dump.
I’m told that is isnt overcrowded anymore, but with a little help from the Northland development on Needham St, that will may change.
Hi All,
I can see that Julia’s campaign is working hard through Lisa and Mary Lou to try and dredge up nonsense and discredit me with ridiculous comments. Funny, Julia has voted for me several times, and contributed to my past campaigns so I must be OK for her. First, this is non-partisan election by law for a reason, to keep the parties out of the municipal government. National parties are fluid in my mind and as I’ve been around awhile and was a democrat before I became a Reagan democrat, then turned Republican. Remember Trump was a democrat before there was an opening in the republican party. So by Lisa’s logic, Trump learned from that party, but we know he’s just a failed individual, and didn’t learn from any party.
My record is solid in that I work for the residents of the city, and I believe that if writers such as Lisa and Mary Lou stay on the sideline then we will have a clean election.
Transparency: (Mary Lou don’t look so hard) I will upload the answers to the many questionnaires we received on my website, and as I have already mentioned Right Size should release all of the candidate responses if there are any. (Right Size needs to stay clean)
I come from a large family and a 20 year Marine career in my background and I live on people’s honor and respect. Some of the contributors here today are not presenting as honorable people and insult the election process.
Please call me for a meeting and I will discuss issues with anyone.
@Jim Cote-
I admire and respect your restraint, but both you
and I know that these elections are not non-partisan no matter what any law says. A gander at the candidate websites with the glut of endorsements by outside of Newton PACS, progressive groups and donations by Beacon Hill legislators and lobbyists(all Democrats) tells the real story. A peek at the OCF profiles for many of the candidates does the same. Even the Non Partisan League Of Democratic Women Voters has few, if any, Republicans or Independents among its ranks.
You did all the heavy lifting and dealt with all the incoming fire so that Newton pols could get their pay raise, and they still want to kick you to the curb.
Some thanks that was.
Next time let them carry their own water.
MaryM
Bikes, Development, Gunshops … it’s crazy
Jim,
It is MaryLee not Mary Lou and I have no beef with you. As a fellow Scott Lennon supporter, in my eyes, I’m receptive to learn more about your positions. I just couldn’t do that from your website. I look forward to having more available to read.
I’m sure that you aren’t really suggesting I stay on the “sidelines”. I didn’t in Scott’s campaign and certainly don’t plan on doing that now. We need more engaged voters not fewer.
I look forward to the material you reference.
I can’t vote in the ward election either way, but over many years of posting here, I’ve come to respect Jim Cote both for his honesty and his willingness to consider all sides of an issue. We don’t always disagree, but he has always been willing to speak his mind here over multiple years. No artifice or B.S. I don’t care if he is a republican, he isn’t running for some higher office later, there is no future ambition from Jim to run for governor or anything else. He just wants to serve again on the council.
I think he’d make an excellent ward councilor, both because of who he is and because I think he will focus the majority of his attention on ward issues and constituent service. I guess I just think he is a righteous dude.
With all that said, frankly between Jim and Julia, I think Ward 3 can’t lose either way.
I actually agree with Fig that both candidates in Ward 3 will make fine councilors. My only point was that all things being relatively equal and given the choice I would vote for the one who is a Democrat.
All things being equal, I’d rather vote for the candidate who cares more about the people of Newton than the trees of Newton.
@Elmo. Your comment reminds me of the old lie that floated around the media a few decades back to the effect that people who lavished attention on their cats or dogs did so at the expense of being attentive to the needs of their kids. The first crack in this came when the San Francisco Police Department found that they could tell if children were being abused or neglected by the condition of the animals in the house. If the animals were abused or neglected, it generally followed that the kids were, too. People who took care of their pets also took care of their kids. Elmo’s comment is obviously directed at Julia Malakie, but it’s pretty clear to me that both she and Jim Cote care deeply about people in Newton and, I assume, that Jim is also keen to protect trees.
@Lisa: Julia is not a democrat as of the last I checked she is not enrolled. My thoughts are that Julia like me, won’t change registration status just because the winds of politics have changed. My work for the constituents from street replacement and repairs, snow issues, downed trees, parking and traffic changes, protecting the parks, obtaining private funding for West Newton parks, school budget challenges/recommendations, etc. would be hard for a person to duplicate. I enjoy helping people and have the experience to get results. Thank you to all for having this discussion.
@MaryLee: Sorry about the name change, I commented late at night.
No worries Jim!
You and Julia will both fight the good fight and whoever wins will support the other because I believe you both share the same agenda…a more representative government
@Elmo: New York Times, September 22, 2021
“We Need Trees, and Trees Need Us”
by Margaret Renkl
Nashville
(https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/20/opinion/city-tree-nature.html?searchResultPosition=1)
Since so much personal interaction over the last year was by email, I was able to review my interactions with Jim Cote and Julia Malakie by looking over my inbox for messages from them. Those messages include direct exchanges as well as group interactions on the West Newton neighborhood email list and other forums.
Since 1/1/2020, I have 113 messages from Councilor Malakie. I have 246 from Jim Cote.
What’s more, the nature of the messages tend to be different.
The messages from Jim Cote tend to be neighborhood/ward issues that matter to me or are of broader interest to the community, while messages from Councilor Malakie tend to be about issues she cares about. Jim Cote’s messages tend to explain issues or debate them, while many of Councilor Malakie’s messages are forwards of upcoming meeting announcements. Both important but different.
There certainly lots of overlap. There are plenty of development issues related to West Newton. I care about zoning, development, historic preservation, and the tree canopy of Newton. I am proud to have helped Green Newton honor those we lost to COVID by planting new trees in the city. I believe that green spaces and historic spaces make for lovely and strong village centers, as I think both candidates do. I have a cordial personal relationship with both. I have a somewhat longer acquaintance with Jim Cote, but we certainly have plenty of disagreements in both style and substance.
But in Newton we have a carve-out for local representation in our ward councilors. We also live in a city where small issues that have an outsized impact on quality of life often get lost. Addressing those issues is where Jim’s heart is.
For instance, Jim sent me email on June 22, 2020 checking in because he remembered that the Franklin School neighborhood had had problems with illegal 4th of July fireworks keeping residents up at night in years past. He started out by saying Happy Father’s Day. That’s what Jim does.
Yes, he gets into some back and forth on some of the email lists, but he’s out there, unvarnished and engaging. You know what you get, and it seems he’ll still talk with you no matter what.
Before the last election, I said that I didn’t know if Julia Malakie could turn the corner from being a passionate advocate for the causes she champions to being a passionate advocate for all of us locals as Ward Councilor. This past year, one of the most difficult for ordinary people in this city in our lifetimes, hasn’t done much to convince me she has succeeded.
@Fig — Ward 3, and Newton as a whole, can certainly lose with Julia winning another term. Her comment, relayed through Pam Wright, questioning the need for an LGBTQ+ voice on zoning is disqualifying. As it also should be for Pam for even entertaining asking the question.
I applaud Jim for being open and honest about his stance here. I am comfortable on our local level to consider voting for someone with an R next to their name (in theory) if I am confident they are sensible, responsible, and deeply involved in our community and are running against a flawed candidate. Jim meets all of those qualifications and has an open disdain for Trump as the head of the Republican Party.
Where I am not comfortable is if a candidate with an R next to their name is a fervent supporter of Trump. I know this veers away from the discussion here a bit, but I implore you all to check out School Committee candidate Valerie Pontiff’s FEC contributions. Thousands of dollars to Trump and WinRed. Other than the Mayoral race, I am most excited to get to the polls to vote for Kathy Shields to stop Trumpism from finding its place on our school committee.
Thanks, Jerry. But I already knew who I’m not voting for.
BREAKING NEWS:
I am endorsing “Three for 3” in Ward 3:
Jim Cote, Ward Councilor
Andrea Kelley, Councilor-at-Large
Meryl Kessler, Councilor-at-Large
Not coincidentally, all three support Fair Housing in Newton. The other candidates in Ward 3, not so much.
@Don S. I agree on school committee and Pontiff being inappropriate for SC. I also encourage folks to look at the Ward 6 race and consider Paul Levy’s history in your decision. Many people seem to be unaware of his involvement with one of the largest gender discrimination lawsuits in MA. This matters, especially for a position where upholding a school and work environment free from all forms of discrimination is a central tenant.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/02/07/former-anesthesiology-chair-wins-million-from-beth-israel-deaconess-settle-gender-bias-suit/xABRwueY653KYqoYYkbk4J/story.html
Don, I suspected that this was a possibility with Valerie and looking at her donations that’s a lot of donations to Trump and WinRed. I’ve been pretty underwhelmed by most of the school committee incumbents especially after last year and was hoping to have some better choices in the contested races for school committee, but I’d be horrified if Valerie landed a spot on it.
I, too, am appaled that Valerie Pontiff donated to tRump but I did notice she donated a significant amount to Jake Auschincloss who I do like. Anyways school committee should be non partisan so I still plan to vote for Ms. Pontiff.
The way Kathy Shields botched the negotiations with the teachers union is automatically disqualifying in terms of competence. Some parents pointed out a fatal flaw that effectively gave the teachers union a veto on reopening schools fully. The School Committee then voted against its own agreement. The teachers union filed a complaint to the labor commission for bad faith negotation because of this.
@MMQC
I agree with you that it would be great to have some more options (to me the ward 7 race is no option), and I understand your frustration with the SC.
I know this might not be a shared view, but I would say we have a strong SC. I think they were thrown the most difficult situation, and by nature of our committee structure, did the best they could while juggling uncertainty in their personal and professional lives.
I also think Rajeev Parlikar is going to be a great addition to the SC. Much to be excited about in the city in the coming years!
… and here are Engine 6’s endorsements.
“At our meeting on Wednesday, we voted to endorse 11 candidates for City Council:
At-Large Councilors
Ward 1 – Alison Leary
Ward 3 – Andrea Kelley, Meryl Kessler
Ward 5 – Deb Crossley, Andreae Downs
Ward 6 – Alicia Bowman, Vicki Danberg
Ward-only Councilors
Ward 1 – Maria Scibelli Greenberg
Ward 3 – Jim Cote
Ward 5 – Bill Humphrey
Ward 6 – Brensa Noel
We based our decisions on the candidates’ responses to our questionnaire, their voting records (if incumbents), and their experience.”
@Tedd Hess-Mahan. I agree with your W3 slate but have trouble filling in the bubble for a republican.
I was also really disturbed to get John Oliver’s recent campaign email where he has aligned himself with the likes of Malakie, Norton, Rena Getz, Lisa Gordon, Deb Waller and Kevin Riffe. You can even get a package deal on their yard signs! I was on the fence about Oliver, but the people you hang with say a lot…he’s lost my vote!
In the words of Sean Roche…
Shocking.
@Jerry Reilly – great slate! Why don’t groups like Engine 6, RSN and Vibrant Newton endorse for SC? As @MaskedMama and @DonS pointed out…there is history with the candidates in the opposed races that progressive voters in Newton should know! Pontiff has aligned politically with Trump (donating to Auchincloss doesn’t count – he was a Republican at one time) and Levy is a notorious philanderer and abuser of power – being a soccer coach doesn’t make up for that!
@Jerry, seems like the Engine6 endorsements should have its own separate post!
@Masked Mama – Yes, I get the rationale for that but I’m wary of turning Village14 posts into an endless series of organizational endorsements posts between now and November.
I think instead I will re-jigger the post above to cover both.
Bruce Wang-
I agree that SC elections should be non-partisan. Pontiff contributed to both Auchincloss and Trump, seemingly polar opposite candidates. The valid question to Pontiff is does she agree with any of Trump’s views around education? I was planning to vote for her. However, if she does agree with any of Trump’s stances on education or those of his education secretary, I would not vote for her, despite the bungling response to learning by the SC during Covid.
I’d also be very concerned if she shared Trump’s views on COVID and if she fought against safety measures. I also wonder what her stance is on sex education. There are a lot of views that Trump supporters have that I really don’t want getting into our schools and I think we need these questions answered.
I’d be interested to know when she made the donation to the Trump campaign. I will give her the benefit of the doubt if it was early in the election cycle.
She donated several times to the Trump campaign, most recently in June 2020. Her most recent donation to WinRed was November.
@ Don – “I know this might not be a shared view, but I would say we have a strong SC”
Respectfully, what data or evidence is there to support this view? Here are the opposing facts:
(1) Newton lagged Lexington, Needham, Weston, Wellesley and Brookline in getting kids back to in-person school.
(2) Most Newton schools have suffered large drops in MCAS scores vs. 2019. MCAS disparities between NPS schools are widening.
(3) Hundreds of families have left NPS. With them goes political support and per student funding (eventually). Anecdotally, reasons for departure are dissatisfaction with (a) NPS’s handling of the pandemic, and (b) dropping academic standards at NPS.
@ Tim. Exactly. I think Don S. may have a direct line to RAF’s social media political campaign.
Tim, I’m not saying we have a strong SC, but the vast majority of folks leaving Newton schools are going to private schools which had the resources and facilities to stay in person all of last year. And MCAS scores dropped throughout the state last year, including in our peer communities. I’m eager for change on our SC and new blood, but also want to be honest about the challenges.
There were a number of heated Facebook discussion of how NPS seems to prioritize what some people call a “woke agenda” over STEM education. Maybe that’s driving some families to private schools.
@fig – other districts dropped, but Newton dropped more. See this link:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/09/21/metro/2021-mcas-math-english-results-grades-3-8-by-district/
This page has an aggregate of math and English data across grades 3-8, and adds up how many students Exceed or Meet Expectations in each district.
Short story: Newton is #30 in English, and #26 in math.
Weston: #3 and #5
Lexington: #11 and #4
Wellesley: #9 and #20
Brookline: #23 and #15
So we’re under-performing several peer districts.
Tim, I don’t think it is that simple. I don’t have the time to do a full analysis but the data is not consistent for each district, and you’d need to compare apples to apples which is hard to do. Also, with the exception of Brookline the rest aren’t comparable as school districts (far less poverty, school lunch, ESL, etc.) I understand that is how folks think of Newton due to our overall wealth and real estate asset class but the school population, especially on the North side is far more complex than those first three. Folks who read here a lot know I’m frustrated with Newton schools but I don’t think the analysis is right here
Tim – improving or maintaining test scores is not a stated goal of anyone having anything to do with NPS: administration, School Committee (including mayor), or NTA. There is voluminous public information available about what their goals are instead.
Thats a good point @fig. I think We are actually blowing our peers scores away because our population peers are Lawrence, Lynn, Somerville and Fall River. Brookline is the closest and that is still only 2/3 the population of Newton. Ask the last 10 mayors of Boston if its harder to run a big school district. There are problems with the Newton schools for sure but I think we will need probably different plans than the smaller towns use. Frankly its just a lot harder.
Newton Gun Violence Prevention Collaborative put out a nearly identical endorsement list. I looked at the surveys and they actually went against endorsing some candidates with language much stronger against gun violence. Like choosing to endorse Shawn Fitzgibbons over Paul Levy. Or Cote over Malakie. It strikes me as very odd. I don’t trust it one bit.
The group that endorsed Shawn Fitzgibbons is run by his wife and his campaign manager. Perhaps this is why Paul Levy failed to earn the endorsement despite his past anti-gun violence advocacy, which include public efforts to encourage hospital CEOs to become actively involved in gun control efforts and partnership with Mayor Menino to develop plans to protect community health centers and gun violence. Fitzgibbons’s wife and campaign manager did not preclude themselves from the endorsement process nor disclose potential bias in sharing the endorsement.
As the above commenter said, there is such a blatant Conflict of Interest in Newton Gun Violence Prevention Collaborative’s endorsement list. They should have at least disclosed this, and preferably should have stayed out of that race. This undermines any sense of integrity or reliability in their slate of endorsements.
What’s more, as mentioned above, is that Paul Levy actually has a substantive record of advocating for measures that would counteract our national gun epidemic at the local level.
@Mary Mary – I agree and you aren’t wrong to feel that way. That group (Newton Gun Violence Prevention) is run by Shawn Fitzgibbon’s wife and also his campaign manager running his School Committee race (2 out of 4 of the Facebook admins for that page). They don’t address the SC race above, but the Newton Gun Violence Prevention group does on Facebook and they have officially endorsed Shawn. It’s odd for sure and doesn’t sit well with me.
Additionally, on the Newton Gun Violence Prevention FB page, there appears to be a fake account slandering Paul Levy and spouting misinformation. When this was brought to the attention of the admins (Shawn Fitzgibbons wife and his campaign chair), it was ignored. The name on the account is not on Newton voter roles, Newton property records, and has no other online presence. There is no one with that name listed in the greater Boston area. The account was just created in last few days, has no friends and no profile information. It’s not definitive proof that its a fake account, but sure seems likely.
Also interesting that Newton Gun Violence Preventive Collaborative did not endorse candidates in every race so maybe they should have stayed out of enduring in this particular race due to the conflict. In their email on the decision they said:
“Our decisions were made based on candidates’ response to our survey, their support of 145-21, their thoughtful approach to legally defensible legislation and their view of effective gun control as including equal access to education, affordable housing, mental health services and social support systems. We also considered candidates’ past records and public statements in our assessment.”
Seems very subjective and having significant awareness of a spouses activities would seem to benefit that spouse.
I will give them props though for posting the candidates responses.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AB43QJqqLjL13GpHWg-o7FZuQ9FHUKRp1D4kFo378jo/edit
@MMQC, I’m not sure how having overlapping endorsement lists makes them untrustworthy. Voters for a Vibrant Newton also has the same endorsements. Just because you don’t like the endorsements of a group does not make them scandalous in some way.
@Newton Highlands Mom, Which contested races did they not endorse?
Their endorsement process seems pretty similar to that of other Newton advocacy groups (survey to candidates while considering other factors as well, only endorsing contested races). I’m glad more Newton advocacy groups are chiming in with their opinions.
I don’t dislike the endorsements. There are a few of these candidates that I plan to vote for. It just strikes me as very odd that they are all the same endorsements and some don’t even match the groups mission in terms of the gun group.
I don’t really see that. Re: Cote/Malakie – her answer reads like a ban support (which that group has made clear they oppose) and her answer on what else could be done was thin. His were too (video games?), but I think his strong opposition to a ban probably gained him points. Fitzgibbons was clear on his opposition to a ban and his answers around what he could do on School Comm. were much more robust than Paul’s, which seemed focused on building security, a narrow view of gun violence prevention.
“Hundreds of families have left NPS. With them goes political support and per student funding (eventually). Anecdotally, reasons for departure are dissatisfaction with (a) NPS’s handling of the pandemic, and (b) dropping academic standards at NPS.”
That’s a good way to get affordable housing.
Rick,
True, high property prices requires 3 things
1. Close to job center/commerce
2. Very low crime
3. Excellent schools
Take away point 2 or 3 and you will have noticeable drop in home prices
School Committee candidate Shawn Fitzgibbon’s wife creates an advocacy group in response to the gun shop, then endorses candidates including her own husband, and does not think it worthwhile to even DISCLOSE that she’s endorsing her own husband? I didn’t even bother filling out their survey because of how biased the whole thing obviously was, in fact people who signed up on the gun group website found themselves added to Shawn’s campaign email distribution list. Which should surprise no one, because when Shawn was head of the Newton Democrats, he used their list to endorse one Democrat (my opponent at the time) against another Democrat (me). How do I know this? Because my MOTHER got an endorsement email from Shawn. When she asked him what list he used, he said “my friends.” And to that she said, in front of a large group of people at a Newton Dems meeting, “Shawn, I’m Emily’s mother. I’m not your friend.”
Anyway from what I can tell talking to voters, they’re interested in whichever candidate will do a better job holding NPS accountable, keeping our kids in school, setting high academic standards, and restoring faith in our school system, and that candidate is Paul Levy.
I was very turned off when I received email communication from Shawn without opting in. Further, I don’t get the impression that he’s that passionate about school committee.
Also the gun violence collaborative has a blatantly phony profile in there to talk up the endorsements and disparage people like Julia Malakie. The admins were told but they didn’t remove the fake profile. Sketchy af.
Councilor Norton and MMQC:
Hard for me to get outraged over email lists. I didn’t give either Tarik or John Oliver my email address, and I still got added to both campaign’s emails from my recollection (I only vaguely remember John’s emails towards the end of the campaign, but perhaps it got forwarded to me) (as well as Bryan’s and Maddie’s emails for that matter). SO MANY EMAILS. I’m pretty sure Tarik must have grabbed the Newtonville Area Council’s list, since it went to an account I rarely use in Newton except for that type of organization. That was annoying, but only because I would have liked to have read his thoughts too. I didn’t give permission for any of it.
I’m also not upset by any of it. We all get so much spam I doubt most folks pay attention to it, and clearly most folks are taking whatever email lists they can get, and email lists get shared, and many emails are public for Newton voters. If I got upset every time my emails got shared, I would go through the day pretty bitter, angry and vindictive about all those that have wronged me. Life is too short and my email addresses are far too widely known…
I’m also somehow on the Republican party email list, and Donald Trump sent me a delightful plastic credit card (solid gold color of course). That was hilarious. Did you know I’m the future of the republican party and Donald has extended a personal invitation for me to join the Gold Club? It was a rare moment of hilarity in a crappy year. (I am not a Republican).
As for Shawn and the gun control advocacy group, the email I saw disclosed the conflict from my recollection. Also, just to be blunt, I don’t really look for those folks for advice for school committee, and I’m waiting to hear what both Shawn and Paul have to say in a debate. Sorry Newton Gun Violence Prevention folks!
I WAS interested in reading what Newton Gun Violence Prevention folks thought about regarding City Council elections and the Mayor, and I found their picks for city council to be a bit surprising, especially Jim Cote over Julia. I’d be interested in seeing who they support for Mayor.
They’ll support Fuller. I don’t know why they’re playing this game of holding out with the mayoral endorsement. The admins are all vocal Fuller supporters and Kate (Shawn’s wife and the lead admin) has said that Amy was detrimental to their cause and picked several fights with Amy directly in the group.
Fig: would you have the same sanguine reaction about use of email lists if instead of an anti-gun group we were talking about – say – a group for abused children, or a group for terminal cancer patients? Some of us have had firsthand experience with the damage gun violence can cause. The founders of that group had an obligation to treat their stated mission with the utmost care and respect. Now we’re talking about fake online profiles, questionable surveys and use of email addresses for campaigning, and divisive political endorsements when the Newton city council voted 23-1 to keep the gun shop out, and nobody believes the Newton school system is the place where gun control advocacy is most needed. Imagine if all this energy were put toward actual gun control efforts at the state or national level. It’s a shame because there was a good deal of unity across many different types of people when that group started, and I do believe at least some of their founders are genuinely committed to gun control.
Adam B.: Honestly, I no longer believe my email address will be kept private by anyone, and the email lists seem to be shared frequently across political campaigns. I’m not picking sides here, and as I’ve mentioned, I’ve gotten added to folks on all sides of the political spectrum. I just can’t get too outraged about this. As for the fake online profiles, that happens all the time too, although often times folks who don’t like someone’s opinion accuse them of being a political plant for one side or the other. As for questionable surveys, they released the survey questions and responses, so I’m good on that.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t a mistake for the gun control group, because all this discussion probably does break from a focus on their mission. I was fine with them pushing out city council and mayor recommendations. But I’d prefer a focus on gun violence with political races a distant second.
Their endorsement of Julia Malakie over Jim Cote was also absurd. Julia actually went and videotaped all the locations where a gun store could be located so that her constituents could have a crystal clear understanding of the implications of the new zoning rules. Of course I also think their opposition to me is ridiculous since I favor banning gun stores entirely and have been quite out front about that, but we will have that debate at the City Council when the ban comes up again to the Programs and Services Committee where hopefully there will actually be a full discussion listening to all sides, which has not been permitted yet.
Whoops I mistyped that – I meant to write “Jim Cote over Julia Malakie”. Clearly 11:42PM is too late for me to be posting!
I like Julia Malakie and Jim Cote based on my interactions with both. But, they are very problematic candidates.
Julia has been a very vocal opponent of progressive housing policies, most notably with her no vote on the Fair Housing proclamation. And, despite his kind of middle-of-the-road record as a city councilor, Jim remains a registered member of the political party that is, across the country, trying to limit ballot access, strip women of bodily autonomy, reverse LGBTQ+ gains, block action on climate change, and continue a decades-long transfer of wealth to the wealthiest. Add on the participation in and defense of the January 6 attack on the capital.
Jim, I frankly find this comment offensive: “My thoughts are that Julia like me, won’t change registration status just because the winds of politics have changed.” It’s not the winds of politics, it’s the very clearly expressed values of the party that have changed (if one is being very, very, very generous to late 20th-Century Republicans).
Ultimately, I would recommend voting for Jim because he’s going to do less damage as a city councilor, but as long as he can’t clearly see the problems with maintaining Republican registration, my heart won’t be in it.
“Ultimately, I would recommend voting for Jim because he’s going to do less damage as a city councilor,”
I truly hope that most Newton voters aren’t one-issue voters like Sean. Jim Cote has parroted racist untruths and actively identifies with the party of Trump while trying to attract its voters. If that’s who you prefer in local office because of one issue you disagree with Julia while likely agreeing on much else, then that’s a shame.
Thanks @Newton Highlands Mom for sharing the Gun Violence Prevention Collaborative candidate responses.
Former Councilor Cote’s answers to question #2 raise a question and concern for me as a Ward 3 voter.
He asserts, “As a 3-term member of the Council, I can attest that the 16 votes necessary to open a Gun Store in Newton would be a political impossibility. As the Council votes in the best interests and wishes of the public, approving a Special Permit within this docket item is actually a ban, without calling it a ban.”
Given the Collaborative’s decision not to endorse candidates like Councilors Pam Wright and Julia Malakie sho supported 145-21 this past Spring and amendments to strengthen it apparently out of concern that stronger restrictions may not be ‘legally defensible’, their acceptance of Jim’s ‘this docket item is actually a ban’ comment is surprising.
Assertions like this could expose Newton to future legal challenges that 145-21 is a ban if a special permit application for a gun store is denied.
This statement also seems a little careless for a candidate touring his experience as a reason to vote for him.
Dear Councilor Norton,
I am not at all concerned about the accusations of bias or nepotism being directed at our group’s endorsement process, as I believe the candidates’s survey answers speak for themselves. However, I would like to address your accusation that Newton Gun Violence Prevention Collaborative shared our email list with any political campaigns. We made a promise to our supporters that we would keep their email addresses and all personal information private. With the exception of one early BCC blunder (we were all learning how to run a large group in a trial by fire), our contact list has never been shared with anyone outside of the NGVPC leadership team or used for any purpose other than gun violence prevention activism. While we may disagree on certain issues, I hope that we can work for the common cause of gun violence prevention. Attempting to undermine trust in the operations of our organization is antithetical to that goal.
Respectfully,
Kate PW, Founder – Newton Gun Violence Prevention Collaborative