In her comment on Village 14 about the email attacking Jim Cote, City Councilor Julia Malakie accused Council President Susan Albright of misquoting Councilor Pam Wright and her on a West Newton Google Group thread. At issue is a question that Councilor Wright asked on Councilor Malakie’s behalf at a May 24, 2021, Zoning and Planning Committee meeting. Councilor Wright asked the question during a discussion of village center visioning and the planning department’s efforts to do community outreach to groups who might not otherwise participate in the visioning.
In the comment, Councilor Malakie wrote:
Back to Newton. The fake Republican email was becoming a thing on the West Newton Google Group on Monday. Along with an attack comment on me by Susan Albright in which she put in quotes something neither Pam Wright nor I said, that Susan posted either on the not-really-closed WNGG thread about the fake Republican email, or maybe a new thread — I may never have time to sort that out.
On the Google Group thread, Council President Albright wrote:
2. In one ZAP meeting, we learned from the Planning Department that they were planning to reach out to underrepresented groups to hear their feelings on Newton’s villages. The special focus groups included renters, people with disabilities, young families, and LBGTQ people. During that meeting, Julia was not there but she sent in a question via Pam Wright. Her question-given voice by Pam was “Why do LBGTQ people deserve their own focus group?”. That question disgusted me. I made my mind up then and there that if there was a strong candidate to run against Julia i would support that person.
At the ZAP meeting, Councilor Wright said:
Thank you, Madame Chair. I’m actually asking a couple of questions from Councilor Malakie who’s in Finance right now on the budget. And, what she wanted to know is, one of the things is what makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people want something different from zoning than straight people? ‘Cause you do call them out.
(Embedding Vimeo with start times is a bit finicky. The relevant portion starts at 2:35:26 in.)
There’s no question that Council President Albright did not accurately quote Councilor Wright’s exact words on behalf of Councilor Malakie. Councilors at the meeting, however, heard the substance of the question the way Council President Albright did.
At 2:27:20, Councilor Holly Ryan responded, ending her comments: “I’m sorry that my friend Councilor Wright had to ask that question for another councilor. But, I’m pretty outraged by it.”
At 2:31:40, Councilor Alicia Bowman responded, echoing Councilor Ryan and saying, in part: “And, I’m surprised that in 2021 that we have to talk about the fact that we need to have a special focus on people who are marginalized. And, that yes, we have marginalized communities.”
Following Councilor Bowman’s comments, ZAP Chair, Councilor Deb Crossley said: “Thank you, Councilor Bowman. I couldn’t agree more. Thank you.”
Gail Spector expressed her outrage — “WTF???” — in this v14 post a few weeks after the meeting. In a comment to that post, Councilor Bill Humphrey explained how marginalized communities are underrepresented in land-use discussions and provided some examples of how zoning can have a specific, negative impact on LGBTQ+ people.
Sean thank you for this post. In my opinion this is far more egregious then Emily Norton stuffing flyers in mail boxes after dark.
This thread is not about whether GLBTQ community has anything to add to the zoning conversation.
On election eve, when she knew Julia wouldn’t have a chance to respond Susan sent an email to the West Newton listserv.
She straight up edited Julia’s words, calling her question ‘disgusting’ and accused her of not supporting LGBTQ and marginalized groups.
Julia’s asked, ‘What makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people want something different from zoning than straight people?’
Susan edited Julia’s question to read, “Why do LGBTQ people deserve their own focus group?”
She then says, “That question disgusted me.”
link to Susan’s email is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IRGPCanniFsEI2oXrKpFX-WrthuOTszbczny_Mkgn0M/edit?usp=drivesdk
Susan, unless there’s more to this, unless you have additional evidence of Julia being anti LGBTQ, the remarks in your email are simply dishonest.
Furthermore, it’s disgusting that you used a marginalized group to make political points.
Honesty matters. Words matter. The truth matters.
For those of you expressing frustration with the tone and tenor of Newton politics and asking how we can do better, this is what it looks like.
We need to call out and cancel bad behavior. Politics is Newton is no longer a blood sport. I’m taking a stand for that and encourage everyone to do the same.
Personally I’d like an explanation for why you thought this was ok?
Mike,
I don’t usually comment on the why of my posts. They should speak for themselves. And, I would spend hours responding to everyone who has a media criticism. I prefer to address the substance of the posts.
But, I want to make an exception to respond to your post that starts “Sean thank you …”
I posted this exactly because Councilor Malakie raised a question of fact — did Councilor Albright misquote here? — that could be addressed looking at a) what Councilor Malakie alleged, b) what Councilor Albright wrote (which is not in Councilor Malakie’s comment), and c) what Councilor Wright actually said — verbatim. On the question of fact, Councilor Malakie scores a point. What Councilor Albright put in quotation marks are not the words that Councilor Wright spoke. Which opens up a question of interpretation. And, on that I find Councilor Albright well within the bounds of fair, especially given Councilors Ryan’s, Bowman’s, and Crossley’s immediate responses.
But, I’ve laid out everyone’s exact words for you to come to your own conclusion.
As for your point that it was an election-eve ambush, Councilor Malakie has had months to explain the question, apologize for the question, or both. That she didn’t is what made her vulnerable on election eve.
I agree that Albright’s message was inappropriate, and I hope she apologizes. Her attitude, and that expressed in many V14 posts, is exactly why there’s a backlash against Democrats across the country.
I am kind of glad I missed this whole “outrage” back in June. It is disheartening to see that, instead of asking Julia follow up questions about what she meant or sharing their opinion with her about why she may be wrong, people chose to get offended and accuse her of bias. We can never have a productive discussion about anything with these attitudes. It’s also pretty clear that Susan is using this to score political points against Julia.
Sean you deserve credit for posting this,
@Mike: I believe there’s a big difference between a negative signed email sent by an elected official in a campaign’s final hours, vs one by an elected official delivered covertly, don’t you?
Here’s a link to the exact 10 minute or segment in question and a separate link to City Councilor Alicia Bowman’s concluding comment here.
The part that troubled me at the time of this meeting was why Councilor Wright didn’t decline to ask Councilor Malakie’s question in her absence.
Why didn’t she say: “Julia that’s not an appropriate question and you should thank me for not asking it.”
Greg seems to be the only person in town that knows who sent the “negative signed email”
“Julia’s asked, ‘What makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people want something different from zoning than straight people?’
Susan edited Julia’s question to read, “Why do LGBTQ people deserve their own focus group?””
Those are 2 completely different questions.
want something different vs deserve is apples and oranges Greg.
Rick,
The whole point of the question was the need to have a focus group for LGBTQ+ folks. Councilor Malakie questioned the need for an LGBTQ+ focus group because she questioned whether or not they would have different needs than straight people. That’s what ties Councilor Malakie’s words to Councilor Albright’s version.
Councilor Malakie’s question both fundamentally misunderstands the point of outreach — to talk to marginalized groups and to find out first if they have different needs than straight (and white and home-owning) people and, if so, what they are — and denies the need to speak to marginalized groups.
The most sympathetic read of the question is that Councilor Malakie just didn’t understand and wanted clarification. If so, she would have been much better off not having the question asked in public and through a proxy.
Mike Ciolini and others:
Mike, I usually love your posts, but I strongly disagree with you here. First of all, I’d say in questions like this, we should probably listen to folks in the community in question. You could have listened to Councilor Ryan, who immediately called out Julia’s proxy question, and said it was outrageous. You ignore that here. Why?
Just because you didn’t find it outrageous, doesn’t mean others in that community didn’t. Multiple family members of mine belong in that community, and the fact that Julia questioned the need for that focus group and not others was noticed. It was a question she could have easily asked Councilor Ryan separately. I’m also sure some local members of the LGBTQ community could have discussed with her. She questioned it in a public forum. You might not have found that offensive. I do. Councilor Ryan did too.
I’ll also note that Councilor Albright made the post under her own name, and that the issue was discussed on this forum and others. As far as I know Councilor Malakie never apologized or tried to explain why she felt the need to call out the LGBTQ focus group as the only one that was unnecessary because “what makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people want something different from zoning than straight people”.
Look, I have always thought well of Julia Malakie. And I think she isn’t anti-LGBTQ, or hateful, or anything like that. I would guess that there is a bit of a generational gap here. It is a comment that my parents or folks of their generation would make, without thinking through the impact of their statement. And I understand it from them. I just would prefer my city councilors, in advance of a meeting where they had the forethought to WRITE OUT THEIR QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED BY SOMEONE ELSE, maybe approach folks privately to ask that question instead of saying it in a public forum and making that community feel a bit more marginalized.
I realize folks can disagree on this issue, but I’ve been living it with someone close to me recently and words and statements like these matter.
Just trying to give you my perspective on the issue, and maybe some perspective on the Susan Albright post as well.
Just my thoughts,
@ fig this is about twisting around peoples words to mean something totally different and as you even say not representing what they probably meant to say. That’s the crime here
Jackson Joe:
I know you don’t agree with me on this, but how Susan Albright phrased it is EXACTLY how I interpreted Julia’s comment to be. I know she didn’t mean it that way, because I’ve come to know and like Julia on this forum. But it certainly is no crime to call her out on what she said. If all you have is that Susan Albright didn’t quote her directly, you are ignoring the feelings of Councilor Ryan and folks like me. And again, Julia never apologized that I heard of. A bit of a pattern, come to think of it… (if she did apologize, someone please post it, because I’ll happily retract what I’m posting and it would make me feel better about Julia’s actions.
Part of the problem honestly is the proxy nature of what occurred. Councilor Wright was put in a bind. Tough to apologize for someone else’s words, tough to give nuance or context when it is someone else’s question.
I’m doing my best to be fair here, but honestly not Julia’s best moment. I’m not sure she understood how folks outside of her circle took her question. Maybe she just thought it was political. It wasn’t for me.
To amplify Fig (and Greg), if Councilor Malakie meant something other than what Councilors Ryan, Bowman, and Crossley understood in the moment and had conveyed that clearly enough to Councilor Wright beforehand, maybe Councilor Wright could have clarified the question after Councilors Ryan, Bowman, and Crossley had responded. Either Councilors Ryan, Bowman, and Crossley (and Albright) correctly understood the intent of the question or Councilor Malakie worded the question poorly and either failed to prepare Councilor Wright or made a mistake in choosing Councilor Wright as a proxy.
At a minimum, she handled a sensitive topic very poorly. And, instead of trying to apologize for the impact and try to explain herself, she claims she’s a victim of Councilor Albright’s misuse of quotation marks.
She actually accurately described councilor Malakie’s concerning statement questioning why we would have a separate housing forum for the LGBTQ+ community. Which, if you took 5 minutes to research, you would know has some serious and unique housing challenges, particularly around homeless youth and senior housing.
By the way, this also wasn’t an offhand comment, she felt strongly enough about questioning this to ask another councilor to pass along her question, but clearly not enough to ask any of her LGBTQ+ colleagues, LGBTQ+ Advocacy groups, Or just spend 5 minutes google “LGBTQ+ housing issues”.
Fig I have family members from the LGBTQ community too but I didn’t see Julia’s question equating to “Why do LGBTQ people deserve their own focus group?”.
I don’t have a problem with someone objecting to the original question or better yet asking for clarification but I think to interpret the question that way was a bit of a stretch.
I like accuracy.
and I do respect your opinions even if I disagree with them
Sometimes intent matters less than impact. It seems that Julia’s question offended folks and allies in the LGBTQ+ community. Only Julia can speak it her intent, but the impact was unfortunate. Someone isn’t written off as a “bad” person if they offend another, but let’s not try to rationalize that the question should or shouldn’t offend people. The fact is it did.
Thanks Jackson Joe. I admit to being a bit emotional about this particular issue due to some family events this past year. So entirely possible I’m seeing it through that lens.
Ok, I’m off for a long bit. Enjoy the weekend all.
I think there’s a piece missing from this discussion. If you look at video right around 2h01m into the presentation, you’ll see a slide that Nevena Pilipovic-Wengler from Planning is presenting. It shows the special focus groups that the zoning visioning effort was approaching. One of the groups listed (in addition to younger and older people, people with disabilities, black and indigenous people of color, and others) was LGBTQ+, with a note that this outreach was being made in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission.
The question of that focus group led to the question from Councilor Malakie through Councilor Wright. I believe this was a question on a sensitive topic that needed to be expressed sensitively, but was handled awkwardly. It really should not have been relayed through another speaker. Had Councilor Malakie been present, she could have been questioned and could have explained directly her intended meaning.
Yes, the issue of a focus group for LGBTQ+ people and the question asked (“what makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people want something different from zoning than straight people?”) are different. But the focus group *was the topic of conversation* so it’s not that hard to understand why the two were conflated.
Misunderstandings happen when potentially sensitive subjects are not handled with the deference they deserve, and that’s exactly what happened here. It could also have been clarified later by Councilor Malakie. If that clarification happened, it didn’t get widely circulated.
By the way, Ms. Pilipovic-Wengler handled the question perfectly: Planning had no assumption that their answers will be different, but the guidance from the Metropolitan Area Planning Council was to do focused outreach to traditionally marginalized communities.
(And I wrote my comment without reading Sean’s.)
A simple statement along the lines of “I am sorry if anyone was offended, my intent was to get educated on the issue, not to offend anyone” would go a long way. Instead, crickets. The question could be read either way, and could easily have been garbled by funneling it through a third party. Staying silent just fuels suspicion and division, things we have far too much of already. Councilor Humphrey’s response was perfect – respectful and informative and I am glad he was around to provide it.
As a member of the LGBT+ community myself, I found the question a bit off-putting but not necessarily offensive. Sometimes these days we assume people are more educated about the LGBT+ community than they actually are, and just need some more information to understand what the issues are. I’m happy to give councilor Malakie the benefit of the doubt but I wish she would just reach out and confirm her intent.
No question that this was one ugly election. But one councilor took it to a level not seen before. In the coming days, an open dialogue about civility is definitely in order and how Councilor Malakie chose to present her statement as well as the response to it is in order.
Campaigns are tough and it’s the likely reason so few people want to run for elected office. But Newton hit tock bottom last weekend with an anonymous email about Jim Cote and a sitting councilor delivering a anonymous flyer associating him with Trump. It’s still unclear to me whether the angry photo of Trump with clenched fists was on the flyer or the email, but the two incidents combined brought this election to a new low.
Until the incidents from last weekend are thoroughly vetted, everything else should wait. This just muddies the water. First things first.
I don’t question either Julia Malakie’s or Susan Albright’s intent. I do think both made a mistake, though without any nefarious motives. I think both could help clear the air with an acknowledgement that they now realize that they screwed up … so we can all move on.
Julia for mailing in via a colleague, the rather provocative question on a loaded subject without perhaps running it past members of the affected group.
Susan for sloppily paraphrasing but presenting it as a direct quote. Whether or not others may have understood Julia’s question the same way is beside the point. Adding the word “deserve” definitely changes the literal meaning of Julia’s words, on a loaded topic.
There is a distinction between what counselor Albright posted vs a discussion around GLBT+ issues and how they relate to zoning, vs how Julia’s question was asked, and what she intended.
I’ll address each separately.
1- Counselor Albright’s email on election eve. misquoted Julia’s question for her own benefit. That’s wrong any way you slice it. I asked counselor Albright to give some context or explanation and we have heard nothing.
2- If Councilors Ryan, Bowman, Crossley, and others interpreted Julia’s question to be insensitive to the LGBT community, they need to educate themselves.
I came out in 1982 in the midst of the AIDS crisis, marched on Washington in 1992, was an adult advisor to BAGLY (gay youth), bought a condo in 3-3 in 2004, and have sat on board for both CANDO and the Newton Chamber, and as KIWANIS Club president, I lead the discussion against raising $ for the Boy Scouts.
Not only was I not offended, but I also had the exact same question. It sure wasn’t obvious to me how GLBT+ issues related to zoning, and I was curious what people were thinking.
3- I commend Julia for her attempt at contributing to two meetings on my behalf, and I have never known her to not be supportive of my life. Whether her question was worded poorly or delivered poorly is inconsequential. With no prior indication of being unsupportive, I take her question at face value with no added innuendo.
It seems to me that some of you are too woke for your own good, and weaponizing your wokeness for political gain is just well, ugly.
Mike,
Councilor Ryan is transgender and a long-time LGBTQ+ advocate. I’m pretty sure she’s “educated” enough.
Maybe it’s possible that different LGBTQ+ folks and their allies legitimately have different understandings. Councilors Ryan, Bowman, Crossley, and Albright also have the benefit of having worked with Councilor Malakie.
Sean, I thanked you for your post because I was in process of writing a guest post that begin “I don’t expect Sean to post on this topic, so I’ll do it myself” 🙂
Thank you for posting this topic.
It’s impressive how the Susan Albright defenders have no problem with Councilor Albright sending a patently false email on the afternoon before the election while at the same time maligning Councilor Norton for sending out a flyer with factual direct quotes three days before the election.
If Albright was really so offended by Malakie’s question months before this email was sent, couldn’t she have asked her to explain what she meant by the question? If anyone knows Councilor Malakie, and I assume Councilor Albright does better than most, Councilor Malakie doesn’t have a mean or biased bone in her body.
Maybe the question wasn’t the best question by Malakie, but to suddenly accuse her of being bigoted based upon a single question is ridiculous. Doesn’t Malakie‘a lifetime of good deeds mean something?
It’s clear Albright was trying to sabotage Malakie’s election chances. One should be very very careful when throwing out highly inflammatory accusations. Albright made a serious mistake.
It would be appropriate for Albright to issue a public apology to Malakie.
Thank you.
Sean, Of course, it’s possible that different LGBTQ+ folks and their allies legitimately have different understandings, and I always have room to listen and learn. In fact, that is exactly why I appreciated Councilor Malakie’s question.
I don’t know Councilors Ryan, Bowman, Crossley personally, however, anyone who can’t understand the value of that question needs to take a step back. You can’t expect everyone to meet your level of understanding on every issue.
If Councilors Ryan, Bowman, Crossley, and Albright have something of substance they want to share that points to Councilor Malakie’s insensitivity, they should do that. I’ll listen. For me, what Councilor Albright shared in that email didn’t make that point, it made me question her integrity.
This is all out context once again.
I spoke to Councilor Malakie after that meeting. The intent of of the question was to find out why LGBTQ people would have different zoning requirements from any other group of people. She was at another meeting at the time and was unable to clarify.
RE “Councilor Malakie doesn’t have a mean or biased bone in her body.”
As Jason says, discrimination is about impact, not intent. Personally, I would be satisfied if sometime in the months since that incident occurred, Julia had apologized or shown any interest in learning more about our community’s housing concerns.
One can argue all day about the intent behind Councilor Malakie’s question and its impact. IMO, that is not the point here.
Councilor Albright sent out a last minute email with quotation marks around words that were not a quotation. If she had sent the same email but with the correct quote, people could have decided for themselves whether or not they found that question offensive and whether it affected their choice of whom to vote for.
What Councilor Albright did was wrong. She should apologize for misquoting Councilor Malakie, especially the day before where there was virtually no time for a response.
Intent has less importance than impact…I’m not sure I agree with that statement. If someone’s intent is to be malicious then that is much different than someone being unaware. If someone’s intent is to find understanding shouldn’t they be educated rather than vilified (maybe too strong a term but the best I could come up with). You can see on this thread that Mike Ciolino who has self identified as LGBQ+ had a different reaction than Holly Ryan so I’m not sure the impact is the same for every LBBQ+ person.. Obviously communication should have been clearer on this matter and it is too bad that Councilor Malakie was not present at the meeting so that she could have clarified why she was asking her question. If Councilor Albright wanted to make an issue of this then she should have quoted Councilor Malakie correctly.
I obviously do not live in this Ward so I had no candidate in this race. I just think it stinks that people are taking such divisive paths.
I think Holly Ryan will acknowledge that I’ve been sensitive to the unrelenting pain, guilt, bullying, anguish and loneliness that folks with sexual identity challenges are saddled with long before they take the plunge to break the chains of this hellish bondage and become who they really are. And I knew about Holly’s anguish and the anguish of others well before this became a mainstream topic for discussion.
That said, I’ve been wanting to say something since this whole episode involving Julia came to public visibility a few months back. First of all, Julia raised the question of specific LBGTQ needs only in terms of refashioning our village centers. I’m pretty familiar with discrimination practices against the gay community, but, I, too, would not have fathomed distinct needs or obstacles in terms of those village centers I know best. I’m a member of the Newton Highlands Area Council and might have asked the exact question as Julia did in reference to unique LGBTQ needs within the Lincoln Street corridor and adjacent streets. And I would have tried to act on those that were identified. I’m certain Julia would have, too.
What disturbed me most were the calls for Julia to resign from the Council, apologize publicly and several other taunts i found puzzling and disturbing. It sounded more like a lynch mob than a reasoned discussion among adults until Bill Humphrey and Ted Hess Mahan brought some reasoned and calming comments back into the discussion. Go back and read these initial comments if you doubt what I say here. They were shameful and disgusting and none of them really fingered specifically what Julia said in her question that so upset everyone. They could have taken what was really an opportunity to talk about specific LGBTQ needs in village centers and brought them front and center. All Julia really did was to ask a question for something she didn’t have the answer for. Adlai Stevenson once said that democracy begins to die when people stop asking questions because of fear, intimidation or alienation from the political process. Tyrants always try to smother embarrassing questions or punish those that raise them. Many gifted political leaders and moral leaders other than Stevenson have voiced similar concerns and they are particularly relevant now with what’s happening in so many parts of this country. Newton has no tyrants, but what happened to Julia was still disturbing. We have to talk better with those we disagree with much better than we currently do.
Bob, you seem to be stirring the pot, here.
I went back to the old thread and this one. No one has called on Councilor Malakie to resign. One commenter said she and Councilor Wright should be voted out of office in the next election. Which seems to be exactly the correct democratic response to what hears from a public official in public.
And, how is calling for an apology a “taunt”?
You say that this could have been an “an opportunity to talk about specific LGBTQ needs in village centers.” That was exactly the purpose of identifying LGBTQ+ for outreach!! The very purpose that Councilor Malakie questioned!!
I am so sick and tired of people defending white, straight people in power against well-founded complaints about their ignorance and/or insensitivity.
Bob Burke, you are seeing this mostly from the perspective of Julia, which I can appreciate. Here is a question I’d like to have answered:
Knowing that Holly Ryan (among others in the moment) was outraged by the question, did Julia and Holly ever discuss the topic again? Did Julia, knowing she had outraged her fellow council member, go to Holly and try and explain why she asked the question? I really don’t know the answer to that question, and I’d like to know.
Lots of well meaning folks on the thread are defending Julia, and saying it was just a misunderstanding, and that there was no intent to offend, or that they were no offended. And I’ve watched the video again, and I can understand that, especially since someone else is reading the question, somewhat awkwardly. It wasn’t my first impression, but I can understand it.
Did Julia ever try and discuss the topic with Holly Ryan? If there was a gap of understanding, did she ever try and bridge that gap?
I don’t ask out of some desire to win an argument here, because that really doesn’t matter. I ask because if that didn’t happen, it tells me something about the city council, and the individual city councilors in question.
V14: We need to hear more LGBTQ+ voices.
Mike Ciolino: Offers his perspective.
V14: No, not like that!!
MMQC,
Who said anything remotely close to “No, not like that!!”?
Mike’s initial contribution to this thread was to tell us that Holly Ryan a
transgenderedtransgender, long-time LGBTQ+ advocate, who is among the very firsttransgenderedtransgender legislators in the entire country needs “to educate” herself. He caught some flack. And, he has, to his credit, shifted to a more there-are-lots-of-LGBTQ+-perspectives tone.Happy to have his perspective. But, he, like everyone else, might find that he has to defend himself.
I wish we had a like button MMQC. We would have way fewer redundant posts
MMQC:
There are quite a few folks posting with LGBTQ+ perspective on this thread, not just Mike. Are we not allowed to speak too? I actually think this has been a pretty respectful and open thread (which your comment does not fit into)
@fignewtonville I don’t know Holly specifically. I do know that LGBTQ people come in all flavors and colors under the sun. Liberal, progressive, conservative, and everywhere in between.
As a community LGBTQ people don’t have one shared point of view. The end game is that we are all treated equally, allowed to love who we want, and not be discriminated against. No one person can speak for or represent all of us.
Some in the LGBTQ community experience trauma, violence, abandonment, and even death, and some LGBTQ communities have more needs than others.
In my 23 years living and owning a business here in Newton, I can’t recall having even one bad experience. For me being LGBTQ in my adult years has been easy. (not so much my teen and early adulthood) so, I just can’t see how anyone could be outraged by Julia’s question alone. There is either more to the story or a toxic level of politically driven animosity amongst our counselors.
But as I shared before, at face value, the question Julia asked is one that I as an LGBTQ person also would certainly have asked. There may in fact be issues we can address here that are related to being LGBTQ – Unfortunately, we wasted the day away with this.
@ Fig. Communication goes both ways. Holly could just have easily initiated the convo with Julia.
Lisa,
It is not the obligation of the marginalized to educate the marginalizing.
@MMQC ❤ ❤
@Fig.. I’m not seeing this through Julia’s perspective, but from my own shocked reaction when I started reading the comments from people calling for her to resign or be removed from the Council by some other manner. there’s kind of a fudging here because there is at least an inference by some that Julia was speaking about things adversely affecting the LGBTQ community as a whole while, in fact, her question related only to the village centers. I also noted that I might have had the same question about the Highlands Village Square and I’d hate to think I’d be pilloried if I did so.
I highly respect and immensely like both Julia and Holly. I’d be happy to throw my home open to both of them if they would like to talk and find common ground.
I believe that Julia Malakie said what she said, and meant it.
In other words “They are who we thought they were.”
@The Rapscallion Stallion
Is my word not good enough?
@Simon French, it is not your word I am questioning. It is Julia Malakie’s. And she is who we thought she was.
One would think that as you say one of the first transgendered legislators in the country would welcome the opportunity to educate.
I don’t think the issue that should be up for debate here is what Councilor Malakie said or her intent. That should have been put to bed back in May when it happened. (And yes, her words definitely deserved clarification then.)
The issue that is troubling NOW, though, is that Councilor Albright misrepresented C. Malakie’s words and sent out an end of day email, just before the election, seemingly with the hopes of swaying voters away form C. Malakie. A “gotcha” that was about six months in the making. That seems to be the issue to me.
@ANP agree. Where are the calls for censure for Albright? Where are the calls for her to step down as The President?
Until relatively recently it was considered inappropriate for elected officials to endorse or otherwise influence CC elections, never mind slates and PACs. Can’t some of this be legislated, like the OML laws? It would go a long way to stop the bitter divisions in the city.
Sean, I’m sick and tired of well meaning people being bullied for their ignorance by those who think they know better.
.
Intent does matter and I think that’s the crux of this entire conversation.
I also think this is why I’m always at odds with my progressive friends. I don’t believe you can bully people into believing … for not knowing.
For example, understanding trans people was a lot of work for me. I finally arrived at a place where it makes sense and I can even celebrate it.
If I was single and dating I would absolutely be open to dating a trans man – Not something I would have said even 2 years ago.
This progression was only possible through the courage and patience of trans friends and their willingness to answer my awkward questions.
Mike,
Bullied has a very specific meaning. You are misusing it to the detriment of those who are truly bullied.
I am genuinely moved by your comments on
transgenderedtransgender people. I am of a certain age and I talk frequently with my children about my awkward feelings abouttranstransgender people when I was in my teens and how nicely they just accept and includetranstransgender people in their world. Progress.Ending discrimination requires both the kind of one-on-one discussions you’ve had and making it clear, especially to elected officials, that public bigotry, insensitivity, and ignorance will not be tolerated.
This discussion goes to show how polarized the City Council truly is. You have two camps much the same as the US Congress. I hope when the Council meets to elect their next President they can elect someone that can bridge the divide. All the infighting and posturing needs to stop. Let’s not lose sight that Councilors were elected to serve the citizens of Newton not behave like a bunch of kindergartners.
I haven’t posted here in a very long time, but given ALL the threads about elections, peoples’ feelings, assumptions, inferences etc., I would like to suggest two things: allow people to respond directly to a commenter so that the thread stays organized by topic. Seeing a response 10 comments down, then another 25 comments down, makes the thread disorganized and difficult to follow. Also, bring back the “Like” “Dislike” buttons. I myself am too cautious a person to comment, as the chance of being misunderstood or eviscerated here are high. The buttons might also provide some feedback to posters as to how their comments are received by the larger community.
All excellent suggestions Jon. I second those recommendations
Mary Lee, and I would like to give you a thumbs up!
The problem is that Sean has little empathy for those that don’t share his specific ideals. It’s frustrating to reason with you Sean. I sympathize with Mike that you can’t understand and respect his viewpoint even if it’s a little different than yours
The irony in this discussion is that is shows there is no single viewpoint shared by people in the LGBTQ+ community, or any community, about most anything. And even if there were a predominant viewpoint, we shouldn’t guess about it or prejudge it. And everyone wants to feel their voice is heard.
Which is precisely why the Planning Department put together focus groups for the zoning vision process. They didn’t prejudge the answers, they wanted to give people who might not otherwise heard a chance to contribute. That’s what Nevena said in the discussion.
So instead of asking, “what makes you think lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people want something different from zoning than straight people?”, maybe we should instead recognize the importance of the process designed to ask them and find out.
Furthermore, in a city where frustration about not being heard or understood is not uncommon, we should be looking as hard as we can for new forums to hear from those voices.
In a different situation, the question could have just as easily as been, “I see that you have two focus groups for younger and older kids. What makes you think that these two different age groups want something different from zoning, or even know what zoning is?” Part of the process and its value is in the asking.
I support any and all ideas the city has to listen to people, particularly those people who might feel voiceless, in ways that make them feel comfortable.
Sean, I know you’re sensitive LGBTQ+ topics, so you might want to know the preferred/correct term is “transgender” without the -ed.
MMQC,
Thanks for the correction. I will use transgender exclusively going forward. And, I’m going to edit earlier comments.
Thank you.
Thank you, Sean!
@Jon – thanks for the feedback on the site features.
I think the site, as is ,works reasonably well for the normal times. I totally agree that when there is a burst of 100’s of comments on a single thread it quickly becomes unmanageable and confusing. Both of your suggestions may help with those cases.
The Like button is a feature that can be easily turned off/on. It used to be on, then was turned off quite a while ago. I don’t remember the exact rationale for that choice.
I don’t know if “threading” the comments is a simple or difficult-to-make change to the site. We’ll check with our site admin and find out.
A third issue is whether or not to ban anonymous commenters – i.e. commenters with handles like LDS, Mary Mary Quite Contrary, Jon, fignewtonville, etc would be required to post under their real first and last name. One thing you should be aware of is that we have no technical means to verify (reliably) that the person truly is who they say they are. The only enforcement mechanism is that if someone somehow determines that a person is commenting under a pseudonym they could be booted off the site for violating our rules.
We’d like to get some feedback from readers/commenters about their preferences. I remember when the Like button were removed there were various people on both sides arguing for and against,
Here’s a simple Doodle poll to voice your preferences on these three possible changes. Click (or not) the three boxes in support of either change, and click the Send button.
Once we hear back about the difficulty of implementing “threaded comments”, and compile your poll responses, the V14 posters will try to come up with a consensus among ourselves about whether or/not to make these changes to the site.
Jerry, you should probably start a separate post for the website design issues and the poll.
@Newtoner – good idea. Done.
Go here if you’d like to continue comments about these possible Village 14 feature changes.
Dear all – I recently publicly quoted Julia Malakie’s words. I was terribly upset by the fake email about Jim and rather than go back and review the available videotape, I quoted them from memory, and unwittingly paraphrased them. In so doing I altered the literal meaning of what Julia/Pam said. I do always try to be fair and accurate but in this case, I was careless and wrong.
I’ve already privately apologized to Julia and Pam and I’d like to apologize to you the voters for my lapse.
Susan – I’ll speak for myself. Apology accepted. Your posting makes sense and was a classy thing to do.
I appreciate the apology and take her at her word. Thank you
No community I know of is as OBSESSED with skin color and a person’s sexual preferences as this divisive town.. The needless drama never ends
I think Councillor Malakie and Councilor Ryan ought to just go out together and have coffee or mocha frappuchino some pleasant afternoon and just get to know each other as individuals, direct and face to face.
@Jane H. The most useful and sensible message from this often tumultuous posting. I hope they do it.