Last week the TAB published columns by Claire Sokoloff and Jonathan Yeo in support of Andrea Steenstrup for School Committee while Geoff Epstein made the case in support of Margaret Albright. Today, I received a robo call from Epstein, rambling on about how if kids could vote, they’d elect Albright or something silly like that.
Here’s what I don’t get — or at least what I don’t like — why can’t these two educated women speak and write for themselves?
Why have their surrogates been all over this contest in a way totally unlike any other contest this year …or any Newton municipal election I can recall?
I never bothered to read either of those TAB columns because I knew they wouldn’t help this undecided voter make us his mind. I only listened to the Epstein’s robo call for the same reason that I pause to look at train wrecks. Sokoloff, Yeo and Epstein aren’t on the ballot. They won’t be on the School Committee in January. We would have all been better off if they had let candidates speak for themselves.
I think it’s because supporters can say different things than the candidates.
I think both of these candidates haven’t been shy or hidden away. They’ve been in multiple debates ( one just a few nights ago here in Upper Falls). They’ve both recorded candidate statements for NewTV and sat down with the Tab editorial board, etc, and have been willing and able to make their own cases throughout the campaign.
Whether its letters to the editor, robo-calls or emails, supporters can be much more unabashed in what they say than the candidates can. No one wants to hear a candidate say “I’m the best candidate and you’d be making a big mistake if you don’t elect me”. That sort of message from someone who knows the candidate is perfectly acceptable though.
I do think though that one simple message from someone you trust is worth far more than a long laundry list of endorsers – particularly in races where someone may not know as much as they should about the candidates.
Greg,
Is this sour grapes because you didn’t get your Village14 sit down with the Ward 2 candidates? Because it sure sounds like it.
Have you forgotten the many times Margaret has come here to answer questions on this blog? I understand why you might take issue with Andrea since neither she nor her opponents have spoken up here (though one of Andrea’s campaign committee members did try to hijack the Newton SPED Pac discussions with a gratuitous attack and received a prompt and appropriate smack-down from the administrators), but suggesting that Margaret has been allowing people to speak for her is disingenuous. The candidates have answered questions submitted by the Newton League of Women Voters and their answers have been reproduced at the League’s election guide. They have appeared at debates, made statements for NewTV, etc. etc. In every election cycle candidates commonly have citizens write letters to the editor of the Newton Tab praising their qualifications. Don’t we want to encourage people to get out and support candidates they feel would make a difference as our elected leaders?
Ha ha ha Lisap. Nah, I’m not sulking because Albright choose not to do a sit down with Village 14. Even though I think that was a missed opportunity, not having that sit down saved me 90 minutes. However, I still think it’s weird that Epstein tried to negotiate the terms for the Village 14 meeting and was speaking on her behalf then too.
Buy why didn’t she record her own robo call? Why not have her appeal directly to voters? I see that as a missed opportunity too.
@Jerry: Yeah, every candidate has his or her supporters speaking for their candidates but none to this extent.
Again, I’m an undecided voter here and nothing Epstein, Yeo or Sokoloff say is going to help me make up my mind.
“Buy why didn’t she record her own robo call? Why not have her appeal directly to voters? I see that as a missed opportunity too.”
You’re assuming that she’s not. I can’t say one way or another, but I do know that Geoff is her campaign manager so I don’t think it’s at all strange to have your campaign manager deal with the details of an appearance. That comes with the territory (or it least it has in my experience.)
So Greg, maybe the better question is: what is going to help you decide who to choose?
@Lisap: I’ve had interactions with pretty much all of the candidates this fall, including arranging the NewTV debate with Mayor Warren and Alderman Hess-Mahan. Albright is the only person who used a “campaign manager” to negotiate or communicate on her behalf. In fact, Warren and Hess-Mahan never even asked what the format would be before agreeing to their debate. But there was Epstein dictating what he felt would be acceptable for Albright.
Come to think of it, I can’t name another candidates’ campaign manager this year, although perhaps some had them.
This is entirely her prerogative, of course. I’m just saying it was an outlier.
Just a small correction. The oped published under Claire Sokoloff and Jonathan Yeo’s signature was actually written by Marcia Tabenken.
That’s quite the accusation.
Well, it sure looks like Andrea’s got lots of campaign managerial help, especially by people who self-identify as being on her “campaign committee”. But, even if Margaret is the “outlier”, so what? That’s really small potatoes. How about we get to the meat: what substantively is going to help you decide who to choose?
Greg,
You can’t blame Margaret and Geoff of being suspicious of anything you do. Over the years, you have encouraged challengers to come out and then bash people in editorials. I have no problem with the way Margaret has handled you or her campaign. The problem isn’t with her, it maybe with you. But then again, I may be diluted:).
@Tom: I guess someone would have to explain what they “suspected” I would do to Albright. Not to mention that Jerry, Julia, Groot and others would have been part of the Village 14 sit downs too.
It’s true that I support the concept of people running for elected office. But that doesn’t mean one is obligated to support every person who steps up and runs, because frankly not every person who runs is qualified — or the best choice — to hold that office.
Steve: that last post was for you.
It’s hard for me to support any candidate who sends out rambling robo calls, tying up my phone lines for several minutes. Then I have to listen to the entire thing on my voicemail because I cant delete it until it ends!
As for the substance of the call itself…
I would prefer to hear for the candidate directly, not some colleague who thinks his support of her makes her that much more special. The whole thing just turns me off and make me not want to vote for anyone.
I actually went to Albright’s website with the intent of calling her myself but found absolutely no contact information for her. One less vote from me.
Wholetruth. you can contact me at [email protected]. If you read to the bottom of my homepage you’ll find my email.
Just watch the debate at:
http://www.margaretalbright.org/the-debate.html
That gives a fair picture to decide who to vote for.
Greg,
I agree with that. except you seem to take enjoyment out of bashing those you don’t agree with. I know you’ll disagree, but that is the problem. You make negative comments and go way overboard. You’re past endorsements could have said positive things about both or sometimes all 3 candidates (because everyone brings something to the table….whether you agree or not) instead you make sure that the person you don’t endorse gets totally shutdown. You wonder why so many people run once and dont run again….look in the mirror.
Last comment: It takes a strong person to run, lose and run again knowing exactly what happened to them before, will in all probability happen again. You have to give credit for people like Margaret who believe in herself and her knowledge to put herself through this circus once again. I am sure it took a lot of prodding from her supporters. So, I can’t blame her one bit for deciding not to go to an event where you are involved.
@Tom: I’m sorry you’re still hurting from editorial endorsements that appeared in the TAB many years ago. Just a reminder, it’s been more than two years since I worked at any place that endorsed candidates. I’m only saying this so as to suggest that perhaps it’s time to move on. I know I have.
As for Margaret Albright, I’ve voted for her before and may vote for her again next week. As I’ve said before, she’s smart, she really understands school issues and, clearly, she wants this job badly. But I’ve never been enamored with candidates whose supporters cast a longer shadow than the candidate themselves, especially in local contests. That’s been the case for the last two Albright campaigns.
Thank you Margaret. I guess even though I looked all around, I still missed it.
Just so there’s no confusion I like Geoff Epstein, Claire Sokoloff and Jonathan Yeo and appreciate their service to our city.
But I don’t want to vote for “Geoff Epstein’s person” and I don’t want to vote for “Claire Sokoloff/Jonathan Yeo’s person” and right now those personalities loom larger over this campaign than either candidate. That’s all I’m saying.
I agree with this last comment from Greg. I never want anyone to vote for Margaret primarily because I’m a supporter. That what the endorsement game is about and it’s not the way to go. But I want to get their attention so they take a good look at Margaret.
There is ample material one can review on the candidates directly.
I suggest to anyone that they pay most attention to the candidate websites, the LWV debate, the TAB profile, the LWV question responses and the NTA questions and responses (which are posted on Margaret’s website but unfortunately not on Andrea’s) and hopefully they will have gone to at least one forum where the candidates appear live.
The event at the Emerson Community Center on Wednesday evening was a good place to hear Margaret live and than chat with her afterwards.
Andrea was also there, but after the event left immediately so there was no opportunity for personal interaction with her.
I always make my decision based on that direct evidence.
It would be very useful in my view if we could complete the evidence picture by Village 14 obtaining a copy of Andrea Steenstrup’s responses to the NTA questions. Then we could try to figure out what Mike Zilles was on about.
I want to publicly thank all the people who have been helping me this election season. Thanks go to Geoff who has helped keep me sane, offered advice and stepped into the breach. His passion for the education of our children is to be applauded.
Many thanks to those in local government who have publicly supported me – Marcia Johnson, Jay Harney, Jay Ciccone and Amy Sangiolo. Your support means a great deal because you have supported me for who I am and what I stand for. If elected, I promise to live up to your faith in me.
I want give a very special thank you to my family – my husband Robert and my son Jonathan. Tuesday, November 5 is our 25th wedding anniversary – which will be spent holding signs and greeting voters. I couldn’t have a more supportive family, for which I am extremely grateful.
I also have many other supporters who have encouraged me, offered words of wisdom, stuffed envelopes, held signs, delivered flyers and basically have been there for me. Running for office in a city the size of Newton is difficult and time consuming, every hand and every bit of advice has been much needed and very much appreciated.
Lastly, thanks to all the voters who have asked great questions and been truly engaged in this race. I am grateful that you understand how important education is in Newton and across the Commonwealth. The future of our children and all our futures depend on it. Newton is so fortunate to have such committed and engaged citizens.
Now go out and vote on November 5.
Last comment
Greg, I’m over your lack of endorsement. I think I’ve proven that the Tab was full of it during your years, when I ran for Governors council and Emily and the new Tab endorsed me. I think that spoke volumes. But, just because I am over your leadership doesn’t mean that me and others dont remember and dont learn from those years. If you dont want people to dismiss you, you shouldn’t have gone out of the way to treat people the way you did.
@Tom: I’ve learned from it too. There are many things I would have done differently, although I’m not sure you would have liked.
@Margaret: Very nice comment.
@Geoff: I agree there is a wealth of content online about Albright’s positions. And anyone who hasn’t watched the NewTV debate should. Perhaps as Albright’s campaign manager you can explain why the campaign decided you should be the voice on the robocall, instead of the candidate.
I got a robo-call with Geoff Epstein’s recorded voice and I had no problem with it at all. I actually enjoyed it.
I also liked Margaret’s recent response to Greg.
I have no quarrel with Geoff Epstein doing any spokesman-type work on behalf of Margaret. When Jeff Seideman was in charge of the Newton Taxpayers Association (NTA), Jeff was also the spokesman of the NTA and made it so that all organizational communications were filtered and funneled through to him in order to create a unified media voice. Bill Heck charged me with that same objective for rebuilding the Newton Taxpayers Association in July when The Boston Globe called to ask about the police controversies. Geoff’s doing the same thing that Jeff Seideman did and that I am working on.
Greg,
Regardless of your changes, the end result couldnt have been any worse or more disrespectful.
On a side note, while you keep trying to embarrass Margaret for not showing, I noticed not a single word about the Mayor not showing for his interview. why don’t you go after him with the same ferver as you do with Margaret? Seems hypocritical. Lets create a post titled: Why didnt the Mayor show up for the village 14 interview.
I’d comment on that:).
Tom- the mayoral candidates were not invited. If you don’t believe me, ask Ted.
Tom: when the Village 14 bloggers met (I think there were about 10 of us present) we decided to focus on the two city-wide contests other than mayor. We felt that these were the races where we could have the most impact.
@TheWholeTruth — Are you sure you have to listen to a message all the way through before you can delete it? I don’t have a particularly new or fancy answering machine, but it has a Skip button, so I can skip a message I’m not interested in, although I can also press Delete while a message is playing. If yours really can’t do that, maybe you should stop torturing yourself and get a better answering machine. 😉
@Julia,
Unfortunately, I do have to listen to the entire message before it can be deleted. I have Comcast voicemail and that’s how it works. If it was my cell phone, it would have been deleted after the first two seconds!
Tom – I was at the meeting when the V14 team talked about the forums. I and others had limited time so we only picked two races. I think you have been told a few times that we did not invite candidates for Mayor.
Greg – I would be tempted to change the headline and strike though Albright’s name. Many people are supporting candidates on this blog and other forums but when asked, Margaret seems to jump at the oppertunity to talk for herself.
Groot: I agree that Albright has been visible. My headline was inspired by the Epstein Robocall. Perhaps Albright will win Tuesday and that call will be viewed as a smart strategic decision.
Mr Epstein’s message was vote for an education professional, not a political insider. If the candidate said that it would sound like she has no support.
Thanks Hoss – I agree – What robo calls have come out directly from the Candidates. I have lived in Newton for 40+ years and usually it is from a Supporter not the candidate. Greg can you give us some examples of Candidates that have done their own robocalls?
@TheWholeTruth: try pressing either 3 or 33 to skip through the message and not have to listen to the whole thing. One of those works on my work VM – it might well work for yours.
@Greg: I agree with others who’ve said that Margaret has done an excellent job speaking for herself. I don’t care who’s on robocalls – I delete them unlistened to anyway. What I care about is candidates elucidating their positions, both on their websites and in forums such as here and in-person ones. Margaret has done that; Andrea hasn’t.
Greg -If I recall during the last election Claire Sokoloff did a robo call for Jonathan Yeo. During the Senate Campaign – Bill Clinton did a robocall for Elizabeth Warren. Don’t think Senator Warren did one for herself – Did she? Cant think of any candidate that did their own robo call – but I am sure Greg if you find them you will let the Village Blog readers know.
Geoff Epstein did his own robocall in the election year when he won. By all accounts it was very effective.
Setti Warren recorded his own call for the prelims. I’m sure there are plenty of examples both ways.
But the truth is, it doesn’t matter what the precedent is, what matters is if it works. If Albright wins on Tuesday, Epstein looks like a genius.
I’ll agree that Margaret has been visible. She filled my shoes at the Jackson Homestead (alongside Janet Sterman) greeting cyclists at the re-scheduled Tour de Newton as I took to the saddle instead. Allan Ciccone Sr spelled her, and I also got to meet Brian Yates and Ted-Hess Mahan (among others I know I am forgetting) on the ride. Also met Alison Leary at a local party for a newly-naturalized Ward 1 resident around the same time. Candidates are making themselves available and visible all in their ways. I’m not even sure I can fault the modified Rose Garden strategy by Setti Warren – we’ll see if Ted’s more accessible campaign carries him.
As for Geoff, I know him from the neighborhood and know what he stands for as an SC member. That says a lot to me about Margaret, and my familiarity may make me a little more forgiving of the over-enthusiastic spokespersoning* Geoff may be doing (I guess with that I can also assume that Geoff’s wavering on Margaret’s behalf re: participating in the V14 candidate meetings, we can attribute to her personally)
*I love making up words
With 3 days before the election, this is what we are talking about? What about the issues?
Fair point! Off to the existing posts here (and elsewhere) with the candidate debates and statements…
@TheWholeTruth-
Nobody should be forced to listen to a long message in order to delete it.
Please try pressing 77 as indicated on this page:
http://customer.comcast.com/Pages/HelpNFC.aspx?id=article-never-miss-a-phone-call
That being said, if it works, and in the future you get a robocall from me or my campaign for Governor’s Council in 2014, please ignore the above suggestion 🙂
Margaret Albright has been speaking for herself for as long as I have been following Newton politics. I followed the old TAB blog under Greg/Gail, lurk on Village 14 and am always on Newtonparents, which has hundreds of engaged subscribers. If you want to know what Margaret thinks and about what she cares about, all you have to do is subscribe to this public listserv and go back 6 or 7 years. Margaret is on the record far more than her opponent.I think that a lot of Margaret’s long-time supporters got to know her around issues, not the political/social millieu of Newton. Issues, moving our system forward, educational innovation and current best practices in school systems are where Margaret is strongest. It is my personal observation that Margaret pushes herself out of her comfort zone campaigning because she is not a natural campaigner. Not everyone is the kind of extrovert that does well as a campaigner, and that is no indication of competence once elected. If you look at Margaret over the past several races, knowledge base and education subject matter expertise have certainly contributed to her being a a very strong debater. She is not an Emily Norton or Setti Warren when it comes to schmoozing. That is why Geoff Epstein, with his very outgoing Aussie personality has been such a great complement to her. Geoff also has the most name recognition of any of her supporters. On a voicemail message, Geoff’s familiar and distinctly-accented voice is far more recognizable and familiar than Margaret’s.
That said…you know what? As someone who cares passionately about our school system and wants it to keep up with our neighbors and even surpass them….I don’t want the single contested race that gives voters the opportunity to influence the dynamic of the School Committee to be decided on picayune tactical campaign decisions such as who makes the robocall. I want it to be decided on whether we are going to rest on our old reputation as a school system or stop making budgetary excuses and finally move forward. I want this one contested school committee race to be about whether we are not only going to keep up with surrounding communities, but have a firm vision in place to outshine them. In just the last two weeks, the superintendents in Wellesley and Needham have proposed improvements that haven’t even been put forward by the SC or administration in the NPS.. In Wellesley, it’s to have a full day kindergarten program that mirrors the learning time in first grade and to add back world languages in elementary schools. In Needham, it’s to extend learning time. All of those components – FDK, world languages in elementary and negotiating a longer school day have already been settled in Brookline (and they’re dealing with facilities and school population increase challenges well beyond ours) IF you don’t think that extending learning time in schools is a key driver of educational progress, I would point you to the Boston Public Schools and the fact that education issues are a key driver in the mayor’s race there.
Education should be a key driver in every election in Newton because it is the key driver for why people decide to live here to begin with. It is the key driver for most people’s single largest investment, our homes. So, are we going to elect people that say that everything in our school system is just fine or elect people that challenge the system to continually move forward and keep up with surrounding communities? We have only one opportunity to elect fresh blood to the School Committee because we only have one contested race in all of Newton: Albright vs. Steenstrup.
As someone who sees public education as the stepping stone to opportunity and key to the American Dream, I have found Andrea Steenstrup’s answers around our shameful achievement gap to be inadequate, while Margaret wants to make the system accountable. Margaret also advocates fee-free arts, increased investment in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) and fully funded technology. People, there are systems around us, such as Natick, that have managed to give every student from 8th grade on a laptop. Wake up and smell the coffee. They did it without PTO bake sales. So why is Newton so far behind the regional curve?
If you want someone who will ask the kinds of questions that I have just asked, vote Margaret.
@Greg, if you have voted for Margaret in the past and are are undecided when Margaret is running against her weakest competitor ever, I don’t know what to say. I guess that I am just kind of floored by your confession that you personally voted for Margaret while the publication that you were editor in chief for endorsed her competitor.
@Karen: Good comment.
I have voted for quite a few candidates that the paper did not endorse. The endorsement process was collaborative but that doesn’t mean decisions were always unanimous.
@Greg: So why not just admit that you will once again be voting for Margaret? I mean, if you voted for Margaret vs. Reenie or Jonathan, I can’t see why you would now vote for Andrea.
@Karen: I will vote for Albright tomorrow because she’s clearly the better qualified candidate.
But this contest bugs me.
I’m bothered by the “insiders” dogged efforts to support anyone who wasn’t Albright largely because she had a chutzpah to challenge their friend Reenie Murphy and especially because of the whole Jonathan Yeo legal fiasco. So they turned to someone who I’m sure is a lovely person but doesn’t even appear to want this job.
But I’m just as bothered by Albright’s decision to allow Geoff Epstein to run her campaign, which to me makes me worry about the woman’s judgment.
Consider for example, Epstein’s role in whole released memo flap. When the memo was first posted on Village 14, Epstein was screaming for “SC knuckle rapping” not because he’s never leaked a school document before but because, no doubt , he assumed Claire Sokoloff or Yeo “leaked” (sorry Gail) the memo.
So what happens to Epstein’s fury over this “very serious” infraction when he finds out his pal Matt Hills was the culprit? Suddenly, Epstein’s shrugs it all off with a “case closed.”
My point here is that when you run a campaign, you shouldn’t allow yourself — or your manager (who is also the voice on your robo call, who also writes your TAB oped, who also decides who you’ll talk to) — to be caught up in unrelated political pettiness.
And that’s just one example where I worry about Albright’s political judgment. There’s a silly Epstein-created flap right now about
Ruth GoldmanEllen Gibson on the Newton Parents list serve, which is, well, too silly, to go into. And, of course, there’s the whole Yeo legal challenge from 2011. Both sides behaved badly there too. But candidate Albright clearly looked like a person who is entirely uncomfortable playing politics and exercises questionable judgment when selecting political allies. And like it or not, political maneuvering is a skill set School Committee members need, especially members looking to make significant changes.So yes, Albright knows a lot about education. And, yes, she has a long laundry list of things she wants to change. But I have no confidence that she’ll be able to build the coalitions or consensus to actually achieve change. My fear is she’ll just bog down the process, give the school staff a lot of headaches, but not actually change a thing.
Still I’m not seeing how Steenstrup adds anything but a “yes” vote every two weeks when one of her colleagues makes a motion to adjourn.
I’m sure I’ve opened enough Pandora Boxes for a few more comments here so I’ll stop there.
Knock yourself out folks.
Karen, I agree with you on every point but one. There is actually two seats in the SC for election and that is the Mayor’s race. You know I’m with Margaret, but Ted is the only candidate in the Mayor’s race that is for FDK and a 16th elementary school. He is for everything you have just argued for Margaret. I guess you’re with Ted.
Greg- I think you have confused Ellen Gibsons Husband Nathan Gibson sending an email to Newton Parents . It was not Ruth Goldman.
Thanks Joanne, fixed
@Greg,
I think you must have also missed Margaret’s “robocall” last night. It was quite good.
I did miss it. Only problem now is if she wins we won’t know if it was her robocall, Epstein’s robocall or my comment above that carried the day!
BTW, Alderman Yates robocall was the best I’ve heard in years. First he apologized for calling, then he asked me for his vote, then he hung up!
Greg Reibman — I played it backwards and heard Steele is Satan.
@Greg
@Hoss,
Hands down then – Yates gets my vote for brevity and creativity. 😉
@Greg. I think Brian also made a note of his focus on village and preservation issues and that he was the only candidate in the race that was trying to protect homeowners and other residents against the worst effects of tear downs and new monster homes in their neighborhood. His record on this speaks for itself. and as one who lives right next door to where one of these monster homes was recently constructed, I can say without equivocation that it changes the character and fabric of an entire neighborhood. My one regret is that there was so much focus on Engine 6 that the issue of who builds what and where didn’t get debated the way it should despite Brian’s best efforts. If we can get him reelected, it will certainly be one of his major priorities and he will have a new impetus and a startling mandate to bring this issue to high visibility. There is anger and frustration about this throughout the City.
I don’t think it’s all that important whether a candidate or spokesperson is on the robo call. You should know, however, that a lot of us offered suggestions as to what Brian should say, but it was he alone that wrote the short, crisp and sincere message you are receiving today. And yes, he’s sincere when he says he doesn’t like to intrude into people’s homes without permission.
@ Greg: I don’t think that any of the points that you made against Geoff, Margaret’s control of Geoff or Margaret possibly having any control over Geoff have anything at all to do with electing the most qualified person to the School Committee.
Also, Geoff is still a sitting member of the SC. I think he has made it clear when he is speaking as an SC member and when he is speaking as Margaret’s campaign manager. Would you presume that Margaret try to censor or discourage him from expressing his opinion on something? That wouldn’t be fair to the people that elected Geoff to represent them.
Also, the man has genuinely worked his arse off for her. You don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. You gotta just let Geoff be Geoff because the upside of that is just so smart, generous and genuinely passionate about education in our city.
Greg, I really don’t think that you can have it both ways. On the one hand, you want to have a blog where elected officials feel open about expressing themselves, but then open them up to criticism when they do.
Maybe that’s why the political elite in this city are so rarely on the blogs. They only use them or the listservs for damage control. There are a few exceptions, but most do not use blogs or listservs as a platform to have an ongoing conversation with the community. Their communications advisers like Gerry Chevrinksy probably tell them that it’s better to not participate than risk a potential downside or put your political opinions in writing for perpetuity.
Given the choice between the total radio silence of the political establishment elite and the very candid and transparent Geoff Epstein, which would you rather have? Into every mouth, an occasional foot may fall.
On the Yates robocall: I’m a copywriter by profession. Brian did a great job – the apologetic opening, keeping it short, and making it about one issue that bothers most of us profoundly. But as voice talent he did something more. He sounded genuinely annoyed and crotchety about having to make a robocall to begin with. Almost a “I hate making robocalls as much as you hate getting them” There was an underpinning that he would much rather be doing the work of the citizens than wasting his time campaigning. Perfect pitch and so authentically Brian.
@Karen: You’ve missed my point. My point is that Margaret Albright doesn’t seem to have much political savvy, something you need if you want to enact change. Who she lets talk for her is a reflection of that. If she wanted an elected to robocall for her she would have been better off choosing Amy Sangiolo, someone who has also been controversial but not transparently partisan.
As for this…
Nah, I just want to have a place where people can discuss the issues of the day. If electeds are afraid to come here and stand up for themselves, then here’s hoping they at least enjoy reading about themselves.
@ Greg – So glad that you are voting for Margaret.
I guess it is now safe to say that the Robocall that Claire Sokoloff did for her candidate did not work as well as the one Geoff Epstein did for his candidate.
Interesting how the efforts of 5 Members of the SC did not work as well as the effort of 1 SC member.
And Greg – I am sure Margaret will play nice in the sandbox with all the other 5 kids. Lets just hope that those 5 learn to play nice with her.
Not surprising, really. So many people I spoke with were COMPLETELY turned off by how hard those 5 were pushing Andrea on them.
The Last Minute Maneuver by the President of the NTA didn’t work either.
Maybe if either he or the Candidate had been forthcoming with her responses to the NTA questionnaire it might have made a difference but they never released them. And the last minute endorsement which in the first few paragraphs were a Thank you to Claire Sokoloff and Jonathan Yeo rather than a candidate endorsement actually turned votes to the winner rather than taking them away.
I’d like to address Greg Riebman’s ongoing complaints about my ‘insertion’ into the Ward 2 SC race. On the blog Andrea’s campaign was totally AWOL but believe me she had a ton of supporter insertion into her campaign.
When the Albright campaign was faced with the opposition of:
1 state senator
12 alderman, including the President of the Board
6 SC members, including both chair and vice chair
it seems mild for one SC member to be actively supporting Margaret on the blogs.
Believe me we had huge operations going on against us with all of these heavy weight elected officials engaged in different ways.
Is it to much for 1 SC member to be actively supporting Margaret Albright on the blogs when faced by such opposition?
Totally, totally not.
Geoff, well said.
@Geoff: Well first off, congratulations on your campaign’s win.
Whether or not, it was (a) your personal “truth to power” message including your robo call (b) the TAB endorsement, (c) the fact that Albright knew her stuff and had the name recognition from two prior campaigns and a good debate, (d) a weak opponent, (e) indication that the inner circle is losing its influence or (f) some combination of the above, the Albright campaign won under your leadership.
Albright has consistently participated in blog conversations over the years and I don’t believe I ever suggested otherwise so I’m not sure where that’s coming from. I still believe that it would have been preferable for the candidate to have done her own robocall — or even rely on some of her other endorser, such as Alderman Sangiolo. I wish you let her do that sit down with Village 14, But you won and that’s what matters.
[Eating virtual crow here]
I’m looking forward to watching what Albright brings to the School Committee.
Thanks, Greg. Many people contributed in many ways.
It also was a campaign in which not one call was made to a supporter to twist arms or put pressure to get in line. It was a straight up education issues campaign and it was that directness which I hope will prove to be more the norm for SC races.
The Village 14 blog was actually of immense help in showing the lack of depth in Andrea’s support. That day when no-one except Andrea turned up on the blog was very telling.
No worries, mate. We’re good.
Margaret did plan a very brief robo call on Monday but we pulled it because there were so many robo calls that we thought people would just be annoyed.
Only Virtual Crow Greg? And eating it alone?
@Joanne, no – I think Greg must be enjoying that virtual crow with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
Just kidding of course.
I actually imagined a nice Australian
whinewine.…and a side of vegemite?
Let me recommend a New Zealand sauvignon blank: Manawa, White Haven, Kim Crawford, Matua, …
Or a nice Shiraz.
I could prepare a vegemite sandwich. I have the ingredients here and my youngest son loves a good vegemite sandwich.
I think we are all in a good place.
Am I correct in assuming there are no animal products (aka actual crow) in vegemite?
No its vege. The main mistake most people make is to put too much vegemite on a sandwich. You just need a slight amount.
Nice. Moderation in condiments and robocalls, works for me!
I tried Vegemite once. All because of that “I come from the land down under where women (I don’t remember–do they scream, cry, beg, nag? ) and men thunder” song. Awful tasting stuff. Vegemite tastes like the last couple of elections for school committee felt.
This one didn’t feel remotely like Vegemite. Vegemite makes me think of other people who don’t know me telling me what is good for me.
This election was more like Toblerone. Or Ben & Jerry’s. Or one of those assortment boxes of Pepperidge Farm cookies.
Sweet. 🙂
@Greg: Why do you keep referencing me? I think I heard you on NewTV speak my name and I’ve seen several references on the Blog. Have you missed me?
Greg wrote: “So yes, Albright knows a lot about education. And, yes, she has a long laundry list of things she wants to change. But I have no confidence that she’ll be able to build the coalitions or consensus to actually achieve change.”
Margaret has earned her place at the table, and the voters of this city sent a strong message of endorsement to her colleagues. Margaret won all four precincts in wards 1, 4 and 8 – seats that will be filled by Ellen Gibson, Diana Fisher Gomberg and Margie Ross Decter. In both Wards represented by Angela Pitter Wright and Steve Siegel, Margaret won three out of four precincts. In the wards represented by Matt Hills and Claire Sokoloff, Margaret won two out of four precincts. Andrea fared best in Ward 2, but even there she failed to carry the entire ward. To me the take away is very clear: not only do the voters want Margaret working for them, they want her colleagues on the School Committee working with her.
Further, if one looks at the League of Women Voters questions and the responses, you’ll see that on Margaret’s primary issue of full day kindergarten, there is strong support from Angela Pitter-Wright and Margie Ross Decter, with Steve Siegel not far behind.
That’s the start of a very promising coalition.
Again, if one has been following the discussion in SC meetings on the role of data in decision making, Margaret is very much in sync with Matt Hills, Steve Siegel, Margie Ross Decter and Angela Pitter-Wright. That’s another very promising coalition.
My take on all of this is that of the incoming 3 new SC members, Margaret is the one most aligned with the current thinking on the SC and should have no trouble building coalitions or consensus to achieve change.
Well Said – Lisap and Geoff!
Joanne wrote:
“The Last Minute Maneuver by the President of the NTA didn’t work either.
Maybe if either he or the Candidate had been forthcoming with her responses to the NTA questionnaire it might have made a difference but they never released them. And the last minute endorsement which in the first few paragraphs were a Thank you to Claire Sokoloff and Jonathan Yeo rather than a candidate endorsement actually turned votes to the winner rather than taking them away.”
Greg, I think that this is a thread in itself. I know that NTA President Mike Z’s op/ed ran in the TAB, but the points it brought up are worth discussion by a larger audience. Not who he endorsed or his praise of outgoing Yeo and Sokoloff, but his promotion of the pervasive misconception that Newton SC members can do anything at all about MCAS or the new federal Common Core aka Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. I stood at a polling place speaking with a retired Newton teacher who seemed to be backing Steenstrup because Albright was some huge proponent of teaching to tests or something (NOT TRUE). He also seemed to think that Andrea Steenstrup could actually do something to reduce standardized testing in our system.
My response to this uninformed opinion and grasp of both MCAS and Common Core was this: “You want to have a REALLY REALLY BIG OVERRIDE? Elect a School Committee that wants to reject these standards AND all the state and federal money attached to them, because that’s the only option a SC member in Newton has.”
Asking a Newton SC candidate about where they stand on thumbing their nose at curriculum standards is kind of like asking a presidential candidate what they think about a woman’s right to choose. I guess they’re philosophical differentiators, but there’s very little that either can do to change the law of the land.
People seem to get very passionate around this issue of testing and “teaching to the test”, but their focus should not be on local School Committees.
My position on the NTA remains the same.
Both sets of responses from the Ward 2 SC candidates should be made public by the NTA.
Those two documents together with the NTA endorsement would provide some real insight into NTA thinking, which is critical if the community is to understand their positions.
When Margaret Albright’s responses to the NTA questionnaire were submitted, I never thought for a moment that the candidate responses would not be circulated to the public by posting them on the NTA website. In hindsight, we should have made that a requirement.
It is also very puzzling that the candidate questionnaires were not even made available to the NTA membership – just an inner circle, the executive committee. Not one regular member of the NTA saw the information.
So, lesson learned for SC candidate campaigns.
In future, it would seem to be a best practice for the NTA to publish candidate responses and let their membership in on the deal.
I still maintain that, even at this late stage, the NTA should make public the Ward 2 SC candidate questionnaire responses.
Mike Zilles indicates that not posting that information was a logistical error, that posting the information would have been helpful and that this was done with the mayoral responses.
Posting the information now would remedy that error, make NTA treatment of the mayoral and SC races even handed and would be a service to the community.
Yes, can we call this issue out on Village 14? It’s not going to effect an election, so maybe doing so afterwards would seem less for political gain and more for sunshine and teachable moments? The NTA is a force in our elections, turning out many volunteers.