Former Allston-Brighton State Rep Goes to the BRA

Former State Representative Brian Golden will be named by Mayor Thomas Menino as the Executive Officer of the Boston Redevelopment Authority, according to today's Boston Globe.

Golden is no stranger to Allston-Brighton, having represented one of the district's two seats (18th Suffolk) for 1999-2005.

While a was registered a Democrat, Golden raised a lot of eyebrows by not only endorsing (and actively campaigning for) George W. Bush for president in 2000 and 2004, but also heading to Florida in 2000 to assist Bush's legal team in the recount process. The conservative National Review asked Golden in a 2004 interview why he is still a Democrat and not a Republican. Some people in the community have called Golden by the derogatory term DINO (Democrat In Name Only; online examples here and here), and MassScorecard gave him a "D" grade in 2003-4 for adherence to Democratic positions on the issues.

Golden's positions opposing abortion rights and gay marriage, supporting school vouchers, opposing the Massachusetts clean elections law, and supporting Bush's election, put him at odds with a neighborhood that is trending progressive. Golden's protege, Gregory Glennon, openly stated some similar political views in his 2005 bid to fill Golden's vacated seat, but by 2007 had become completely mum on these issues in his 2007 bid for District 9 City Councilor. Allston-Brighton's Wards 21 and 22 went 78%-20% for Obama-Biden over McCain-Palin in 2008, by the way.

The oddest aspect of Golden being named to the BRA position is that a number of Ward 22 neighborhood activists opposed to Boston College's institutional expansion proposals were actively supporting Golden's protege and former staffer Gregory Glennon in his failed 2007 bid for District 9 City Councilor. Since those activists supported the protege -- presumably at least in part for his positions on institutional expansion -- I wonder if they also support having the mentor in a lead role at the BRA? Somehow, I doubt it. Politics makes strange bedfellows, but affairs ain't the same as marriage.

Where will Golden, now a resident of Newton, come down on the issue of institutional expansion now that he is one of the leaders of the BRA, an agency tasked both regulating and promoting development? I haven't found much in the public record on this issue, particularly since he stepped down as state representative when these issues were really gearing up in Allston-Brighton. We'll see.

Why Ciommo Won and Arroyo Lost in the 2007 Municipal Election

Just before the polls closed last Tuesday night, I posted my predictions for the City Council race. I was pretty much spot-on for the Allston-Brighton District 9 seat (albeit missing the turnout numbers by a lot), but got the wrong odd-man-out in the Councilor-At-Large seat. Here is some analysis of what I thought happened on election day.


Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

I predicted that Mark Ciommo would beat Greg Glennon by at least 900 votes and by at least 57-43% (possibly as high as 60-40%). My prediction couldn't have been closer: Ciommo won by 948 votes by 59.8-39.8%. The full precinct results can be found here.

That said, I screwed up on two points -- one moderate mistake (Wallingford Road) and one a big mistake (voter turnout) -- which magically cancelled each other out to make it look like I hit the lottery.

Turnout. I guessed 6500 voters would turn out, which was at the low end of previous municipal elections. It was far worse at 4745, which was barely over the 4521 votes in the preliminary municipal election.

Why was I so wrong? Not because of the weather. I think that the rank-and-file voters got so little information from the mainstream media (Allston-Brighton TAB excepted), that there was little motivation to vote. I also heard from many voters in the preliminary election who were dissatisfied with the two choices in the final election; I suspect many of them just stayed home, unwilling to be forced to choose.


Wallingford Road. Glennon carried Ward 21, Precinct 13, full of elderly Russian Jewish voters at the Wallingford Road housing project, over Ciommo 303-142 in the preliminary election. I predicted that he would add to that lead by +200 votes, but the forces of arm-twisting pushed it the other way: Ciommo won 333-242, giving Ciommo a net +252 votes. I blew the vote difference by 452. Oops.

But this is a really, really big story in the neighborhood. Tim Schofield told host Joe Heisler on the Talk of the Neighborhood show that the Russians mostly listen to former State Representative Brian Golden and Mayor Menino; to that I add a likely third party, the Mark Alford-Pat Galvin-(and-his-brother) trifecta. Golden, Alford, and Pat Galvin all supported Glennon -- and Ciommo holds progressive social positions incompatible the conservative Russian voters, at least in the conventional wisdom -- so this means that the Mayoral power in A-B is now at the point that it trumps all else in specific cases of arm-twisting (like Wallingford in this election).

The other big feature of the Wallingford Road vote is that it actually didn't matter in the election. Ciommo could have won without a single vote from the Russians. In looking back on this year's election, the message we should all take away is that the Russian vote can impact a preliminary (or three-way) election in an important way by determining the second-place finisher, but their strength cannot dominate over the powerful base of a long-time resident.


Oak Square battleground. I predicted that several precincts in the Oak Square neighborhood would represent battlegrounds between the long-term Brighton residents (Ciommo's base) and socially conservative Irish Catholics (Golden's base, and hence Glennon's). Many people in the neighborhood have one foot firmly in each camp, so predicting how they would swing was the parlor game of the election.

Ciommo carried the combined Ward 22, Precincts 7, 11, and 13 in the preliminary, with Glennon and Schofield in a virtual tie for second. Schofield's voters generally swung heavily for Ciommo, regardless of his endorsement, but this was the one neighborhood where that pattern might have been broken.

In the final election, Ciommo won 22/7, 22/10, and 22/11 heavily, and barely nudged Glennon 102-98 in more conservative 22/13. I predicted, "if Ciommo carries 7, 10, and 11 with big margins, then it's lights out." That it was.

My model was that Schofield's supporters went 80-20% for Ciommo, Selvig's 65-35%, and Hanlon's 50-50%. Using that model on Ward 22, Precinct 7, for example, my prediction was Ciommo over Glennon by 137 to 61 votes; the actual result was 131-67, off by six, but within the margin of error of 14 votes (for 198 cast).


Ward 21 Progressive Precincts. I predicted that you should forget-about-it without a strongly identified progressive in the case (like Schofield). Ward 21, Precinct 8 actually doubled their turnout over the preliminary election -- from 1.6 to 3.2%. In the end, the progressive precincts still didn't show up.


Summary. The bosses of Ward 22 were able to get Councilor Jerry McDermott elected in 2002 (he is the cousin to the Galvins, after all), even though McDermott claimed after the election that he was not the Mayor's candidate. (Ciommo told me earlier in the year that he disputes that characterization of the 2002 race, however, since the Mayor did not formally endorse a candidate.) In 2007, however, the Ward 22 bosses no longer appear to be able to throw an Allston-Brighton election to their favorite candidate -- although they can get him a second-place finish and into the finals.

Councilor-elect Ciommo enjoyed powerful support from middle-aged men who chose to stay in Brighton to raise their families here. He won out over the younger, more transient constituencies -- like former Representative Golden and lame duck Councilor McDermott -- who leave town with their young families.

Long-time Brighton residents and the Mayor's influence ended up winning over the ward bosses and families in transition through the neighborhood.


Boston City Councilor-At-Large Race

While many in the city thought that the race for the fourth seat among the Boston City Councilors-At-Large was between Councilor Stephen Murphy and challenger John Connolly, there were many soothsayers predicting Councilor Felix Arroyo to be the odd man out.

I called the race a toss-up until the last moment, when I thought that Connolly's strategic blunder of sending out the anonymous attack mailings would cost him enough votes to lose out on fourth place. I was obviously wrong, and the Arroyo predictions were right.

Why did Arroyo lose? The pundits have rained in with some pretty convincing reasons: low voter turnout working against minority candidates; Arroyo raised little money, while Connolly raised around ten times as much; Arroyo didn't campaign very hard or send out many mailings, while Connolly campaigned like crazy (and sent out quite a few flyers!); Arroyo's record on attendance at City Council meetings and hearings; etc. None of the reasons seems enough by itself, but, taken together, they seem plenty to explain why he got around 15% fewer votes than Connolly.

This year's City Council election is an important one for data mining purposes in the future, because it shows clearly how low voter turnout impacts voting from ward-to-ward. Connolly's West Roxbury Ward 20, for example, voted disproportionately higher than the rest of the city.


The election numbers, plus analysis on a ward-by-ward basis, for the Councilor-At-Large race can be found at Matt O'Malley's website.  He ran, albeit unsuccessfully, in 2005 for Councilor-at-Large, so he knows the ins and outs of all the different neighborhoods and their voting trends.

Precinct Results in the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council Election November 6, 2007

Ward	Precinct	Greg Glennon	Mark Ciommo
21	3	9	24
21	4	16	28
21	5	16	27
21	6	35	120
21	7	18	38
21	8	16	30
21	9	43	64
21	10	59	103
21	11	51	54
21	12	125	146
21	13	241	333
21	14	20	18
21	15	12	32
21	16	120	55
22	1	126	206
22	2	99	150
22	3	86	169
22	4	114	118
22	5	64	58
22	6	46	90
22	7	67	131
22	8	106	136
22	9	79	92
22	10	74	211
22	11	48	153
22	12	101	149
22	13	98	102
Total	...	1889	2837

EDIT: Note that the results published in the Allston-Brighton TAB for Ward 21, Precinct 16 (Glennon 55, Ciommo 0) are incorrect.

EDIT (11/12/07): The TAB has fixed those errors online.

Predictions for the Boston City Council Election

These predictions are being submitted at the close of the polls on Tuesday, November 6th. If I'm totally off-mark, then please take every opportunity to laugh at me without end.

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

Mark Ciommo will carry the election in what approaches a landslide, predicted at 57-43% -- but possibly as high as 60%-40% -- and a difference of at least 900 votes.

Turnout. With lots of rain forecast and a city-wide (non-Mayoral) City Councilor-At-Large race with only one strong challenger, the turnout will be lower than expected, probably close to 6500 votes in Allston-Brighton. Those 2000 votes of people who didn't show up for the preliminary election are Glennon's best -- and only -- chance to pull out a win today.

Russian Jewish elderly vote. They vote in large numbers in preliminary and primary elections, which means that there's not a lot of room to grow into the final or general election. Glennon picked up 302 votes in Ward 21, Precinct 13 to Ciommo's 142. Look for, at most, 200 more votes among these Wallingford Road -- and that the forces of darkness will twist both Ukrainian arms to turn it into a true voting bloc. Probably another 50-100 votes in the less-Russian, but still elderly, Precinct 12. Glennon +200 votes relative to Ciommo.

Who will Schofield-Hanlon-Selvig supporters vote for? In the preliminary municipal election on September 25th that saw 4500 total votes cast, Tim Schofield took third with 965 votes, Rosie Hanlon fourth with 576 votes, Alex Selvig fifth with 293 votes, and James Jenner sixth with 28 votes. That comes to 1862 votes up-for-grabs, or 41% of the overall vote. On September 26th, all these voters were looking hard at Ciommo and Glennon to figure out who to vote for.

All four candidates who finished out of the running have since endorsed Ciommo.

I haven't met a single Schofield supporter who admits to now being a Glennon supporter. There must be some, there really must be some... so I'll make a conservative estimate that Ciommo picks up Schofield's votes 80-20%.

Selvig supporters congregated around Boston College's new Brighton Campus area in Ward 22, Precinct 8 where Glennon supporters Patrick Galvin and Mark Alford are long-time and influential residents. The Selvig supporters I have spoken to, however, are breaking Ciommo, so I'll put it at 65-35%.

Hanlon supporters come from all over the district and have a variety of constituencies: business owners, long-time residents, more conservative Irish Catholics, etc. She took a long time to decide to support Ciommo, and I think her supporters will show similar difficulty choosing between the two: 50-50%.

What do these numbers mean? Ciommo picks up 1250 votes from the other candidates' supporters, while Glennon only picks up 600. Advantage Ciommo, +650. Big, big advantage which more than neutralizes Glennon's elderly pick-up.

Ward 21 progressive precincts. Forget-about-it.

Irish Catholic vote near Oak Square. Ciommo walloped Glennon in Ward 22, Precincts 7, 10, and 11, while Glennon tied him in 4 and 6. These precincts will be the bell-wether of the election: if Galvin, Alford, and former State Representative Brian Golden call up every single person they have ever remotely heard ever came within three miles of this neighborhood, then Glennon may get close here and make the race overall relatively close. But if Ciommo carries 7, 10, and 11 with big margins, then it's lights out. In one of Governor Patrick's casinos I would bet on the latter.

Other new voters in final election. This leaves 1600 new voters in the municipal election who didn't vote on September 25th. They haven't been following the race as closely, so they base their votes on the limited information coming from the mainstream media and other factors (like endorsements).

Glennon picked up the Boston Herald endorsement, but virtually nothing else aside from a former Mayor who lives elsewhere, a former State Representative who lives elsewhere, and the gentlemen of Lake Street.

Ciommo cleaned up on the endorsements, getting the Boston Globe and Allston-Brighton TAB, all the other (defeated) candidates, all the unions, and the only two local elected officials who made endorsements (current State Representative Michael Moran and current State Senator Steven Tolman).

Up until these last 1600 votes, Ciommo was winning 56-44%. Give Ciommo 60-40% among these final-election-only voters, which is Ciommo +300.

All told, that's Ciommo by 900 votes out of 6500 total votes cast, or 57-43%.


Boston City Councilor-At-Large

I don't pretend to understand the nitty-gritty voting patterns of the city-wide race. Let me say that again, so that you don't misunderstand.

I was quoted last week as saying that this race is too close to call. More specifically, Councilor Michael Flaherty will easily top the ticket again, as he did in 2005. Other than that, I believed it to be a toss-up between Councilors Felix Arroyo, Stephen Murphy, Sam Yoon, and challenger John Connolly.

The election-eve hijinks of Connolly with his campaign's anonymous mailing attacking Councilor Murphy threw a wrench into the machine. While I am active in the blogosphere -- and the blogosphere was totally abuzz with establishing the links between the mailing and Connolly, as well as expressing negative comments afterwards -- the web probably only could managed to move hundreds of votes, or maybe a thousand, from Connolly to Councilor Murphy. It could've been the margin in a very close race... but probably not enough.

Councilor Murphy's rapid response mailing, however, extended the reach of the escapade to people who had no idea that any of this had been going on all weekend. He'll get extra sympathy votes from all over town. On top of that, Connolly got the bad press of a story on the Boston Globe City/Region front page on election morning. Yuck.

A race that was too close to call isn't quite anymore. Connolly takes fifth place, again, by a few thousand votes. All the incumbents are re-elected. Matthew Geary gets a nice, but distant, sixth place: he showed far more understanding of local political issues than any other 22-year-old you could dream up.

Election Day and Night

Tuesday, November 6th is a municipal election in Boston. On the ballot for residents of Allston-Brighton: (1) District 9 City Councilor [open seat]; and (2) four City Councilors-At-Large.

Polls are open 7:00 am - 8:00 pm.

After the polls close, you can head over to the campaigns' after-election parties. The Ciommo campaign provided the location for their event, but the Glennon campaign did not respond to email or a ...  but, aha!, the TAB's blog has the information.

Mark Ciommo post-election party
Tuesday, November 6th
Starts around 8:15 pm
Corrib Pub, 396 Market Street, Brighton, MA 02135

Greg Glennon post-election party
Tuesday, November 6th
Start time:  ???
Cafe Brazil, 421 Cambridge Street, Allston, MA 02134



Voter Information Guide. In case you haven't seen all the Election 2007 related voter information, load the full website of the Brighton Centered Blog and look at the links at the right-hand-side of the page. Transcripts, audio recordings, questionnaires, interviews, campaign finance reports -- as well as analysis and critical commentary. There is literally no shortage of information about the candidates in this election.

League of Women Voters has a thorough guide detailing everything you need to know about voting.

Note:  if the precinct doesn't seem to have you on their list of registered voters, then request a provisional ballot.  If they won't give you a provisional ballot, then call the City of Boston Elections Department at 617-635-3767 and they will "gladly assist you."


Who to vote for? For the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council seat there are two final candidates: Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon.

For Boston City Councilor-At-Large, you may vote for up to four candidates among: Felix Arroyo, John Connolly, William Estrada, Michael Flaherty, Matthew Geary, Martin Hogan, Stephen Murphy, David Wyatt, and Sam Yoon.


Where to vote? Just go to "Where Do I Vote (MA)?"

Note that a few A-B precincts have changed their poll locations. If you go to a polling place and your name is not on the list of registered voters -- but you believe that your registration may still be current -- then request a provisional ballot. You vote now, and then the elections officials will sort it all out later.


When to vote? Polls open 7:00 am -- 8:00 pm. Usually, voters who are in line by 8:00 pm are allowed to vote, no matter how long it takes to process through the queue.


Election Results? Probably at the City of Boston's Current Elections website.


How often to vote? Once per registered voter, please.

A-B TAB Package on A-B City Council Race

The Allston-Brighton TAB has published a nice package of information this week related to the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council race.

Candidate Profiles: Mark Ciommo, Greg Glennon
Questionnaire: Ciommo, Glennon
Campaign finances -- also see original stories at Brighton Centered and A-B Community Blog
Editorial Meeting with the Candidates: Public schools, institutional expansion, housing and taxes
Various people's endorsements (of Ciommo, not Glennon), Ward 21 committee (also see original story at Brighton Centered), and former opponents endorsements
Editorial Endorsement of Ciommo

The Allston-Brighton TAB compiled a comprehensive collection of information about the election that will help to inform Allston-Brighton voters of their choices. The TAB is to be commended on a job well-done!

A-B TAB Endorses Ciommo, Arroyo, Connolly, Flaherty, and Yoon for City Councilor

The Allston-Brighton TAB has endorsed Mark Ciommo for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council. Their editorial page writes:

In the time we’ve been observing Ciommo, he’s shown himself to be a consistently reliable advocate for the people of Allston-Brighton. He’s regularly attended community meetings and, again in contrast to his opponent, never skipped a community debate. When local activists have asked candidates to fill out election-related questionnaires for publication on local blogs, Ciommo has always taken the time to answer them.

On the issues themselves, the TAB highlights Ciommo's stance on improving the Boston Public Schools through advocacy of the K-8 model, while contrasting it with opponent Greg Glennon's support for state-chartered schools and school vouchers.


In the Councilor-At-Large race, they picked "[Councilor] Michael Flaherty over [Councilor] Stephen Murphy, because we hear from him more – and that’s significant since all of the at-large incumbents could probably stand to pay a bit more attention to A-B than they do"; I have heard from a lot of people in the neighborhood who have the opposite view altogether.

Their other endorsements are for Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon, for providing "a voice in government for people who might not otherwise have one," and challenger John Connolly, because he "would bring a fresh, new, intelligent perspective to the council" even though his positions on some of the issues "are different from those of some of the other candidates we’re endorsing."

Tax-Exempt Status and the Knights of Columbus

The Knights of Columbus 121 Brighton Council hall at 321 Washington Street in Brighton Center has recently mounted two signs in the front of their building advocating for Greg Glennon for City Council (see photo at end of that post).

This "Catholic fraternal benefit society" appears to be organized, at least in part, as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt institution under Federal tax law as the Knights of Columbus Charities, Inc. Their property at 321 Washington Street is listed by the City of Boston as "exempt" from property taxes.

Under Federal law, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations "may not publish or distribute printed statements or make oral statements on behalf of, or in opposition to, a candidate for public office. Consequently, a written or oral endorsement of a candidate is strictly forbidden." Harvard's Office of General Counsel further advises that "section 501(c)(3) organizations are strictly prohibited from participating in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. This means that organizations that are tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) cannot endorse or advocate for political candidates or parties." Engaging in such activity could lead to loss of the organization's tax-exempt status.

I wonder: are the Knights of Columbus 121 Brighton Council aware that posting candidate signs on their property might be putting their organization's tax-exempt status in jeopardy? It seems like a very high price to pay just to support a candidate for City Council. You would think that attorney Glennon would realize the legal implications of that political activity.

I bet they could put both those signs to equally good use by moving them to the front yard of somebody's (private) house...


EDIT:  L. B. Jefferies has told me that the signs now seem to be gone.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Glennon, and the Ambassador

Mark Ciommo, candidate for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council seat, has been open on his positions on major social issues of the day. He is openly pro-choice and supports marriage equality, and wrote to me that he opposes the death penalty. Four of his opponents in the preliminary municipal election all openly answered questions on social issues, such as gay marriage, when asked.

Ciommo's opponent in the final municipal election, Greg Glennon, has, on the other hand, been remarkably quiet on these issues in this campaign. An audience question at the October 23rd debate asked him his personal position on abortion, and Glennon declined to answer the question. (Listen to the audio under "audience questions".) When given the same question, Ciommo instead chose to answer it (albeit in the fewest possible words)... and off we went to the next question.

Both Ciommo and Glennon expressed the opinion that these issues are not particularly relevant to the job of a City Councilor. But when asked if he thought these issues do matter to voters in the City Councilor election, Ciommo told me he thinks they might. "I think voters may consider these issues, however, I believe voters care most about having someone who has a record of service and experience and of proven results."

There is a clear disconnect between the two remaining candidates in their approach to addressing these major social issues of the day. It isn't really much about their particular stances on the issues -- although that does factor into the equation. Instead, their eagerness or unwillingness to address the issue with Allston-Brighton voters is the story.

Three particular points have been difficult for me to get my arms around in this election: (1) Where does Glennon stand on these social issues? (2) Does it matter to voters? and (3) Why won't he answer the same questions that other candidates will?


Where Does Glennon Stand on the Social Issues?

Where does Glennon actually stand on these social issues? Nearly everybody I have spoken to expresses certainty that Glennon opposes gay marriage and is pro-life. Is this accurate? I went to the public record to find out. (Glennon did not respond to the request to provide his positions on gay marriage and abortion for this article, or to describe how his position might have changed since 2005.)

Many stories in the last few years which have tried to categorize Glennon's political positions have called him "conservative." In general, however, the articles give no direct reference to a position paper or a quotation from Glennon himself. A simple example from the 2005 race for State Representative was in the Boston Globe's coverage (categorizing Glennon without quoting him):

Gregory Glennon... seems poised to make a play for more conservative voters who will respond to the anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage views he shares with Golden.

As best as I can tell, the paper-less trail seems to go back to one event in Brookline in 2005. Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix reported:

Greg Glennon, a former legislative aide to Golden, represents the district’s conservative constituency (Brighton is also home to the Boston archdiocese’s headquarters) and wears his views proudly. During a recent candidates’ debate in Brookline, Glennon declared himself pro-life and, after acknowledging that Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land, plugged "reasonable restrictions" on abortion rights (e.g., "informed consent" and parental-notification rules). He also denounced the Supreme Judicial Court’s Goodridge decision, which legalized gay marriage, as bad jurisprudence, and suggested that freewheeling popular debate on the subject would be healthy for Massachusetts...

Another media report I have found about the event, but which is not available online, was a column by Mark Trachtenberg in the now-defunct Allston-Brighton Bulletin:

Glennon knew he was walking on eggshells on the issue [of gay marriage] and his comments reflected it. He was the only candidate in the [2005 state representative race] field who opposed the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage.

[Glennon said:] "I believe the voters deserve the chance to voice their position on the issue by way of the [state constitutional] amendment. I believe the amendment is a fair, thoughtful amendment that respects the concerns off those who believe that consensual adult relationships deserve legal recognition."

Trachtenberg's column continues on with the issue of abortion:

As a devout Catholic, Glennon disapproves off abortion but regards a woman's access to most reproductive health services as a matter of "settled law."

The qualification "most reproductive health services" is a hole wide enough to drive a truck through, but the "settled law" statement is also a strong respect for legal precedent.

In the October 15, 2007 candidates debate, Ciommo asked Glennon about whether or not evolution should be taught in the schools. According to two people in attendance, Glennon initially seemed ready to respond -- like he did to the aborion issue in the October 23rd debate -- that the social issue was not within the purview of a City Councilor, and so that he wouldn't answer it. But the attendees said that he appeared to change his mind early in the answer; Glennon then said that it was OK to teach evolution in the public schools. (Ciommo might be cut out for the job of journalist should the election not go his way: that was a clever question he wrote, designed to pull a candidate out of his shell. It succeeded.)

There we seem to have it. Glennon is quoted as personally opposed to abortion, considering it to be a matter of "settled law," but supporting "reasonable restrictions" on it. He disagrees with the SJC's decision on gay marriage, possibly on legal grounds (he is a lawyer, after all), but has not spoken on whether or not he personally supports gay marriage; instead, he wanted a popular referendum on a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (a position also generally taken, it should be noted, by outspoken opponents of gay marriage).


Are These Major Social Issues Relevant to a City Councilor?

A Boston City Councilor has virtually no jurisdiction over any of these three issues -- abortion, gay marriage, or the death penalty -- so his position is unlikely to lead to changes in the law. There are three ways I can think of, however, in which the issues might impact voters.

First, the Boston Police Department has a significant influence over enforcement of laws related to abortion: anti-abortion protestors, such as those outside the Planned Parenthood clinic on Commonwealth Avenue just outside the District 9 borders, could be impacted by either aggressive or lax enforcement of the law. Changes in state law are currently making their way through the legislature, which would increase the buffer zone from six to 35 feet and re-define where the buffer zone originates, make enforcement an issue that is likely to crop up within the next year or two. City Councilors do have influence over police enforcement issues.

Second, getting elected City Councilor could provide an "entry point" or springboard for a politician who eventually may seek a higher office where his views could actually create an impact. Elect someone now with whom you disagree on fundamental issues, and that person could be the next Congressman.

Third, while the Legislature voted this past year not to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the voters, they may vote yet again in the future to do so. If Governor Deval Patrick gets his casinos, then I would bet in one on such a referendum passing and reversing the SJC decision. The City could be in the position to re-consider providing domestic partner benefits to city employees, an issue on which a Councilor might vote.

Of these three arguments, the first one is current and relevant on Commonwealth Avenue -- just across the boundary of District 9. The second and third arguments are, admittedly, more and more of a stretch.

What do some voters think? One undecided voter recently told me that the "entry point" argument was relevant in choosing a candidate. Many other undecided voters -- supporters of Schofield, Selvig, and Hanlon -- have told me since the September 25th preliminary election that they are considering the candidates' positions on these social issues when deciding who to support for the November 6th municipal election, with abortion and gay marriage being the key two issues.

Should these social issues matter in a City Council election? Probably not. Are voters considering these issues in this election? It sure sounds like they are -- and Ciommo suspects as much. (Glennon did not respond to a request to comment on whether or not he thinks that voters are considering these issues in this election.)


Former Mayor Flynn Supports Glennon for City Council

Former Boston Mayor and former Ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn supported Glennon in the preliminary election with a $200 check; he was also seen on election day, September 25th, outside the Oak Square YMCA, a polling location, wearing a Glennon campaign button. Flynn is well-known for his strong advocacy of the pro-life position on abortion, particularly through the organizations Catholic Alliance, Your Catholic Voice, and Catholic Citizenship. Under a photo of Ambassador Flynn and Sean Cardinal O'Malley, Catholic Citizenship expresses its goal "to get to the point where all candidates are pro-life."

I asked Ambassador Flynn recently why he supported Glennon's candidacy for A-B District 9 City Councilor. The first reason, he said, was that former State Representative Brian Golden's office -- which included staffer Glennon -- was "one of the best state representatives for delivering constituent services," an important function which was "getting short-changed in an age of institutional expansion." The second reason was the friendship that Glennon had developed with the Ambassador's son, Ed Flynn, in recent years.

I asked Ambassador Flynn if Glennon's position on abortion factored in as a reason for his support based on the Ambassador's own well-known advocacy for right-to-life causes. He said that "there's not much a City Councilor can do on this issue." But then he added, "I admire [Glennon's] position on the respect for life."

While Ambassador Flynn's response indicates that the main reasons for his support of Glennon are a past record of delivery of constituent services and a personal relationship through his son, his answer nonetheless shows that he is aware of Glennon's stance on abortion and "admires" it.

Glennon may not have wanted to answer publicly the audience question on abortion during the October 23rd debate, but he appears to have answered the question privately with at least one of his prominent supporters.


Why Would Glennon Avoid These Social Issues?

The obvious question keeps coming back to me: Why is Glennon avoiding stating his position on these social issues while his opponent -- and all the other opponents in the preliminary election -- were perfectly happy providing their positions?

One conclusion: Glennon's perceives that his position on these issues is at odds with the bulk of the electorate in Allston-Brighton. The 2005 race was a very close three-way contest between Glennon, Michael Moran, and Tim Schofield; now-State Representative Moran eeked out the win. In an election where social issues did matter, less than 1/3 of the electorate voted for the conservative candidate on these issues.

An alternate conclusion: Glennon's actual position on abortion (and/or gay marriage) is not quite conservative enough that he might fear alienating his conservative supporters. Note his statement about abortion being "settled law": this is close to heresy to the religious right, since many conservatives would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned altogether.

One Brighton political insider told me that in 2005 Glennon confided to him that he was worried what his conservative supporters might do if they heard his comment about "settled law." If this one person's account of a conversation in 2005 is accurate, then this just might provide the key to understanding Glennon's 2007 campaign strategy not to answer questions on these social issues.

Glennon appears to be walking a tightrope when he declines to answer questions about abortion: not wanting to alienate his conservative supporters with a more measured view of abortion, while also not wanting to alienate the broader A-B community who rejected a social conservative candidate more than 2-1 in 2005.

Are Glennon supporters like Ambassador Flynn aware of Glennon's somewhat nuanced position on abortion that acknowledges it as "settled law"? I cannot tell. But it is also possible that some people who were considering voting for Ciommo based on Glennon's perceived stance on abortion may take a second look at Glennon.



Caption: One of two campaign signs for Greg Glennon recently mounted outside Brighton Center's Knights of Columbus Hall. The middle line on the sign on the brick wall reads, "PRAY FOR THE UNBORN." The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic fraternal benefit society that is active in pro-life causes.

Campaign Finance Reports in the A-B District 9 City Council Race

The two remaining candidates, Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon, for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor race were required to file their second campaign finance report by October 29, 2007, covering the period September 8 - October 19, 2007. Harry Mattison, of the Allston Brighton Community Blog, and I have jointly been gathering the reports to put them online.

Here are links to the most recent reports, which go to the AllstonBrighton2006 Google Group website:

1. Mark Ciommo
   
2. Greg Glennon
   

In the District City Councilor races, these finance reports are required to be filed downtown at City Hall in paper form, which makes it difficult for the public to obtain them. I would like to thank both the Ciommo and Glennon campaigns for providing their reports to us.

The previous filing on September 17, 2007, covering the year-to-date up through September 7, 2007, was described on a previous post. In that post, I found that Glennon's September 17th filing contained a number of summation errors on the cover page. This was corrected by the Glennon campaign in a filing on October 3rd, which can be found here.

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

Reporting Period: September 8, 2007 -- October 19, 2007

NAME	BEG BALANCE	RAISE	OWN MONEY	SPEND	END BALANCE
Mark Ciommo	$3,150.59	$8,850.00	$0.00	$9,129.14	$2,871.45
Greg Glennon	$11,813.70	$8,608.00	$0.00	$15,520.24	$4,901.46
TOTAL	$14,964.29	$17,458.00	$0.00	$24,649.38	$7,772.91

COMBINED Reporting Period: Year-To-Date Through October 19, 2007

NAME	BEG BALANCE	RAISE	OWN MONEY	SPEND	END BALANCE
Mark Ciommo	$0.00	$33,442.00	$0.00	$30,570.55	$2,871.45
Greg Glennon	$0.00	$24,206.00	$4000.00	$23,204.54	$4,901.46

Note: Glennon's loan of $4,000 to his campaign (in the campaign report filed September 17th) is not listed under receipts or included in the ending account balance, while the other candidates in the preliminary did both. I have included an extra $4,000 in his ending balance to reflect this -- both for this reporting period and the combined reporting to-date -- so he may have more cash in hand than he thinks.


Expenditures

Ciommo continued to put many of his expenditures under the generic category of "consulting" by paying $4,500 (around 50% of total expenditures) to Sage Systems. That amount is down substantially from the $19,000 spent on "consulting" through 9/7/07 (90% of total expenditures up to that point) in the last campaign filing. Those who enjoyed watching the trolley in the Allston-Brighton Day Parade will be happy to know that it cost $600 to rent.


Contributors Transferred From Other Candidates

Did any of the new campaign contributors for Ciommo or Glennon previously contribute to the other candidates in the preliminary municipal election, i.e., Rosie Hanlon, Tim Schofield, or Alex Selvig? These data are not thoroughly convincing for two reasons: first, that there are only a handful of contributors in the preliminary for the third- through fifth-place candidates who then contributed to the first- or second-place candidates in the final; and second, Glennon did not itemize $2,358 of his receipts (perfectly legal for contributions of $50 and under) resulting in some donors being overlooked.

None of Selvig's contributors subsequently contributed to either Ciommo or Glennon. Two of Hanlon's (probably a married couple), and one of Schofield's, contributors before the preliminary election gave to Ciommo after the election. The data are probably statistically insignificant in showing a trend towards contributing to either candidate after the preliminary election.


Receipts

Harry Mattison reports that 55% of Ciommo's contributions come from outside Allston-Brighton zipcodes 02134 and 02135, while 78% of Glennon's come from outside A-B.

Former City Councilor Michael McCormack appears to have been spending some time at the race-track: he has now bet on the trifecta of Rosie Hanlon, Mark Ciommo, and Greg Glennon. Since Ciommo and Glennon are in the final, he'll definitely hit one for three.

Boston Herald Endorses Glennon, Connolly, Flaherty, and Murphy for City Council

On the same day as the Boston Globe announced its endorsements for Mark Ciommo and John Connolly for Boston City Council, the Boston Herald has come out with their own endorsements: Greg Glennon for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor and John Connolly, Councilor Michael Flaherty, and Councilor Stephen Murphy for City Councilor-At-Large.

The complete Herald endorsement of Glennon reads:

For the open seat in the Brighton-Allston district (District 9), the Herald endorses Greg Glennon, an assistant district attorney in Suffolk County and former legislative counsel. Glennon is a solid supporter of public charter schools, and just as solid an opponent of rent control under whatever guise it makes its next appearance.

Glennon's support for charter schools can be heard in the audio to the October 23rd debate (audio link "public schools").

Glennon has made a very strong point in this election campaign that he will not give his personal views on subjects, like abortion (audio link "audience questions"), that are not issues before the City Council. "Public charter schools" are chartered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts's Board of Education, operate completely independent of the Boston Public Schools (or any other school district), and are therefore outside the purview of the Boston City Council -- that independence is the whole point of charter schools, both to their supporters and their opponents! It is ironic that the Herald would raise charter schools as one of the only two issues they identified as forming the basis for their endorsement since it's not a City Council issue and Glennon has avoided addressing some non-Council issues. Couldn't the Herald have mentioned if Glennon matched their views on affordable housing, taxes, institutional expansion, quality-of-life, etc.?


The Herald took a different tack from the Globe by endorsing three (not one) candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large. The Herald glowingly cites Councilor Flaherty for his "loyal opposition" to the administration of Mayor Thomas Menino. They find in Councilor Murphy a strong proponent of public safety issues, particularly favoring putting more police on the streets. The Herald also likes Connolly's position on more police officers, while also praising his support for more neighborhood watch groups.

The Herald's endorsements of Connolly and Councilors Flaherty and Murphy, but not of Councilors Arroyo and Yoon, plays right along with the contradictions I raised in the Ward 21 Democratic Committee endorsements of Connolly and Councilors Felix Arroyo and Sam Yoon. I questioned how the Ward 21 committee could endorse both Connolly and Councilor Arroyo when they differed in their positions on so many issues. The Herald endorsements underline my categorizing by effectively lumping the candidates into separate groups of Connolly-Flaherty-Murphy (endorsed) vs. Arroyo-Yoon (not endorsed). You might call it "Team Irish" vs. "Team Unity."

Ward 21 Democratic Committee Endorses Ciommo, Arroyo, Connolly, and Yoon for City Council

The Ward 21 Democratic Committee met two weeks ago to consider endorsements in the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor and Boston City Councilor-At-Large races.


Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor

In A-B, they had endorsed Tim Schofield in September, but he took third place in the September 25th election thereby failing to make the final election. This time around, the Ward 21 committee endorsed Mark Ciommo. Their selection is not surprising, since Greg Glennon was yet another no-show -- this time not even responding to the committee's invitations to meet with them. You would think Glennon would learn how to send a nice letter, email, or phone call saying, "I'm sorry, but I will unfortunately have to decline your invitation to meet with you." That kind of politeness is standard teaching in charm school, be it in Massachusetts or Pennsylvania.

Attendance wasn't the only thing leading to their endorsement; the issues also mattered. Nan Evans, acting chair of the Ward 21 committee, said that Ciommo "has a record of accomplishments in the A-B community, and his basic political orientation is compatible with that of the [Ward 21 committee] members." As for Glennon's stance on the issues, she was more harsh, saying that Glennon "appears to prefer the goals of Bush Republicans to those of most Democrats."


Boston City Councilor-At-Large

Residents will have the opportunity on November 6th to vote for up to four candidates for Boston City Councilor-At-Large. There are nine candidates on the ballot.

The Ward 21 committee chose to endorse three candidates for the seats: Councilor Felix Arroyo, John Connolly, and Councilor Sam Yoon.

There were not quite enough votes to make a fourth endorsement; the leading contenders for that slot, Councilors Stephen Murphy and Michael Flaherty, appear to have lingering issues with some members of the committee, although the exact nature of that history is not clear.

When looking at those three endorsements, one thing struck me as odd: Councilor Arroyo (more so than Councilor Yoon) has many positions on the issues that are at odds with John Connolly.

In particular, Connolly is a vocal cheerleader for returning to neighborhood schools, while Councilor Arroyo opposes it in favor of the current system (with minimum 50% walk-zone). Connolly favors casino gambling -- including within Boston's city limits, albeit only after the input from East Boston residents -- while Councilor Arroyo opposes casinos, full stop. Councilor Arroyo proposed to split of the planning responsibilities from the BRA and instead create a city planning department, but Connolly opposes this plan.

If I kept researching the candidates and the issues, I am willing to bet I would continue to find many more issues on which they disagree. Councilor Arroyo is Boston's leading populist in politics, and is a rallying point for the city's minority and immigrant communities. Connolly, on the other hand, represents an older Boston full of Irish Catholics and political dynasties -- his father was, after all, the long-time Secretary of the Commonwealth. Connolly and Councilor Arroyo's stances on neighborhood schools is a classic confrontation between old and new Boston, representing the schism that engulfed the city in the 1970s over desegration and busing. It is an argument over issues like the "white flight" to the suburbs and making the schools serve every child -- no matter their race or economic background.

Why would the committee simultaneously endorse two candidates with such substantive differences?

Acting Committee Chair Nan Evans's Answer: "The decisions were not based on single issues, but on records as a whole (with the known candidates [e.g., Councilor Arroyo]) and the perception of potential (with those who have not yet held office [e.g., Connolly])."

My Answer: Connolly is a law partner of Schofield; the latter temporarily stepped down as chair of the Ward 21 committee while running for City Council. It is simply a lot easier to endorse Connolly when he is the friend and colleague of a guy you trust. But they could also have been making a more politically-adept move, as suggested by one committee member: if elected, Connolly might be more accessible to members of the Ward 21 committee due to their connection to him through Schofield.

Access buys a lot. The Ward 21 Democratic Committee got none with Glennon and therefore endorsed his opponent; the same committee appears to have picked character and access, rather than the issues, when they chose to endorse Connolly.

A Raucous Debate -- and an Unresponsive Candidate

For those who haven't heard, the debate on October 23, 2007 between Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon, candidates for the Allston-Brighthon District 9 City Council seat, at times became highly charged. Both candidates interrupted each other repeatedly for a while in the middle of the event, thereby preventing each other from speaking according to the debate's format. This was most obvious during the "institutional expansion" topic (#6), which you can listen to on this previous post.

In a nutshell, Glennon repeatedly accused Ciommo of standing up for Harvard instead of the community, because Ciommo rose "in support of the proposal" at the BRA Board Meeting on Harvard's proposed science complex on October 3rd; Glennon rose during that meeting "in opposition to the proposal." Ciommo repeatedly accused Glennon of failing to attend certain community meetings and candidate forums, and for failing to submit public comments.

The Allston-Brighton TAB has run a story with their play-by-play:

The gloves came off during questions about the continuing encroachment of universities in Allston-Brighton. Glennon continued his stance that Ciommo couldn’t be trusted to stand up for the community because of his stance at the BRA meeting.

“Folks know this is a good and worthwhile project, and an agreement must be signed before permits are issued,” Ciommo responded. “I will stand with the community every time.”

Ciommo said Glennon didn’t attend a Harvard Allston Task Force meeting the previous night, causing Glennon to repeatedly interject.

“It’s absurd to suggest you have reservations when you stood in support of Harvard,” Glennon said in his rebuttal. “You had a chance to fight for the neighbors, and to say you did is misleading.”

Ciommo then asked Glennon why, after missing two forums and not submitting public comments on projects, should voters elect an unresponsive city councilor?

“A person who supported Harvard’s plan is unresponsive,” Glennon said. “Mark wants to have it both ways. He says he stood for the community, but he stood with city insiders.”

Ciommo responded, “We want Harvard to keep their word on all issues: noise, traffic, rodent control.”

Were the Candidates' Charges Factually Accurate?

While the heated arguments were at times not civil, most of the accusations were factually accurate.

Glennon failed to show up for the BAIA/ACA candidates forum on September 17, 2007 without notifying the organizers; he failed to answer organizers' phone calls, but eventually answered the phone the following day for an A-B TAB reporter. Glennon also failed to show up for another one on September 19, 2007, although I am told that he notified the organizers that night. During the debate, Glennon appears to have confirmed his absence from the community meeting about the proposed Lowe's store in Brighton. Glennon did not submit public comments to MEPA related to Harvard's request for a phase 1 waiver of review of their science complex, which can be confirmed by inspecting the list of those comments received at the end of the Draft Record of Decision written by Ian Bowles, State Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs.

At the BRA Board Meeting on October 3, 2007 to consider waiving further review of Harvard's science complex, Ciommo did stand to deliver his public comments during the section for "those in favor of the proposal"; Glennon, on the other hand, did deliver his comments during the section for "those opposed to the proposal."

One accusation that was not correct was when Ciommo stated that Glennon had not submitted public comments to the BRA related to Harvard's DPIR on the science complex. In a previous post, I reported incorrectly that Glennon failed to submit those comments to the BRA, while I was accurate that he did not submit any to MEPA. Glennon did not provide a copy of his BRA comments to Harry Mattison (who posted all such comments on HarvardInAllston). Glennon also did not provide them to me when I made a direct request for them in an email dated September 12, 2007; several other candidates did respond to that request. The BRA only a week or so ago got back to me on my request for the whole package of public comments. In the interim, Harry Mattison obtained a copy of all those comments, and posted them at HarvardInAllston, where you can find Glennon's one-page letter to the BRA on p.82.


A Non-Responsive Candidate

Even though that one accusation by Ciommo may have been incorrect -- and was probably based on incorrect information provided here at Brighton Centered -- the incorrect information was the direct result of Glennon's failure to respond altogether to my legitimate media request. If Glennon thinks that the BRA provides such documents readily and quickly to journalists and community members -- as he implied in the feisty exchange with Ciommo -- then I think Glennon needs some education on how transparency in government actually works (or doesn't) in practice. The BRA has improved lately in responding to requests for public documents -- and they deserve credit for that -- but it is simply unreasonable that a candidate for public office should rely on an understaffed agency to provide copies of his public comment letters to voters and journalists.

Instead, Glennon should answer his email in a timely fashion. That's called constituent services.

I cannot once remember Glennon answering his home or cell phone when I have called, nor can I remember him returning a single call at a later time. And he has responded only twice to emails of mine (on 8/24/07 seven days after I wrote to him on 8/17/07; and on 9/10/07 when sending me his responses to the crowdsourced questionnaire). I know of a large number of people who have had similar problems getting through to Glennon on the phone and via email; I've even recommended to many of them to punch in "*67" before calling him in order to block their outgoing caller ID in hopes that he'll pick up if he doesn't know who it is calling. As Glennon is on record having said in the candidates forum on July 23, 2007:

"I will always be available. Every phone call will get returned, every email, every letter." [italics added]

On top of that his home phone number is unlisted. (I've tried looking it up in the hard copy of the white pages and online.) His campaign website doesn't list a phone number -- imagine that for a candidate for public office, not telling you how to call his campaign office!*** Once again from the 7/23/07 candidates forum he said:

"Even more, always being available, being in the community, always having a publicly listed home phone number anyone can call whenever they want to pick up the phone to call me." [italics added]

Glennon has therefore already made campaign promises to have a publicly listed home phone number and to return every phone call and email. Those campaign promises are waiting to be fulfilled. And there's fewer than twelve days before the polls close on November 6th.


*** EDIT [11/1/07]: The campaign website now lists a phone and FAX number for the campaign office.

Audio of the District 9 City Council Candidates Debate

With the kind assistance of Harry Mattison and his HarvardInAllston website, I have put up links to the MP3 audio from the District 9 City Councilor Candidates Debate on Tuesday, October 23rd at the Edison Middle School between Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon.

I've split up the audio into a series of files focused by topic.

The ground rules of the event were that the questions would be a mix of ones written by the moderator and by each candidate. When a question was asked, candidate A got 90 seconds to respond; candidate B having 90 seconds to respond; and then candidate A would have an optional additional 60 seconds for rebuttal. The next question would then start with candidate B responding. Opening and closing remarks were two minutes per candidate. I was the moderator for the event.

On the recording, Glennon's audio sounds softer then Ciommo or myself simply due to the location of the recording device (on my podium, thus furthest from Glennon), I'm sorry if you may have to raise/lower the levels when playing it back.

1. Opening remarks
   
2. Taxes, gambling
   
3. Public schools
   
4. Housing
   
5. Zoning, licensing
   
6. Institutional expansion
   
7. Open space
   
8. Public safety, budgetary trade-offs
   
9. Audience questions
   
10. Closing remarks

Raucous Debate At Times

This debate became highly charged and quite raucous at times, with the candidates lobbing accusations back-and-forth. The exchange can be heard in the "institutional expansion" (#6) audio above.

I've put some analysis of the accusations into a companion post.

Former City Council Candidate Alex Selvig Endorses Mark Ciommo

Alex Selvig unsuccessfully ran for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council seat in the preliminary election last month. He seems to have been researching the remaining two candidates, Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon, and their positions on the issues prior to making an endorsement.

I have noticed that Selvig has had a Ciommo sign up on his front lawn for a number of days, indicating it is clear who he would be voting for. Now, he has expanded that into an endorsement of Ciommo's candidacy.

Selvig says of Ciommo:

Mark Ciommo is always at meetings, park cleanups, and other community events, and has faithfully attended all of our debates. He respects the people of Allston-Brighton.

Mark's broad support makes him less beholden to special interests, and will allow him to be an open, accessible, and honest broker for the citizens of our community. I look forward to working with him as our next City Councilor.

Tim Schofield has already endorsed Ciommo in the final election. Only Rosie Hanlon and James Jenner have not endorsed a candidate; I think that Hanlon's long wait might be indicative that she will not endorse either candidate.

A-B District 9 City Council Candidates Debate: Tuesday 10/23 at 6:30 pm at the Edison School

Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council Candidates Debate:
Mark Ciommo vs. Gregory Glennon

Tuesday, October 23
6:30 pm -- Informal Meet-and-Greet
7:00 - 8:30 pm -- Candidates Debate

Sponsored by: Brighton Allston Improvement Association
and Allston Civic Association

Location:  Edison Middle School
60 Glenmont Road, Brighton, MA 02135
Parking at rear of building

Moderator: Michael Pahre, Editor, Brighton Centered Blog

On November 6 we will elect a new Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor.  There will be questions about issues that are important both city-wide and locally here in Allston-Brighton. Audience-written questions will also be accepted.

For more information, contact Abigail Furey of the BAIA at (617)782-1382.

A-B District 9 City Council Candidate Debate Tonight at 6:30 pm

The two finalists for the Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council seat will participate in a debate tonight at 6:30 pm at the West End House in Allston.  Mark Ciommo and Gregory Glennon were the first and second place finishers, respectively, in the September 25th preliminary municipal election.  Tonight's debate will be moderated by State Senator Steve Tolman.


Allston-Brighton District 9 City Council Candidates Debate

Sponsored by:  Allston Board of Trade; Brighton Board of Trade;
Brighton Main Streets

Location:  West End House, 105 Allston Street, Allston, MA  02134

Monday, October 15th
6:00 pm -- Meet-and-Greet With the Candidates
6:30 - 8:30 pm -- Debate

For more information:  contact Bill at 617-277-5300.


The next candidate's debate will be held on Tuesday, October 23rd, at 6:30 pm, at the Edison Middle School, Brighton.

Guest Column: The Finalists -- And Those Who Didn’t Quite Make It

Today we have another guest column by Mark Trachtenberg, who took time off from writing for the Allston-Brighton TAB to offer us his perspective on the September 25th preliminary municipal election for the Allston-Brighton District 9 seat on the City Council.  I would like to thank him for writing another interesting contribution.

-Ed.


The Finalists -- And Those Who Didn’t Quite Make It

By Mark D. Trachtenberg


In any political campaign, organization is the single most important factor in who wins or loses, and no campaign I’ve ever been involved in as either a candidate, a campaign volunteer, an election official, or as a journalist has shown this more than the recent preliminary election for the Allston-Brighton District 9 seat on the Boston City Council. At the beginning of the campaign it appeared that the anger and fear surrounding the institutional expansion issue might be strong enough to pull Alex Selvig, the crusading businessman from Lake Street with no previous experience in organizing a political campaign, into the final election. But in the end, Selvig didn’t come close to getting enough votes, and two far more experienced candidates – Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon – made it to the final election.

Alex Selvig’s “rookie mistake” was that in the end, he failed to put together an effective field organization for the day of the election, as he himself admitted afterwards. Selvig had plenty of lawn signs, but as U.Mass.-Boston political science professor Gary Dotterman, a former city council candidate himself notes, “Lawn signs are easy.” But like Eugene McCarthy with the Vietnam War, Howard Dean with Iraq, and William Jennings Bryan with the free coinage of silver, Alex Selvig had a profound influence on the campaign without winning it himself. He pushed the other candidates to be tougher on the colleges and universities and more independent of Mayor Menino than they would have been otherwise, and Allston-Brighton may benefit as a result. “The whole point of the campaign was to put the institutional expansion issue front and center,” Selvig said after the preliminary election.

So what can we expect as Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon go at it in the final election? The three-percent difference between the vote totals of Ciommo and Glennon in the preliminary election may seem quite close, but a look behind the numbers tells a far different story. The quick decision of third-place finisher Tim Schofield to endorse Ciommo was fairly predictable. What Schofield might have meant when he called Ciommo “the candidate who can unify the neighborhood” is that Schofield and many of his supporters still consider Greg Glennon to be the bogeyman on sexual politics issues such as gay rights and abortion, and they view Mark Ciommo as the safe alternative: a nice guy who helps the elderly and won’t do anything that will make them lose any sleep.

Tim Schofield finished third, and not a very close third, either – he had 22 percent of the vote, compared to Mark Ciommo’s 31 percent and Greg Glennon’s 28 percent. Schofield’s unexpectedly weak showing wasn’t caused by any particular failure of his campaign organization, because he had as polished and professional an election-day effort as I’ve ever seen. It wasn’t caused by any particular failure of the candidate himself – Schofield certainly presented himself to the voters as a well-informed advocate on many neighborhood issues. But the sexual politics issues such as gay marriage and abortion have always been something of a double-edged sword for the openly gay lawyer Tim Schofield, and in this year’s district city council election, many voters who had chosen him on the strength of those issues in the 2005 Democratic primary for state representative simply didn’t show up at the polls. The numbers from three precincts near Commonwealth Avenue which Tim Schofield carried in both 2005 and 2007 tell a troubling story for Schofield, and for anybody who truly values public participation in local elections: there was more than a 50 percent decline in voter turnout between Schofield’s 2005 and 2007 races.

The sexual politics issues were almost off the table this year, and many voters who supported Schofield in 2005 apparently weren’t motivated to cast a ballot this year when more local and neighborhood-based concerns dominated the campaign. It’s a shame, really, but as the old saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” Perhaps Tim Schofield might have been helped if the Boston Globe had acted less snooty and actually covered the preliminary election campaign in its news columns rather than just throwing him a conspicuously ineffective endorsement, but we’ll never know for sure. Many candidates in Boston don’t succeed in getting elected until at least their third attempt – for example, State Representative Michael Moran and departing City Councilor Jerry McDermott – and at 38 Tim Schofield is young enough to take advantage of any number of future opportunities to run for office again.

So what can we expect from a final election contest between Mark Ciommo and Greg Glennon? The no-show-prone Glennon got his place in the final election largely on the strength of a traditional neighborhood organization led by Patrick Galvin, brother to Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin.  But now Glennon finds himself in a very tough spot, tougher than the raw numbers from the preliminary election might suggest. Sure, Mark Ciommo emerged with a margin of only three percent, or about 150 votes, in the preliminary election, but there’s virtually no place for Greg Glennon to go among the people who voted in the preliminary election to make up the difference. Schofield’s 965 votes are almost all going to go straight to Mark Ciommo, with Ciommo barely having to lift a finger to get them. Much of Alex Selvig’s support around Lake Street can be described as “upscale leftist” – one Selvig neighbor whom I spoke with early in the campaign had several anti-war stickers on her car – so Greg Glennon will have little appeal to the bulk of Alex Selvig’s supporters, and Selvig himself is already reported to be supporting Ciommo. The best Glennon can hope for with 526 people (or 13 percent) who voted for Rosie Hanlon is to split them evenly with Ciommo, and even that may be a stretch.

To win in the final election, Greg Glennon will have to find a way to “expand the pie” – bring new voters into the process. Glennon has the knowledge and experience to be credible presenting himself a strong advocate on poor people’s issues from his time working on former state representative Brian Golden’s staff, but will he choose to campaign that way? Perhaps he can also point out to the voters in North Allston that he opposed the BRA's quick approval of Harvard’s proposed science complex while Ciommo spoke in favor of it, but will that particular project really matter to anybody around Oak Square in Brighton? Will Glennon even remember to show up for everything he’s supposed to show up for?

In Mark Ciommo, Greg Glennon has an opponent who’s a considerably better candidate than he was when he first ran for the District 9 city council seat in 2002 – a more polished and articulate speaker, better prepared, and getting better advice. Ciommo has a genuinely strong human service background, and the deeper roots in the neighborhood than Glennon has. In my non-betting, just-for-fun political mock casino, I’m making Mark Ciommo a 2-1 favorite to be Allston-Brighton’s next district city councilor.

But please, don’t leave the decision to a mere pundit like me. Go to the debates, read the local newspapers which do cover the campaign, talk to your neighbors, make a well-informed decision, and vote.  It really is important.

Community Leaders Speak at BRA Board Meeting on Harvard's Allston Science Complex

The BRA Board met on the afternoon of October 3rd, and voted to waive further review of Harvard University's proposed Science Complex on Western Avenue.

Many members of the Allston-Brighton community, including elected officials and candidates for public office, spoke during the public comment portion of the hearing. Audio recordings of their comments, in MP3 format, can be heard by clicking through the links below; unfortunately, the lack of amplification in the meeting room resulted in poor sound quality in some cases. Harry Mattison has kindly hosted these audio clips on his HarvardInAllston website.

The procedure of the meeting was such that the members of the public, who were not elected officials or representing city offices, delivered their comments either "in favor of" or "in opposition to" Harvard's proposal, which I have noted below, where appropriate. This procedural element, however, is not the full story for the nature of the comments delivered, since many in favor raised critical issues, while others in opposition voiced positive points.

Elected Officials (or their representatives):

1. State Representative Kevin Honan [particularly poor audio quality]
   
2. State Representative Michael Moran
3. [former?] Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor Jerry McDermott
4. representative for State Senator Steven Tolman
5. representative for At-Large City Councilor Sam Yoon
6. representative for At-Large City Councilor Felix Arroyo, rising in opposition to the proposal

Candidates for Public Office:

1. Mark Ciommo, candidate for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor, rising in favor of the proposal
   
2. Gregory Glennon, candidate for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor, rising in opposition to the proposal
3. Anthony Galluccio, candidate for State Senator in a district including part of Allston-Brighton

Community Leaders:

1. Ray Mellone, chair of the Harvard Allston Task Force [particularly poor audio quality]
   
2. John Bruno, member of the Harvard Allston Task Force, rising in favor of the proposal
3. Brent Whelan, member of the Harvard Allston Task Force, rising in opposition to the proposal
4. Harry Mattison, member of the Harvard Allston Task Force, rising in opposition to the proposal
5. John Cusack, member of the Harvard Allston Task Force, rising in opposition to the proposal
6. Alex Selvig, former candidate for Allston-Brighton District 9 City Councilor. While technically he rose during the "in favor of the petition" portion of the meeting, he told me his position on the science complex is not "in favor" of it.
   

Note that the Harvard Allston Task Force unanimously voted at its September 17, 2007 meeting to "recommend BRA approval of the Science Center Complex and the DPIR and the submission of a list of neighborhood concerns [as described more fully in the proposed resolution (attached) dated September 7, 2007] requesting a review and response of these concerns from the BRA and Harvard," according to the BRA's draft minutes of the meeting. (The proposed resolution is included at the end of the PDF document at that link.) You will have to listen to their comments, e.g., Whelan's, to understand why they voted as they did at the HATF meeting, but rose in opposition to the proposal at the BRA Board meeting.

Note that Councilor McDermott introduced himself as "representing Allston-Brighton District 9 on the [Boston] City Council" in the present tense. Has he stepped down from the job, or has he opened a Westwood Satellite Office?

Written public comments submitted to the BRA by September 10th in response to the Draft Project Impact Report can be found at the HarvardInAllston website in PDF format.  Some of the people in the audio files refer to their written comments.


EDIT (1:30 pm): dead links fixed.

Here is a complete list of the speakers at the BRA Board meeting on 10/3/07.  Note that the peculiar numbering scheme in a couple of places reflects how the audio was broken up into individual files. We haven't posted all the audio files, but focused instead on those of public officials, candidates, and task force members.

Proponents
1. Gordon (Harvard's Allston Development Group)
2. Benisch (Architect)
3. Spiegelman (ADG)

Elected Officials, City Officials, task force chair
4. Rep. Honan
5. Rep. Moran
6. [fmr?] Councilor McDermott
7. rep. for Sen. Tolman
8. Holloway (Mayor's Office of Neighborhood Services)
9. [soon-to-be] Sen.-Elect Galluccio
10. Mellone (chair, Harvard Allston Task Force)
11. rep. for Councilor Yoon

In Support of Proposal:
12. Hyman (Harvard)
13a. Rita DiGeese
13b. Kristin Morelock (West End House)
13c. Jessy Coty (Brian Honan Fellowship recipient)
14. Melton (Harvard Stem Cell Institute)
15. Herman (Gardner)
16. Selvig
17. A. Tang
18. Ciommo
19. Bruno, member of HATF
20. Eustice (Prime Realty)
21. Carroll [?] / Tradesmen / Gasfitters
22. McQueen (WalkBoston)

In Opposition of Proposal:
23. Glennon
24. Whelan, member of HATF
25. Mattison, member of HATF
26. rep. for Councilor Arroyo
27. Kotomori
28. P. Alford
29. Schafer
30. Cusack, member of HATF

Discussion, etc.
31. Harvard, BRA Board, vote

Analysis of the 9/25/07 Election Results: Why Schofield Lost

Reports of the after-election event for the Tim Schofield campaign were that, as the returns started coming in, the mood turned to "dejected", stunned, or somber. His supporters were expecting a much better result than a distant third in Tuesday's preliminary municipal election.

It is fairly clear that Mark Ciommo campaign had an effective get-out-the-vote effort on election day, resulting in a first-place finish.

Inspection of the results for Greg Glennon show that a strong majority of the Russian Jewish senior bloc voted for him -- as did the more general senior vote in the neighboring precinct -- leading to his second-place showing.

But what led to the defeat of Schofield's effort in which he missed second place by nearly 300 votes? There are two answers, in order of decreasing likelihood: (1) Failure to get-out-the-vote in what should have been his strongholds of Ward 21, particularly along Commonwealth Avenue; and (2) a split in the institutional expansion vote, particularly due to the participation of fifth-place finisher Alex Selvig.

The analysis here is based on the unofficial returns by precinct that I recently posted.


Glennon Blocs Senior Vote From Ciommo

There is little question that seniors voted heavily for Glennon in this election.

Wallingford Road's Ward 21, Precinct 13 went 303-142-57 for Glennon-Ciommo-Schofield. It wasn't a voting bloc per se, but instead the Russian Jewish senior vote broke well but not overwhelmingly for Glennon at 56%, indicating that there was no formal endorsement for any one candidate by ward boss Naakh Visoky. Compare with November 8, 2005, when incumbent Councilor Jerry McDermott carried 80% of the precinct at 507-114 against Paul Creighton -- that was a voting bloc.

But far more interesting was the senior-heavy, but not so overtly Russian, neighboring Precinct 12 in Ward 21, which includes other senior housing buildings like Covenant House. This precinct sailed into Glennon's hands 147-75 over Ciommo, which is surprising considering Ciommo's connections with seniors at his job as Executive Director of the Veronica Smith Senior Center. In 2005, the precinct went only 55%-44% for McDermott, even though McDermott had the endorsed bloc over on Wallingford Road, indicating how those two precinct votes do not always follow each other. Glennon's victory in 21/12 threw another more than 100 votes to him relative to Schofield.

I'm sure Glennon will be able to read the writing on the walls: he won a place in the finals by gaining 372 votes over Schofield from these two precincts. He's got some helpers to thank.

Ciommo was expected to do well with seniors district-wide, but that is more difficult to assess based on the precinct-level results and the lack of an exit poll.


Not Getting-Out-the-Vote in Progressive Ward 21

After seeing the 303 and 147 Glennon votes in those two precincts, the next biggest thing that stands out in the precinct results is the horrendously low voter turnout in all of the rest of Ward 21. Nine of those other 12 precincts had voter turnout of 1.6 to 5.5%. Yes, you saw that correctly, Ward 21, Precinct 8 had only 1.6% of registered voters show up at the polls, compared to a district-wide average of 12.5%!

If you ignore the two senior-heavy precincts, Ward 21 is generally known to be more progressive than its neighboring Irish Catholic Ward 22 to the west; Ward 21 should have been part of the Schofield base. Schofield did, in fact, win six of the Ward 21 precincts, but did so by getting only 12 to 20 votes in each of those six precincts. The same six precincts had 9-16% voter turnout in the municipal election of November 2005, disproportionately higher relative to the overall turnout rates. All six precincts together could barely make up the ground Glennon gained in 21/12 alone, and were nowhere close to Glennon's relative gain in 21/13.


Silver Lining for Schofield

There is one little nugget that Schofield's campaign should enjoy: he was the only candidate to get votes in the double digits (i.e., at least ten) in each and every one of the 27 precincts. Ciommo, Glennon, and Rosie Hanlon managed ten or more votes each in 20 precincts; Selvig did it in ten precincts. Schofield can take heart that he saw some broad support across the district.


Irish Catholic Vote in Ward 22 Oak Square

This really was a battleground between Ciommo and Schofield in Precincts 7 and 11, with Glennon carrying on in third place. But Precinct 13 went very big for Glennon, no doubt due to the influence of his mentor who lives here lived here until recently, former State Representative Brian Golden. When you put all three precincts together, it all went heavily for Ciommo. Glennon and
Schofield were only separated by two votes, keeping Schofield from making up ground lost on the senior vote.


Institutional Expansion Vote Split, But Could've Swung Election

The issue of institutional expansion gave rise to Selvig's candidacy, but also was a significant factor for Hanlon and Schofield -- long-time and three-month members, respectively, of the Boston College Task Force. First-time candidate Selvig carried nearly 300 votes, and they really did come from the neighborhoods adjacent to Boston College's Brighton Campus and Harvard University's Allston Campus. Selvig picked up 23% of all of his votes carrying his home Precinct 8 in Ward 22, north and west of the land formerly owned by St. John's Seminary. The other precincts he carried at least ten votes were nearly all either adjacent to 22/8 (i.e., precincts 3, 4, 9, and 10) or in the heart of Harvard's Allston country in Ward 22, Precincts 1 and 2; but in the Harvard area, he got beaten soundly by all four other candidates. In short, he carried the BC vote (barely), but Ciommo and Schofield took the Harvard vote. Overall, Ciommo edged Schofield out on the institutional expansion precincts, contrary to my prediction.

The people who stop by Brighton Centered are typically interested and involved in the institutional expansion issue. And they broke for Schofield, followed by Selvig, in that failed poll in July. Could Selvig and Hanlon, who were both active in the issue before the campaign, have driven enough institutional expansion votes away from Schofield to bump him out of second place? Quite possibly, although difficult to prove. I suspect most supporters liked Selvig because of his knowledge of the issue and aggressive stance, but not so much because of non-A-B money; Schofield shared the broad knowledge, but was far more diplomatic than aggressive on the issue in the campaign. I think this implies some degree of overlap among their supporters.


How Did My Predictions Fare?

Prediction: Voter turnout 5000 or significantly more (i.e., up to 6000).
Reality: 4521 votes, or 10% below (or up to 25% below) my prediction.
Judgment: Not bad. I think a lot of people were surprised with the lower-than-expected turnout in an election that everyone thought was high-profile (except at the Boston Globe and Boston Herald).

Prediction: Wallingford Road not vote as a bloc, but instead breaking for Glennon at 65-25-10% for Glennon-Ciommo-Schofield.
Reality: Wallingford Road not vote as a bloc, but instead breaking for Glennon at 56-26-11. Pretty damn close.

Prediction: Elderly vote 60-25-15% for Ciommo-Hanlon-Schofield in Ward 21, Precinct 12.
Reality: Elderly vote 27-8-8% for Ciommo-Hanlon-Schofield in Ward 21, Precinct 12, with Glennon carrying 53%.
Judgment: Couldn't have been more wrong. Surprise of the night for Glennon.

Prediction: Schofield carries the institutional expansion vote, with Glennon and Ciommo way behind tied for 4th place.
Reality: Ciommo carried the institutional expansion vote, with Schofield close behind and Glennon in third.

Prediction: Glennon won't carry his own precinct [i.e., Schofield takes it].
Reality: Glennon doesn't carry his own precinct -- Ciommo takes it.

Prediction: Schofield gives Ciommo a run for his money in Irish Catholic strongholds in Oak Square at 55-45 for Ciommo-Schofield in Ward 22, Precincts 7 and 11. [I mistakenly wrote 13, which is a much more conservative precinct.]
Reality: Schofield gives Ciommo a run for his money, but Glennon is a strong third. Just counting the two candidates has Ciommo-Schofield at 59-41%, pretty close.

Analysis: Schofield campaign best organized, Ciommo a little bit of a hit, Glennon organization in disarray.
Reality: On election day, Ciommo's organization got out the vote and Schofield didn't. Glennon organization's performance unclear, since so much of his vote came from blocs partnering with others.

Prediction: The race was going to be damn close between Schofield, Ciommo, and Glennon.
Reality: The race was quite close, but only between Ciommo and Glennon.

Prediction: Hanlon 675 votes, Selvig 300. [After correcting down by 25% to account for my mistake, described above, in the overall turnout.]
Reality: Hanlon 576 votes, Selvig 293.

Prediction: Schofield-Ciommo-Glennon-Hanlon-Selvig.
Reality: Ciommo-Glennon-Schofield-Hanlon-Selvig.

Prediction: The Russian vote determines second place, not first.
Reality: The Russian vote determines second place, not first -- but you might instead argue that the split of institutional expansion votes determined second place.


Summary: with odds-making like that, bring on the casinos!