By Linda Scott
Watertown Resident
Because There are No Kings…
I’d like to comment on the way people conduct themselves when running for office. Hundreds of Watertown residents were in the Delta a few weekends ago, proclaiming that there should be no kings in the United States, that rules are for everyone!
I believe that it’s important to take that into consideration when making our very important choices. Here’s an example:
I had heard rumblings of candidates for City Council, School Committee and Library Trustee skirting the election rules that are clearly spelled out in the election information available to them when they sign up.
I contacted Noelle Gilligan, our City Clerk and Chief Election Officer, to ask about any rules that apply to those who submit papers to run for a city office. She referred me to the Running for Elected Office page on our City site. https://watertown-ma.gov/1508/Running-for-Elected-Office, where under Electioneering Restrictions, it states in simple terms:
“Where can Political Signs be Placed: You cannot put political signs on municipal property.”
Noelle also sent out an email to all candidates emphasizing this:
Rules for placing campaign materials
- Public property is prohibited: Campaign signs cannot be placed on any city-owned property, including parks, public buildings, and the grass between the sidewalk and the street.
Despite the City’s unambiguous election rules, Sheila Krishnan, (running for School Committee) or someone from her campaign, placed campaign signs on the Commander Mansion’s grounds (municipal property) for her and Theo Offei (running for City Councilor at Large) and Xin Peng (candidate for Library Trustee) during the Wicked Watertown Halloween celebration.
Signs of Sheila’s campaign could also be seen in the Commander’s Mansion as well.
The pictures on the City’s Event Facebook page (see above) also garnered these candidates extra attention and publicity. When the City was contacted about this, they were taken down. It was a great night and event to spread the word about their candidacies. Too bad it’s illegal and unfair to the other candidates, their political rivals, who adhered to the proper City election standards.
It’s up to us what we will tolerate in our community and where we draw the line. This election is going to be a very important and consequential one. With the fiscal storm that is brewing, it’s never been more important to make wise choices.
Send letters to the editor to watertownmanews@gmail.com. The deadline for election letters is Nov. 1 at 5 p.m.
So if someone paid out of pocket to sponsor that event at Commander’s Mansion and decided to put the signs there as part of their PAID spot – you make them out to be so vile? ….. why do you have to assume the worst intent possible?
This seems like a pretty targeted reaction – why do you have to act like the candidates are so awful when the sponsorship and display was approved by the event organizers at the Commander’s Mansion? It could have been denied from the start if it was a problem.
I don’t think the villainizing of these three candidates is the answer…. ever heard of benefit of the doubt?
Well said. As the former Election Commissioner for the City of Revere, I can attest to how vague some of these sign guidelines can be. This hyperbolic response is beyond the pale.
I have seen more benefit of the doubt given to child predators and wealthy drunk, coked-up men as their car is dangles from the smashed storefront window. He was just taking picture or it didn’t look like a window. How about some praise for thinking outside of the box and finding out if sponsorship was even a possibility? I wish I had thought of that! Applause to all the smart women!
I am writing this as a resident.
Most people have never run for office and if you haven’t, you’d be surprised what it takes to learn and comply with all of the rules, run a campaign, work a full time job, continue with your community volunteer roles (in Sheila’s case, among other activities – helping families at risk of and impacted by ICE presence in our community) and parent young children, all at the same time and in just four short months. Only one of those being paid work. And doing that while expending energy managing the bias and intolerance people of color must contend with, wherever they live in our country, all the time.
It’s fine to correct people for mistakes but let’s have some civility and give people the benefit of the doubt. The author clearly doesn’t understand White privilege either. Otherwise she would have mentioned it as another unfair advantage candidates with it often take (usually without realizing it). And if we’re stooping to the level of calling out (minor and honest) mistakes folks make, let’s be thorough. Since I have run for office before, I can say that while the City Clerk’s office does their best, information is not made available in as thorough and timely a manner as would be ideal, which I attribute not to staff incompetence but rather to City staffing workloads that can sometimes be overwhelming. And, it was City departments who accepted and processed the sponsorship of the candidate. They also were unaware of the rules, and yet the author doesn’t make that clear. This was a case of the City innovating and trying a new model for Wicked Watertown, a candidate purchasing ad space she believed was sanctioned based on it being accepted by a City department, and people – all of them – doing this in service of community improvement and particularly for youth.
There are other candidates who have made some mistakes during this election. I haven’t heard members of the public criticize them publicly or do so with so many incorrect and biased assumptions. Examine yourself carefully before tearing down people who face challenges you may never imagine when putting themselves out there for our community’s common good.
Lisa Capoccia
Couldn’t agree more!
Brava!
Linda, I’m so sorry your reasonable request for everybody to respect campaign regulations was met with such hostility. You wrote nothing that warranted that reaction. There seems to be a subtext to this election I’m not wholly aware of. Elections are to be celebrated: state your case to your community, and may the best candidate win. Even the candidates I won’t vote for are impressive people with much to offer. I will simply vote for someone else. You made no disparaging comments, and deserved none in return.
I think equating this minor oversight over campaign signage to the concerns of the No Kings protestors to be positively absurd and shameful. Frankly, anyone who steps forward in this toxic environment to serve in public office deserves better than nasty sniping from others!
Absolutely!
I could never run for office. My tongue would fall out of my mouth in less than a week from biting down on it. I could probably give Trump a run for his money in that arena. I wish there were some Democrats that would.
All the candidates went out, got signatures, got on the ballot and have been very respectful. Some of them have perfect comic timing. Good on them!
Gee, I wonder why else these three candidates are getting attention?
As a lifelong resident, I’ve seen all the sign violations across the political spectrum – early posting, on public property, stolen, taken down 9 months later, etc. I have not reported a single one. Nuisance regulations are at worst gatekeeping, at best petty AF. They don’t concern safety. If reporting was really about safety, then the SeeIt-ClickIt-FixIt board would be full of snow shoveling ordinance violations instead of – “the guy next door started at 6:57am”.
I’d be glad to only have options of pests, coyotes sighting, animal remains,
potholes, sewer backup – serious things to be concerned about. Currently there is nothing but noise on that board. It’s like Soviet Era mutual surveillance instead of a tool for the city service facilitation. I can’t understand how a business sandwich board on the sidewalk, a popular one on the board, would bother someone so much that they would use precious time to take a photo and fill out a form. I don’t even blink when I see a makeshift driveway. We need to give people some grace and space, like the city did with the snow ordinance.
Back to the original question, why these three? I am hoping that some residents are being overly competitive about the election and that we are better than a sundown town or a xenophobic one. I will cast my vote FOR Offei, Krishnan and Peng because they have the visions, policies, skills and motivations that I want to see to see utilized in Watertown over the next 40 years. I am not casting a ballot AGAINST others because they had a party until 2am. I am not casting a ballot FOR candidates because; their financial policies are too liberal or too conservative, their education approach centers the parent instead of the student or vice-versa, their library programming is innovative or very conventional. So that I can sleep at night, I am going to say that people are being super extra uber competitive.
Is this seriously what this community cares about? It seems like a basic miscommunication- the Watertown Events staff failed to do their due diligence and not allow for political campaigns to buy space or advertise, and the campaigns involved should not have put their signs there. Sounds like there were failures on both sides.
Mistakes happen, and this type of intentional mud-slinging does our community no favors. I am sure I made mistakes in my own campaigns, and am thankful no one wrote an op-ed about mine.
Agree 100%. Things happen.
No one is at fault here and no one did anything deceptive or with bad intention; not the hard working staff at the Commander’s Mansion, not the City Clerk who has been working round the clock, not the named candidates who tried a new idea nor the unnamed candidates who didn’t try a new idea.
Now that the OP has an answer as to what happen, I would like to see her rise to the occasion with some grace and apologize to Candidate Theo Offei, Candidate Sheila Krishnan and Candidate Xin Peng as well as to other who have been thrown under that proverbial bus.
I, for one, am grateful for Linda Scott’s bringing to Watertown residents’ attention the rules for posting campaign materials, and for the City Clerk’s information on the subject. It’s puzzling that some commenters think openly disregarding a lawful ethical practice is a mere mistake.
Why are you unnecessarily bringing up race? Not everyone with an opinion has a racist motivation. Nothing Linda said implied race in any way.
I am posing the question because the OP had “heard rumblings about the three candidates skirting the rules”? What was said? From whom? When? How?
Bringing rumblings into the conversation does beg the question of motive. Did rumblers rumble to entice the OP to go on a hunt? Did the rumblers know that the candidates had cleared the sign postings with the appropriate persons and then still chose rumble about illegals postings? Was any fact checking done before running to the City Clerk and Watertown News?
We have all heard things about former candidates and councilors as well as current ones. It does not mean it is true. I have would gone directly to the candidates and ask before doing anything else. Why were these candidate not given that courtesy? A chance to clear up the situation? Were they already assumed guilty? Why?
Unfortunately, racial bias is a motivation in the U.S. as is xenophobia. Maybe it is their politics or their probability of winning that came into play. Their sexuality or youth? Residents in Watertown have dismissed other residents because of their short length of residency. It is a known and very present bias.
Given this ambiguity around the rumblings, all these reasonable questions about motive have to be asked. If the OP had seeked out the candidates directly, there would be no story. The OP is not owed an apology, but many others are.
Elsewhere on this site, we have been encouraged to vote for these very candidates because: diversity. The “OP” mentioned only the signs (which were clear violations), not race. I will not denigrate any candidate: they are all to be commended for caring enough about their community to put themselves forward. I accept these were probably mistakes by overzealous advocates. But even if no one else will apologize to the “OP” for the vile slurs she has received for merely calling attention to the campaign violation, I will. Twice. Good luck to them—and us—all.
If permission was asked, granted, and then revoked, then it is not clear. The Clerk could have gone the other way. Why would the Maison be different from Faire on the Square or The Farmer’s Market, both held on public property? Per ChatGPT, the ordinance in most aspects is clear, but it in its entirety, can be seen as ambiguous or leave room for interpretation.
Responders judging the content of the author does not for a vile slur make. A civic minded writer presents content that represents a good faith attempt to ask what, why, how, when and where, and ask all parties involved. One primary source was consulted plus rumblings. Was there an effort to ensure there were 0 signs on public property? This has not been true in the past nor does it equate to bad intention.
Why is the content not complete? Without it giving the whole picture, content can be construed as manipulative, petty, short-sighted, sensational, half-true and anything but civic minded. The civic duty is based on the fundamental necessity to present a complete picture so fellow citizens can make a judgement grounded in reason and knowledge. Anything less is about controlling the narrative.
The author is only one who owes everyone an apology. Presenting the content as complete tarnishes this year’s election, the candidates who were the subject, and the other candidates who have been nothing but comradely. It has put the reputation of city workers into question. Without an apologize, future content, in my mind and other, will been seen as sparsely factual, manipulative, petty and tone-deaf.
Thank you Linda for your attention to details.
You deserve praise not scorn for your efforts to keep us all doing our best.
You should be hearing apologies from those who did not know better.
Hi Lisa,
You appear to have more problems with the City government than you do with the candidates…interesting position to take. I simply reported the facts. You get to choose how seriously you want to weigh them.
And as for white privilege…are you really telling me that these 3 accomplished people with the backup they have from influential people like you in this community are vulnerable in some way?
Other candidates who may have less of an education than these folks and not be well connected to City commissions and boards didn’t make this mistake. I guess the question is why did they?
The bottom line is that these are people who aspire to be leaders in our community. They need to show us that their decision-making is better than this. Election laws are clear and not up for debate. It’s a trial run for what will be expected of them later, if elected.
I repeat, those were the facts. You get to choose whether to attach value to them or not, but please do not ignore them when you are making your decision.
Linda,
You need to stop. You did not present all the facts. You went from rumblings to Watertown News. Did you go the candidates? Do you see the irony here? You assert that the candidates didn’t do the homework, when you did not cross the Ts and dot the Is, never mind mind the Ps and Qs.
Are you being coy here with “accomplished, educated, well connected persons of color” having the equivalent of white privilege? You, I and Lisa are very well connected white females. I like to think you an aware person who understands that we would never get the kind of scrutiny that Theo, Sheila and Xin would get for a mere impropriety.
Who in this race is not well-connected? – incumbents, a former temporary city manager, a business owner, a former school committee member, a PTO Head, a spouse of a State Rep. That leaves only the two newcomers. Readers, do not use this to vote against someone if the PTO Head resonates with you or the State Rep’s spouse does. Vote FOR them. Please.
As for decision-making, do you realize the answer was provided? Sheila had asked the Staff if it was ok. No one did anything wrong. I urge you to apologize for the mistake of going to Watertown News before talking to everyone involved. Put this to rest.
So much for free speech.
Free speech doesn’t come without responsibility for what you say. God knows we are seeing that from Trump every moment of every day.
Linda and others,
I took a few minutes to find some reading that can educate you on white privilege if you’re open to learning more. In the first link I recommend in particular the bottom two sections, “White Privilege as the ‘Power of the Benefit of the Doubt’,” and “White Privilege as the ‘Power of Accumulated Power’.”
http://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/fall-2018/what-is-white-privilege-really
http://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/a32752175/white-privilege-everyday-examples/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danabrownlee/2022/08/16/dear-white-people-lets-clarify-white-privilege-once-and-for-all/
Thanks, Josh,
Thank you for reading my letter critically and not jumping to wild conclusions. I continue to hope that good sense will prevail in this matter.
Reminder to sign comments with your full name.
Linda,
I’m sure your post will drum up more support for these candidates than not. Thanks for the boost. Watertown is such a welcoming city.
Thanks, David.
My hope is that paying better attention to election rules will become a priority. I believe that elections are serious business and should be treated as such.
If apologies are made, they should be to the rest of the slate of Watertown candidates that did not receive equal treatment. Those at the Commander’s mansion received a lot of coverage denied to the others
Thank you, Jay.
Hi Heather,
If I were villainizing these folks, that would be one thing. If you read my comments carefully, I left open the possibility that perhaps it was someone associated with their campaigns who made this decision and illegally placed the campaign signs and literature at a family, non-political City event on city property. Unfortunately, they are still responsible for acts done on their behalf.
I do not know who exactly made this decision and took action. I do know that it was not a good decision, and it harmed other candidates, putting them at a disadvantage. I thought that it needed to be called out or we’d be opening the door to the most fundamental illegal election behavior, justified as “a mistake” and perhaps using this as a precedent. As I said to Lisa, it’s totally your call how you measure this breaking of the rules. My question to you: Why the quick, knee-jerk reaction to what I wrote?
You raise a good question about buying a table to sponsor an event. I’m guessing if I wanted to support a Watertown event but I was running for office, I’d buy a table anonymously and give it to a favorite local charity, a “two-fer”…I get to support the event and the good works of an organization that I love…perhaps a food pantry? There were lots of kids at this event. Modeling thinking of others is always a good idea. But, again, I’d check to make sure that I was staying within the bounds of election laws by asking those actually in charge of these things (elections), not event coordinators, whose skills lie in a different area.
Hi Paul,
As a former Election Commissioner for the City of Revere, you say that the sign guidelines are vague. The Watertown rules on this particular matter seem to be quite clear. Let’s argue that they’re not. With your experience, what steps did you take in Revere to ameliorate this vagueness problem?
I know that you lived in Watertown many years ago, but by your continued involvement in Watertown News, it’s obvious that you still have an interest here. From your experience in Revere, what would you suggest that we do better in Watertown?
I do continue to have an interest. The sign ordinances and guidelines, depending on the community, are often inconsistently enforced. Such enforcement often comes, as in your case, when an individual raises concerns to the City. In addition, the entire issue of such ordinances is under increasing judicial review at the SJC level due to concerns about First Amendment issues.
Having said all that, this emphasis on such a minor issue of campaign sign placement, and the associated political undertones against the candidates being represented, remains disturbing. We should be encouraging more informed participation and involvement in municipal affairs, not less.
These election candidate signs were placed at an event focused on school aged children. I would consider the parents and guardians of these children to be “highly likely” voters. It was not a minor issue in a city election where decreasing voter turnout trending continues and voting poll locations have been inconveniently changed for the first time in as long as I can remember. What is disturbing to me is the cheating culture that is now Watertown. Cheating on rental ordinances, cheating on building permits, cheating on avoiding auto excise taxes, and it goes on and on. Enforcement of anything from parking to paving over backyards is pathetic. It’s anything goes here now. Go for it and don’t get caught. If you do, no big deal, just play the victim. It will work every time. There is no longer any accountability or consequences to fear in Watertown.
Do you have evidence to support this “cheating culture” allegation? I know it’s now common practice on social media to make wild untrue claims with no evidence to support the extreme charge with an absence of facts.
Thank you, Carolyn,
I know how seriously you take civic matters, especially around elections. I believe that these rules were created to assure an even playing field, not to deny someone’s rights. When I was teaching, I was forbidden from wearing political pins in school…same idea. No electioneering on public property.
Hi Lisa,
Thank you for the reading suggestions.. In return, if you haven’t read anything by Ta-Nehisi Coates, especially “Between the World and Me,” you’re really missing something.
After growing up in many diverse neighborhoods, where the only unifying characteristic was poverty, my many decades of service and advocacy for a mostly poor and diverse urban learning community and having the personal experience of having close relationships with the brown and black members of my own family, I’ve had a lifetime of experiences in these matters.
Do I know it all? I sure don’t, but what I do know is that calling or implying that someone is a racist is simply shorthand to slander or to harm someone that you don’t agree with, and it would be wise to be more circumspect with your words.
While we’re at it, I did mention in Watertown News earlier this election season about another election infraction that I believe did not involve anyone of minority status. The infraction: the illegal placing of deceptive political posters in Watertown Square.
This infraction involved the leadership of a political group in Watertown, HAW (Housing for All Watertown). HAW leadership appears to be highly lacking in diversity. After this was reported to the City by an alert resident, a cease and desist letter was sent to them.
I’m nothing, if not doggedly consistent in my reporting!
Happy reading to us both!
My suggestion is that we do not place blame on anyone. A number of mistakes were made. My read was Linda was suggesting that everyone running for office should play on a level field. My understanding is that in an election and if a special privelege is given by the City to one group it has to be offered to other parties. It wasn’t. Nothing about this matter is sketched in granite. I don’t think anyone would call me an Uncle Tom or a Clarence Thomas, but I can assure the community that I have not seen one iota of racism in the individuals in question. Each of us have biases including myself and being on one side or the other candidate does not make us racist or not. When first elected to the School Committee, the Committee negotiated the Teachers salaries. I saw the best of friends go into closed door negotiations and walk out vehemently arguing with each other and losing friendship for a period of time. Politics can do this as well. I would argue on the Committees I served and after the meeting go out to a bar and have a beer with the guy I argued with. Many were surprised because they swore the two of us were going to get in a fight. Politics is not always pretty. My wife says no one is racist because all of us are part of the human race We come from different ethnic backgrounds. And before, Watertown celebrated its diversity. I learned so much about the richness of Watertown in terms of its diversity of ethnic groups. I didn’t pay attention to their culture growing up in Denver. We now have an opportunity with the demoghrapics to demonstrate what Watertown stands for INCLUSION. I believe what would help is that we get together a weekend; have coffee/tea/donuts and get to know each other. I suspect we love Watertown. I cannot love Watertown without people.
Thank you, Clyde. I appreciate your kind and wise words that come from your years of experience.
I do have to tell you that I have responded to the innuendos of racism in a letter in Watertown News today. I do not believe that letting serious accusations like that stand is the way to go.
People will think as they choose, for their own reasons, but I’d appreciate that they actually know me before jumping to the very handy conclusions that they were given by others.
I’m, as are you, a big believer in working with others. It makes the burdens lighter, and it can be more rewarding, even though the path to understanding can be a rough one.
Thanks again for weighing in on this issue.