Electing the next Counsel Chair
When the new counsel is sworn in, they will pick a Chair. I hope I don't have to say that the Chair is THE most important position on the Counsel. You and I have seen what poor leadership has accomplished in the first 2 years of City government and how poor the relationship is with the executive branch. I urge all of you who are concerned to not let the Counsel pick a chair who has revenge in their heart. The Chair should be without reproach, knowledgeable in every aspect of our City and be looked up to as a leader who can work with others to get things done.
I personally feel G King is the only person that can work with the Mayor and stop the bi-weekly bull crap that plagues the counsel now. We don't need to carry the old attitudes of the past going forward, it makes our city look foolish. We can't take another 2 years of the Giombetti style regime.
I urge all of our readers to contact your district rep and ask them why G King would not be the right choice for Counsel Chair.
posted by Jim Pillsbury @ 1:02 PM
60 Comments
60 Comments:
Jim, I don't think that George has the spine to standup to Cannon or Stefanini or Lombruno. If he can't stand up to them do you really believe the toxic environment will go away?
I agree with the previous poster but King has a better relationship with the Mayor then any of the other sitting DCs do. How is the chair elected? Is it an open process that residents can view, as it should be, or is it all done behind closed doors?
Whoever is the chair must be someone who can work with the mayor. That leaves out Steffanini and Cannon. It should not be someone who is affiliated with Trump, as Framingham overwhelmingly voted against Trump, so that leaves Lombruno out. And it should not be anyone with no political experience. That basically comes down to King. If he is not the next chair I certainly hope residents will raise their voices to question why not.
It's not King's job to stand up to any other counsel members.
There's already political posturing by one recently elected member to elect him as the chair. It's just like Beacon Hill, much goes on behind the scenes. But the nomination and vote is in full view of the public. The question is, who among them will do what's right and elect a Chairman who can bring the counsel together and work with the Mayor.
Above is right, it can't be Cannon, Lembruno or even Phil. Adam is cool, calm and collected, like Bob Case, but we need someone strong enough to take the bull by the horns. Those left haven't the experience yet to lead the Counsel imo.
I think King has the spine, but in the interest of getting along and support from the Counsel, he's a bit more laid back and not comfortable with dukeing it out with anyone, which may be in the best interest of our City.
If you have exhibited a lack of ethics in the past you should not expect to be seen as an ethical person in the present. The man who behaved so poorly at the library, and as a state rep when redistricting was happening, is not the man who should lead our city council. He should not even be a member of the city council if you ask me.
The next council chair should reflect the will of the voter. So not the republican who took money from so many outside sources, not the newly elected district councilor who lost to the mayor, and not the angry little man who spends all his time and effort trying to make the executive branch look bad. How about someone logical, smart, and reasonable like Adam Steiner.
Jim Pillsbury you are wrong about not standing up to councilors. If a councilor is going off the track, the chair's job is to pull out the gavel and reign things back in. Giombetti did a shit job of reigning in some councilors when they would go off track. He wouldn't say something when they were near the edge of the cliff, he only said something when they were already falling half way down the chasm. And the allowing of the Phil lovefest was a night of outrageousness.
Only possible contenders for the Chair should be - King, Long, Steiner, or Case.
If the chair is not someone currently serving, then we can be sure it is a deal made behind the scenes, and probably with lots of promises and pressure. I elected my city councilor to be my voice and not to be beholden or directed by anyone else on the council. I have to say that who the chair is will be a pretty clear indicator of what we can expect from the council, so if the chair is someone who manipulated his way into that position and thinks that the residents are going to be quiet about it then he is hopefully in for a big surprise. I encourage all residents to write to their city councilor and tell them who you think should be the chair. If no one weighs in they can do whatever they want, so weigh in people.
Are we speculating here, or do we know for a fact that someone is trying to fix this race for chair?
I has to be either King, Steiner or Case. No other option makes any sense. Any other choice will tell us about the honesty and guts of the new councilors. Let’s hope they are not gutless enough to be pushed into a decision they have to know is not a good one.
above... if you've lived here more then 20 years or so...you may already know the answer.
Case and Steiner may not have the institutional knowledge that King would have. Long and Case will be good Chair's someday... just not 2020.
we need someone who can get the train on the right track and moving in the right direction imo.
I meant that now, this term, with Dennis at the helm, it's not the responsibility of a current member of the counsel to real in a fellow counsel member.
Word on the street was that Stefanini was trying to drum up support for himself as the Chairman before the election was even held.
I suspect we all are expecting the same person to force his way into the chair. I have to ask, how can anyone with a brain in their head think that the person who went through the entire charter process fully expecting to be elected mayor and then lost the race could be a consensus builder when the current mayor kicked his ass. He has an ego as big as Texas and will do everything he can to make her look bad expecting it will make him look good. I will state here that if my councilor votes for this guy I will be raising a ruckus both publicly and privately about their lack of guts and their lack of concern for the good of the city.
Word on the street is just that, word on the street. Although I suspect it is accurate, you can't do anything about that. I say we ask those involved. If everyone here sends their councilor who will be in the post effective Jan. 1st an email expressing their concerns about the chair post then maybe we can actually get this new sitting city council off to a good start. Nothing feels better than beating a bully, and the only way this person could be elected to the chair is by bullying others into voting for him. No bullys allowed on the district council. Let's make that statement loud and clear. Including sending that same message to the bully currently on the council who is staying. Don't know who that is? Watch any council meeting and you will soon find out.
If ours were a partisan city government, much of the wrangling over who got to be chair would be determined by the party in the majority. If that were the system, this would preclude Leombruno, who would otherwise be the lone Republican member. I believe most of the others are Democrats, at least in name, and perhaps one independent. So even though ours is not a partisan system, ostensibly the chairmanship should be nominated from within the "Democratic" caucus on the council. Among those, King is among those with the greatest seniority and he did win a citywide at-large seat twice, so I would say he should be the clear choice. The vice chair should be someone who can assist the chair by keeping them honest and on track, and by gauging the amount of support there is for certain agenda items or topics. If it's clear that something is a non-starter, then a lot of headaches, fights, and screaming matches can be averted.
Whoever is the chair must be someone who can work with the mayor. That leaves out Steffanini and Cannon. It should not be someone who is affiliated with Trump, as Framingham overwhelmingly voted against Trump, so that leaves Lombruno out. And it should not be anyone with no political experience. That basically comes down to King. If he is not the next chair I certainly hope residents will raise their voices to question why not.
Democrat, Republican, who cares? Its not relevant.
It is clear that one sure fire way that destroys hope of the city concept being successful is for Stef to be the CC chairman. Every new councilor would have to be blind to not see that. There would also be such public distrust of the council that deals were made behind the scenes.
That leaves King and Long. Each have strengths and weaknesses.
I agree completely with the previous poster. I do think Stef will bring some important knowledge and skills to the council. However, he also brings a whole boat load of baggage, most of it not good. Should he be chair? A resounding no for this term. Let's see how honest, ethical, and transparent he is for his first term. He needs to win people's trust and I have to say that hearing he is trying to bully himself into the position of chair does not bode will for his honesty, ethics, or transparancy. To the other councilors who ultimately make the decision on who is chair, remember that everyone in Framingham is watching. You vote in someone who so many people don't trust and you are going to make those who voted for you wonder if they made the right decision. If he is elected, I would say anyone who voted for a dc who votes for him made the wrong decision for who their dc should be.
I was shocked to see the man we are all talking about win, but he did. Given the performance of his challenger at the LWV forums, I should have known he would win. But pay attention people! He won by only 30 votes against someone who was lousy at the forums and who did not do his homework. Doesn't that till you something? To say after that anyone thinks he is a good choice for chair is pretty asinine. He got elected because his opposition sucked. But the options for chair are not all people who suck so think before you vote. This is a very important decision. You screwed up the first time electing Giombetti. How did that work out? Let's hope you learned from your mistake.
Has no one watched the same Council meetings as the rest of us for the last 2 years? George, along with his buddy Cannon, have been a thorn in the Mayor's side...and now people want him to be chair? Are you really sure you want collaboration? He pokes, prods and drives Mary Ellen crazy with his endless questioning. And he isn't exactly a saint to Thatcher Keizer either.
Also, has everyone suddenly forgotten his controversial and contentious tenure as town manager?
No one new to government can be chair. Cannon certainly cannot, neither can wishy-washy Steiner. I think Phil, hear me out, is ideal. Many have said he has run the best meeting in government for 20 years. He goes to nearly every meeting or event in town. Gives money to practically every nonprofit or cause. Maybe there is a reason why he was unopposed. I don't see anyone on that Council more dedicated to working with everyone.
I have to say I agree about King not having a stellar record himself. And having watched many ZBA meetings I agree, Phil runs a tight ship and an efficient meeting. But I think Steiner has the potential to be a good chair also. I am willing to take a chance on either of them over King, and obviously I would take a monkey over Stefanini
No way Phil can be chair either. Had he bowed out gracefully from the ZBA and not pulled the PO is the greatest thing since slice bread night at the Council in order to put pressure on the Council to put the screws to the mayor. Dirty politics. Do we really believe Phil doesn't want payback for being embarrassed for not being given his god given right to automatically appointed to the ZBA? Even if he did everything right, how long would it take for the mayor to finally take a leap of faith and trust him?
Phil could've left the board high and dry once his term expired, then everyone would be crying that he screwed Framingham. Why does everyone think its all about payback and putting the screws to the mayor? Lots of rumor and speculation in these comments without an inch of fact.
Phil bowing out gracefully means not putting up any behind the scene fight to stay on the board when a new board was recommended.
For anyone who has watched Framingham politics over the years, its all about payback honey.
Another item to consider, who would think about running for mayor in 2 years? Would someone like that being a council chair do whatever they could to continue to make the mayor look bad and maybe make things worse over next couple of years? Safe to assume that King would like to be mayor? Does Ottaviani, Long, Steiner, or Case have aspirations to be the next mayor?
I have to agree with the notion of pay-back. The Mayor booted Phil because of his support of John. She got even. Phil may to.
I've know him for many years and he is a stand-up guy and has run the ZBA well imo. He does run a good meeting and I was concerned when he didn't get appointed back on. Yes ... he's made some questionable decisions, but who hasn't. But at the end of the day, it's about the Democratic Town Wide Committee who have had a strangle hold on the community for decades. We were foolish to elect the very same people who were on the Board of Selectman when we were a Town.
Our City must get away from the get-even folks on the counsel. Continuing the Giombetti legacy will not move our city forward. Political posturing by members who want to run for Mayor and have an ax to grind, will just create more trouble.
I've written to a few on the counsel and all but one answered directly to the question I had about King being Chair. I hope our readers do the same and soon.
There may well be others who want to be Mayor, from the old guard. We can't rule them out either.
When will the council chair be elected, and it is a process where the public can comment before the vote is taken?
First order of business for the new Counsel. My fear is that the decision will be made behind the scenes, just like Beacon Hill.
My suggestion is to write your rep now if you feel it is very important to elect a chair that will get the Counsel back on track and get things done without the drama.
Jim you said behind the scenes like Beacon Hill. Are you saying you don't think it happened for this current city council?
The question above aboiut who might run for Mayor next is interesting. Does anyone know else is considering it?
Beacon Hill... I think it happened for the current counsel. Giombetti lobbied before the Counsel even met.
I also heard Jack o Lewis is going to run for Mayor as well.
I am not following the Beacon Hill comments, but I do believe there are people on the current city council, as well as some who will soon be on the council, who are using their position to promote themselves to be our next mayor. If you don't think that is true you have not been paying attention. But I am not sure that should make them not a good candidate for council chair. Cannon has to be trying to do that. Why else would he be so insistent at pointing out an issue with the mayor or her staff at every single council meeting? OK, we know they are not doing a good job, but stop wasting council time trying to prove that fact. As residents we are all smart enough to see that for ourselves. If you want to promote yourself for the mayor in the next election, how about showing us that you can work well with others. That would be a worthwhile efforts.
well said above. We are smart enough to see that ourselves... if we pay any attention at all.
I have always wondered if the Spicer embarrassed Cannon somehow and Cannon has declared all out war on her. And a race with Cheryl, John, Dennis, and George wonder what closet skeletons would come out. Battle of the egos.
I believe it was at a public meeting... water rates hearing in 2018. The Mayor raised her voice several times and Cannon to sit down many times, but just kept right on badgering the Mayor. Even I cringed at that. I'll try to find it on Gov TV.
Something may have happened during the race that I didn't hear about is also possible. Also, at Town Meeting he proclaimed himself as a "nudge" when after hearing an answer, he persisted to be annoying. He could piss off a priest.
They all have past blunders (nothing criminal) that I'm sure they hope no one remembers in 2021. And they are all in the same Town wide Party. I've never seen or heard of a party loyalist throwing a fellow party loyalist under the buss in this community.
They are a loyal bunch I give them that, but they look foolish in the process. An example just a month or two ago, a man I respect very much and a party loyalist, backed Finlay over his better qualified opponent. As did a few others. They just cant see the forest for the trees I guess.
Giant Meteor for Mayor 2021
Jim you are pushing King pretty hard on us, how can you be so sure that he won't be in league with the group that would just love to make the mayor look bad for the next 2 years regardless the cost?
I feel that Christine Long will do a phenomenal job as chair, she had the knowledge, experience and would work well with the executive branch, and as an added bonus she has the spine to stand up to all, including the mayor hating Cannon, Stefanini or Leombruno. King had his shot as town manager and still is afraid to make the youth decisions on finances. We have been paying for his mistakes these last 8+ years we've been fixing our infrastructure.
Leombruno's inability to make her own decisions will only allow others to pull her strings.
Robert Chase would be very close second but I don't think he could muster the votes.
A good third choice would be Steiner, but he can be too easily swayed.
Sheppard could do well as a chair, but she needs a bit more confidence and worry less about politics.
Stuart-Morales would have the backbone to make the tough decisions as well thet financial knowledge to fix what damage the current council has caused, but still a bit green.
What I do know about king is that he has the overall institutional knowledge of how government should work. I don't get the impression that he harbors any thoughts of retaliation against anyone. Granted he was running the Town under the BOS, but the budget was approved every year by the BOS.
I wrote to Christine 4 days ago with a question and she has not responded yet. Not a good sign for someone who could be Chair.
What's best for Framingham should be the criteria the Counsel uses to determine the Chair and in public, not behind the scenes.
Settling old scores by whomever is appointed will not make voters (those who pay attention) happy. The Counsel should rise above the pettiness and political get-back from the Mayor and just get down to business.
Jim to you what qualifies as having institutional knowledge? Sheppard, Steiner, and Cannon have been on the Council for 2 years now. Ottaviani, Long, Stefanini, and Leombruno have been around the government for years. (Ok Leombruno was an attempt at making a joke). What qualifications does someone have to have to pass the Pillsbury institutional knowledge bar?
Sheppard? even she admits she doesn't have what it takes to understand the budget. Steiner and Cannon are relatively new to Framinghham and it's history and by judging their actions on the counsel during budget talks, neither seems to be willing to dig deeper into the budget, imo.
Lets face it, only a few hundred people in Town even pay attention to these things and is only an issue when things blow up.
Alright so Steiner, Cannon, and Sheppard out of the running. Stefanini would be world war 3 - he's out. Leombruno is Leombruno - she's out. Ottaviani may or may not have Mayor issues because of ZBA - he's out.
Back to King and Long. Both have long government service records and Framingham history. It then comes down to the building of some type of working relationship with the mayor and her staff. We've seen King in action over the past 2 years and he has done little to nothing to speak out about things that have happened at Council meetings. Richardson has spoken up more. I'll go back to the first poster, does King have the will or spine to control the anti-mayor crowd? To date he hasn't shown it. Long knows how to preside over a contentious meeting and has no problem with shutting things down.
And while I'm convinced that King is more likely in camp Stefanini, Long on the other hand is a little more of a wild card. She's not in really any camp except that she got sold as being in the mayor's camp since anything was being tried to get Norton elected.
So Jim, at this point I'm leaning more towards Long. Had King taken a more public stance against some of the stupid things which only served to create more friction with the mayor I might have been more behind King. I'm not saying Long is the perfect choice either. I think she is the better choice of the two.
I would agree with you above. She does run a good meeting on that we can agree. I do think she could do a better job at getting facts to the audience better on a few subjects, but they all seem to do the same thing. Let speakers ramble on when they don't really know what they are talking about.
If she is elected, I hope she knows exactly what her role in this City is and she is up for the challenge... and has the time to devote to it.
You can't expect someone to give up any strategy by answering questions to someone who is really pulling for the other guy. I'm guessing that's why she hasn't answered. (I'm just guessing here).
I love the fact it has been narrowed to Long and King, and we all know what King has done for FRAMINGHAM already. I really think she will straighten things out and manage the council well. Her as chair will definitely ruin a few people's Cheerios.
Long chair.
King vice-chair.
Done.
Next.
Time to start looking at the subcommittees!
Gave everybody 2 committees to start with.
Long: Planning, Appointments
Morales: Finance, Appointments
Steiner: Finance, Education
Cannon: Rules, Planning
Case: Finance, EconDev
Ottaviani: Planning, Finance
Sheppard: Appointments, Rules
Stefanini: Environment, EconDev
Bryant: Education, Rules
King: Finance, Education
Leombruno: Education, Environment
It is interesting that there is so much speculation as to whom the council will elect as chair in the context of which councilor would be best poised to corral the others with respect to the effort to work more cooperatively with the mayor. At the end of the day, it does not matter all that much who becomes chair. There will always be some on a council who support the mayor and those who oppose the mayor, especially given that any number of councilors will look in the mirror and see a future mayor. Both sides will make their feelings known no matter who presides. It's not so much a matter of personality as it is the very manner in which this charter was written. I warned people about this particular government structure. From 30,000 feet, long before this charter passed, I predicted precisely this level of gridlock, cat-fighting, and dysfunction. The former town government structure wasn't working either, and we will and should not return to that. However, it's not too late to fix the bits that aren't working. It's not the personalities. We want a diversity and spirited competition of ideas. We don't want just one way of thinking or a bunch of yes-men and yes-women. That said, we need a government structure that holds leaders accountable but can also move the city forward. This charter gets some things right, but some big things very wrong.
Anything will be better than Giombetti, by a long shot! He's such a disgrace to the city. Good riddance his bullying and hating reign is almost over. Too bad we can't say the same for the little angry one; always picking on everyone it seems. I like hearing the positives for Long as the chair.
I believe I heard at a PB Meeting that Christine would stay on the board until the Nobscot megaplex is approved, well into next year. That's a full plate for her.
To the person above who says it won't matter much who is the chair. I completely disagree. The chair sets the tone of the meeting. The chair either controls the meeting and keeps it on the tracks or it doesn't.
And for Jim's comment about Christine Long still being on the Planning Board, I saw the meeting where she says March or maybe earlier so I don't consider that well into next year. Also, this all dependent on whether she is interested in being chair. I'm hoping she is.
.
I stand corrected, March is not "well into the year" but will say, by March, lots of things will or should be acted upon like an apartment moratorium and recycle task force, and the budget hearings will be in full swing by then. Lot's to do for them all and especially Christine (who has not answered an e--mail from me for almost a week now. Not a great sign as all the others I asked responded in a timely manner.
Jim what are you emailing her about? This is twice you have mentioned it now.
I asked her this: Is there a compelling reason why G King should not be Counsel Chair?
Simple question of a Councilperson elect. All I wanted to know was what her answer was.
Not answering at all tells me she will continue the past practice of the BOS where they never answered any e mail I ever sent. The Counsel should adot the very same customer service policy that we have now, e mails should be responded to in 24 hours in some way.
All the others I asked the same question of answered in less than one day.
Sure, the chair could matter a little in the near term. Again, the particular people on the council, who chairs it, and whomever occupies the office of mayor now or in the future is largely inconsequential in the long-term. My point was more about the built-in politicization of city government by way of this particular charter as written. So long as there are 11 people at any given time who think they can do better than any sitting mayor, and so long as any sitting mayor feels like they must push back against those on the council who oppose them, the system is already broken. No chair, no matter how good, can totally rein in those political forces because those forces are far more powerful than any single elected official. At some point we will have a different mayor and some of the same and maybe some new councilors. A good chair can ratchet down the discourse to some degree, but this system still provides the ingredients for a mayor-council tug of war in perpetuity, regardless of the players.
You make good points above. You didn't see that same dynamic when we were Town Meeting, not that it matters now. I'm trying to be optimistic for the future and your right, some on the Counsel will want to challenge the Mayor in 21, but if that can't be reeled in for the sake of progress, they will all look like children in the sand box fighting for space.
if this many people have strong opinions about the chair, i cannot wait to see the thread about possible mayoral candidates for 2021!
People trying to be in the race for mayor:
Stefanini, he wants it so bad, he can taste it.
Cheryl Tully Stoll, she has made some smooth moves probably still mad that Stefanini talked her out of running the first time.
MK Finney, just a feeling.
King, he thinks he can pull it off.
Giombetti, he's student enough to think that he's like in the city, poor fellow, he's probably quite despised.
Maybe a few unknowns thrown in by Stefanini because that's what he does, to throw off the scent away from him.
What about Jason? Or will the stench of the football scandal still be lingering around him?
For Fenney its a pipedream.
For Stefanini its a nightly dream.
For Stoll, up against a minority woman? Pack your bags now honey.
For Giombetti, he likely would have lost this time around to Case.
For King, the old guard won't have it.
Are you posting in your capacity of League of Women Voters co-President? Aren't you supposed to even pretend to be non-partisan?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home