by @BarryRafkind in Politics, Ward 7
Posted on August 16, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Last Modified on August 16, 2011 at 11:51 pm
loading…
On Tues, Aug 9th, the Progressive Democrats of Somerville held a meeting at which they cast endorsement votes in the upcoming municipal races. Challenger Katjana Ballantyne received the group’s endorsement in the Ward 7 race. However, given what happened, that endorsement might be more of a liability for her …
Prior to the meeting, PDS Chair Marty Martinez sent out a questionnaire to candidates asking them to return it if they wished to be considered for an endorsement. Ward 7 challenger Joan Puglia (pronounced pool-ya) decided not to seek an endorsement due to the group’s bias in favor of Ballantyne shown by their announcement of only her candidacy on the PDS blog [Katjana pulls nomination papers].
However, Joan wanted to share her responses to the questionnaire with the PDS membership along with an explanation of her decision not to seek the PDS endorsement, So I, as her committee chairman and member of PDS, sent them to the PDS email list the morning of the day preceding the meeting.
By that evening, Joan’s responses still had not been approved by the PDS list moderators, although those of other candidates’ were sent out. I emailed Marty and Vice-chair Judy Neufeld to ask about the delay and was soon told by Judy that only the responses of endorsement-seeking candidates would be shared with the group. That rule had never been stated previously and seemed arbitrarily made-up. It is plausible that they felt threatened by the explanation of the group’s bias in favor of Ballantyne, and that this and Joan’s responses might hurt KB’s chances of receiving an endorsement.
Following the endorsement meeting, Globe correspondent Daneille Dreilinger published an article about the meeting which stated that Marty told her PDS did not receive questionnaire responses from Joan Puglia. Clearly his claim was misleading, since he soon contradicted himself according to a Ward 7 blogger : “Martinez confirms that responses were submitted by Puglia…”
It’s clear that the PDS endorsement process was corrupted by the group’s leadership to favor Ballantyne over Puglia. Now it is up to PDS members to hold their leaders accountable for these misdeeds and it is up to Ballantyne to renounce the flawed endorsement she received.
loading…
Why wouldn’t she seek endorsement, even if it’s only to get her message out to the PDS members? It seems a bit counterintuitive to me.
Even if she knows they are going to endorse Ballantyne, doesn’t it make sense for Puglia to get her message out there?
loading...
Hi Robert, Joan thought she could get her message out to the PDS members through their email list without seeking the endorsement.
loading...
PDS should look for new leadership and then maybe they’ll get more than 25 members to show up at these things.
loading...
Wow, what a lot of bluster about very little. Joan Puglia never asked for an endorsement so how could the PDS endorsement be withdrawn from Katjana- what gounds are there for that. sounds like Joan or her campaign thought they could trick the system to allow Joan’s positions to get out on a website that she doesn’t want to be associated with –without going through the same process every other candidate did. I was at that meeting and it was clearly said that only the candidates that seeked endorsement would have their questionnaires posted. is this naivete or arrogance on behalf of Joan?
loading...
Hi Joyce, neither Joan nor I ever asked for either Katjana’s endorsement to be withdrawn nor for PDS to post Joan’s responses to its website. All we wanted to do was to send her responses to the PDS email list.
loading...
Barry,
How was it done in the past? Were there previous candidates who took the time to fill out the questionnaire, but were’t formally seeking the endorsement?
loading...
Hi Courtney, I can’t think of another instance like that. In any case, I don’t understand why PDS wouldn’t be interested in reading a candidate’s responses regardless of whether that candidate was seeking the endorsement… unless the moderators had an ulterior motive, like trying to help another candidate who was already being supported by the chairperson.
loading...
No, Courtney, never before has a candidate been brazen enough to both tell us, in so many words, that we weren’t worthy to consider her for endorsement, but at the same time expect us to advertise her responses to the endorsement questionnaire to the list. I’m guessings it’s a first, not only for us, but probably in the history of organizational endorsements.
loading...
Hi Greg, Joan didn’t say PDS wasn’t worthy to consider her for endorsement, she just said she wasn’t going to seek it given the group’s apparent bias she saw in favor of another candidate. However, given the group’s stated commitment to openness, she still thought her responses would be shared on the email list.
loading...
Today, Danielle Dreilinger published a follow-up article Whitney Puglia calls out Somerville Progressive Democrats.
loading...
Much ado about nothing. The endorsement process is a two-way street. A candidate agrees to seek the endorsement of a group in exchange for having her positions advertised to the members of that group. Joan decided PDS wasn’t worthy to consider her for endorsement, so her questionnaire responses weren’t advertised to the members. If she wanted the members to see her responses badly enough, she should have sought the endorsement.
Moreover, as a campaign strategy, this makes no sense and raises questions about her viability as a candidate and judgement as a potential alderman. Despite the fact that many PDS members know Katjana personally and support her, all the ones I spoke to said they would vote for Joan had she won the preliminary. Had Joan had agreed to seek the endorsement, the PDS endorsement vote may have ended in “no endorsement” — not an uncommon occurrence. And even if it wouldn’t have changed the outcome, if Joan wins the preliminary, she will need as much help and goodwill as she can get to win the general election. This is not a time to try to go out of your way to burn bridges with politically active people who — at least prior to this — think favorably of you.
Sadly, there’s now all this effort placed into attacking PDS, right at a time when she should be spending every bit of her effort connecting with voters.
As a PDS leadership committee member and Katjana supporter, I thought favorably of Joan prior to this, but these decisions and attacks raise for me serious questions about the wisdom of decisions she’d make as an alderman.
loading...
Greg, if PDS wants candidates to seek its endorsement, then it really ought not display a bias as it has done here. But given that it did, it should not be a surprise when a candidate decides not to seek the endorsement. Since the PDS steering committee made that error, the least it could for Joan was to allow her to address the membership. Sadly, they instead chose to add insult to injury.
You might be right about Joan’s chances of at least having been able to prevent Katjana from receiving the endorsement. Unfortunately, the steering committee burned a bridge with her by displaying its bias. Of course, she hopes that members understand she is not upset with them, just with the leadership. So, she would still appreciate members’ help in the campaign.
Do you still believe PDS acted neutrally in the W7 endorsements process?
loading...
When a candidate and her manager claim bias on the part of an organization for which they have respect and positive regard, there are limited means of redress. In an organization founded on the tenets of accountability and transparency, access to that group’s media forum should be a given. Puglia’s campaign decided to present its grievance to PDS publicly on the eve of the endorsement decisions; she could proffer an explanation for foregoing PDS’ potential endorsement, and articulate her positions relative to the race alongside other candidates.
I don’t have a copy of PDS’ Charter, but I don’t think that candidates for office- especially those candidates who are members of the group- jockey for endorsements simply to have their platforms publicized on the group’s website. I have not been active for some time, but I believe the value of endorsements is 1) PDS issues media announcements of its support; 2) Candidates can use the results of this vetting process in their campaigns and; 3) PDS may, at its discretion, provide money, workers, and other kinds of campaign support to its endorsees.
If a candidate believes that the integrity of this vetting process has been compromised, that she is unlikely to win the group’s endorsement, why risk losing it? Either PDS supports the free expression of (especially) progressive ideas, or it does not. Expecting the organization to respect her right to express unpopular and/or uncomfortable ideas is completely reasonable. Puglia’s attempt to tell her story in the face of the important slight against her candidacy early in the contest is to be commended. She is offering PDS an opportunity to rectify what appears to have been a wrong. The fact that the leadership has employed censorship, misrepresentation of facts, and other efforts to hide possible misdeeds is disturbing. Are these any ways to model Transparency and Accountability?
loading...
Julie, I’d like to address this issue of “bias” in the “vetting process.” The process for choosing a candidate to endorse is a vote at an open-doors meeting. Every PDS member gets one vote, and a candidate needs a 2/3 threshold to win the endorsement. If Barry showed up to the meeting, he could have voted for anyone he chose, including to vote “no endorsement.”
The “bias” that’s being alleged is nothing more than personal candidate preferences on behalf of some PDS members, including some members of the leadership committee. But that doesn’t “compromise” the integrity of the process. The opinion of the members of the leadership committee may carry more weight than others, but they don’t carry more voting power, and endorsement votes are often split.
There is simply no logic to the claim that she shouldn’t participate in the process because there are members of PDS or the PDS leadership committee that support her opponent. By that logic, she might as well not participate in the election, because there are members of the public and elected officials that support her opponents.
Taking your ball and going home just because you’re not everyone’s first choice is sad and no way to become a successful candidate.
loading...
Greg, we must fundamentally disagree on the meaning of the word “bias” because it’s my understanding that if the opinions of leadership are known and those opinions carry extra weight, then the result is to bias the outcome of the vote. The mere perception of bias is enough to corrupt an endorsements process, as was the case here.
Remember, although Joan rightfully refused to seek the endorsement based on the perception of bias, she still attempted to communicate with the membership. Unfortunately and unwisely, the leadership denied us that ability.
loading...
I am not a PDS member, but I found reading Puglia’s responses to the questionnaire worthwhile. This is the first time I’ve heard her state positions on any other issue besides parking tickets and the Powderhouse School. I don’t agree with all her positions, but she is clearly a serious candidate.
That being said, it does seem like a bit of chutzpah for her to say, “I’m not seeking your endorsement but you have to help me publicize my candidacy anyway.” And Barry, “shameful” in no way describes the endorsement process. You are letting your partisanship get in the way of your journalism.
loading...
Hi Dennis, let me ask you… should PDS members be proud that their chairperson, acting in his official role as PDS Chair, announced his personal support for KB on the PDS list, then gave her preferential treatment on the PDS website, and then denied JP the ability to send her responses to the list and later lied about it to the Globe?
Joan has even more positions which I hope you’ll read on her site JoanForWard7.org
loading...
Barry, the tone you have taken on this issue is quite unlike your usual writing. I cannot trust your characterization of the PDS actions, so I am not in a position to comment on them in detail. I will say I don’t think anyone has anything to be proud about in this whole interchange.
loading...
Dennis, you don’t need to take my word for it,
I invite you to review the facts as presented here and in the Globe articles and then determine whether my tone is justified.
loading...
The problem with this entire debate – like the one in Congress – is that ignores the real target, Bob Trane. That raises the ugly, if possibly paranoid, question of which of Trane’s opponents is genuine, and which may be a shill to hide the failures of an incumbent behind the battles of his opponents – again, very much like the current national Republican candidates.
The reason we founded PDS was the failure of an administration to be transparent, and the need for more dialog. To see any PDS rationale justify any exclusion of any information insults that founding, deeply and disastrously. While I don’t agree completely with Barry’s tactic of attacking an endorsed candidate on the basis of a flawed – and retroactively enforced – rule, creating rules to cover your ass just makes it stand out in spades! A PDS that “shelters its members” from dialog has no purpose whatsoever.
loading...
Hi, Joe. I agree that this is a distraction from the real debate. I have to say, though, that this rule was not “retroactively enforced. We have never published questionnaire responses from a candidate if they haven’t sought our endorsement, so there were nothing to retroactively correct.
Secondly, the objective of rejecting the questionnaire wasn’t to “shelter” the members from information. It was to uphold the value of the endorsement and endorsement process. The process is a quid pro quo: a candidate confers legitimacy to the organization by formerly seeking its endorsement, and the organization in turn confers legitimacy to the candidate by publishing the candidates responses and giving them their due consideration. We didn’t particularly care if people read the responses, but we didn’t want to be the ones to publish them and confer legitimacy to candidate that wouldn’t do the same for us. Doing so would not only devalue the endorsement process, but be patently unfair to the many candidates who agreed to abide by the rules.
I can’t think of a single instance, in the history of any endorsement process of any organization, where the organization published questionnaire responses from a candidate not seeking their endorsement. Can you?
loading...
Greg, there was never a rule like that until after we tried to send the message. So yes, it was retroactively enforced. And given that PDS had already invited all candidates to announce campaign events, it was reasonable to expect that other campaign announcements would be welcome.
If the steering committee members were so concerned about the legitimacy of the endorsement process, then why did they allow themselves to bias the process so badly? By the time Joan’s responses were submitted, legitimacy of the process had already been lost, so what was the risk then of sharing her responses? At least by sharing her responses, PDS could have claimed to be upholding its values of openness and transparency.
Indeed, Joan’s response to the PDS questionnaire seems almost as unprecedented as a PDS-endorsed candidate blocking someone from her Twitter account.
loading...
Go Beckmann! Dump Martinez.
loading...
Dear Greg,
Having been part of PDS before you joined, I don’t really celebrate your knowledge of its history, nor do I cherish rules of a steering committee founded to change the rules themselves. We did things before you were a member that you might not…remember.
You may well have established a rule that says candidates cannot be published if they do not seek your endorsement. Have you a citation handy about where such a rule might be found? If not, citing memory – mine or anyone else’s – sounds a lot more like Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry than any progressive I’ve ever met.
And drawing my energy – or the energy of anyone interested in the future of Somerville – into a discussion justifying a Steering Committee while ignoring the tenure of a thoroughly regressive incumbent makes me think you’re working for Trane rather than any other candidate. I may be wrong, and thoroughly hope I am.
Keep the focus on Trane and you – and we – might win. And drop this stupid argument, you really can’t win.
loading...
Joe-
What was the endorsement process when you were a member? Please feel free to answer here or email me directly as I would like to respect your wishes of ending this commenting nonsense.
I was just curious as to the difference between the PDS when you were a member and the organization now.
loading...
We sent out a questionnaire and published what we got. Pretty simple. There were some who would never get endorsed – and knew it – and responded; and some – but very few – competition. Keep in mind it was only about 10 years ago.
What some may not recognize, incidentally, is that we started OutSomerville first, and then most of the same players moved on to PDS. Most of the OutSomervillians have abandoned that – somewhat like many have left PDS – figuring that Marty made enough noise for all of us.
loading...
Ah, the organizations of Somerville past. This was long before I felt my calling to get involved.
Thank you for the clarification!
loading...
I agree with Greg. It is insulting to PDS members that Puglia did not 1) ask for the organization’s endorsement and 2) have the decency to come to the endorsement meeting and give us the benefit of the doubt that we could objectively analyze the positions and viability of each candidate.
loading...
lavendarotter, I’m sorry you feel that way, but (1) if the PDS leadership wanted her to seek the endorsement, then they shouldn’t have biased the process, as I’ve explained, and (2) she’s posted her responses to the questionnaire at JoanForWard7.org.
loading...
when john kerry ran for president(terrible campaign by the way), other candidates did not challenge him in the mass. primary. there is no upside to losing a campaign you cant win.
KB is a good, sincere candidate and she definetly gets my vote if JWP does not nominate. i am a volunteer to the puglia campaign, but i speak for myself here. our committee is made up of all progressive democrats.we have no issue with pdsers at all. we were simply sad that we felt slighted by its leadership.
i believe the pds’ endorsement is valuable, not because of the small amount of people who participate, but because other people, like myself, often rely on the endorsement. i did not know marty martinez, but i voted for him because other like minded progressives recommended him. there were many other voters who voted for him for the same reason.this whole issue is a mere ruffle in an otherwise decent campaign. may the best candidate win.
loading...