Newton VOL 2, NO 1
NEWTON’S VOICE
Jan. 10 - 24, 2017
Photo | Joshua Resnek fsefse
Voice blocked from Shrage’s Twitter Sokoll quarantines Voice e-mails
Not everyone wants Newton to become a sanctuary city By Alexander Culafi
The Voice The battle over Newton’s status of a sanctuary city rages on. Last month, two docket items were filed with city hall, offering conflicting views on whether Newton should become a sanctuary city, a city that protects undocumented immigrants, and prevents local officials from fully cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mayor Warren’s docket item offers many protections similar to that of a sanctuary city, but stops short of making any specific prohibitions. “Newton is a welcoming and inclusive city for all,” Warren’s policy states, which he co-docketed with Police Chief David MacDonald and Council President Scott Lennon. “Immigration status shall have no bearing on a person’s treatment by officials and employees of the city. There is no expectation that officials and employees of the city will report persons to federal immigration authorities based on immigration status.” In the other docket item, eight councilors
advocate for stronger language, making Newton a more formal sanctuary city in line with Cambridge and Somerville. It has support from other groups as well, like the Newton Democratic Party. Supporters want to make it so that no city official will report to, respond to, or cooperate with ICE unless an undocumented individual "has been convicted of a felony, is on a terrorist watch list, poses a serious substantive threat to public safety, or is compelled to by operation of law." A statement released by Newton Democratic City Committee Chair Shawn Fitzgibbons says, “People are responding to President-Elect Trump's promises to round up immigrants with a loud and clear message – Newton officials should take action now to protect immigrants in our city." A statement from the committee claims that it has support from nearly 200 activists.
Continued on page 3
By Alexander Culafi
The Voice Two stories appearing in the Voice about Combined Jewish Philanthropy CEO Barry Shrage’s $1.3 million retirement bonus, his $1.9 million total compensation package and breaking the story about his home mortgage being forgiven by the CJP, all of this without public notice for the charity’s contributors or employees, has led to punitive actions by the head of the $1.1 billion dollar philanthropy and one of his underlings, Rabbi Mark Sokoll. Sokoll heads the Newton JCC and its offshoot organizations. On our Twitter account, @voicepub, Shrage has blocked the Voice from viewing his Tweets as well as from interacting with his account, and this follows public tweets we sent out regarding the content of our investigative reports. Over email, Sokoll, CEO of the JCC and Greater Boston Community Centers, has quarantined the Voice. In other words, when we send him emails, they bounce straight back. We reached out to representatives of both the CJP and JCC to explain these actions. No one from either organization replied to our requests. The transparency of the CJP’s dealings is a legal and ethical responsibility requiring the CJP to be clear about its compensation packages and expenditures.
Our investigations revealed that no public notice was given for over 2 years regarding the CJP Board’s decision to forgive Shrage’s home loan. In fact, the loan was forgiven over the course of a half dozen years ending in 2012. The IRS frowns upon such perks in the belief that such actions create a conflict of interest. Also, his $1.3 million retirement bonus was questioned because Shrage is not retiring. The enormity of his 2014-2015 compensation package of $1.9 million was listed on the charity’s IRS forms, but because of extensions that dragged out the public airing of the returns, no word was uttered about this by the Board to their contributors and supporters. Then the Boston Globe published a story following ours revealing that Shrage is driven around by a CJP-paid chauffeur, and reasonable people began looking more closely at what has been revealed. New questions have been raised about the CJP’s expenditures to sustain its charitable empire. Are any contracts totaling many millions of dollars put out to bid? Does the agency seek the lowest possible cost from vendors for goods and services? What new multimillion dollar compensation packages have been approved by the Board, but not yet revealed?
Continued on page 3