Commentary by Frank Schroth

It was a landslide. Who saw that coming?

We did not and doubt anyone else did either.

Bob Sweeney is a marathoner, and his campaign reflected the commitment, discipline and endurance that characterizes marathon athletes. He was the incumbent with a strong base and a clear message. But Katie Conlon, another lifelong Milton resident, modest of mien and thoughtful in approach, prevailed mightily. How did she do it and what does it mean?

First, it should be noted that this is only the most recent in a series of toppled incumbents. Denis Keohane upset John Michael Shields last year. Before that Bob Sweeney knocked off incumbent Kathy Fagan. And it was Fagan who captured a seat from incumbent Jim Mullen. Incumbency may be an advantage but clearly no guarantee of anything.

Like Keohane before her, Ms. Conlon successfully melded several political groups here in town. A quick review of the precinct results reflects this. Conlon easily won Precincts 2 and 3. Precinct 2 is arguably the most progressive precinct in town. Precinct 3 is Ms. Conlon’s home precinct. But then there are Precincts 6, 7, 8, and 9. When Conlon took Precinct 8, it did not bode well for Sweeney. Sweeney only won 6, 7, & 9 (his home precinct) by slim margins. What happened? Two things: Conlon built an incredibly strong campaign organization with roots that spread across town. And Mearn happened. Though it was never an issue in the campaign, the dismissal of Town Administrator Kevin Mearn by Selectmen Sweeney and Keohane cast a long shadow across this race. Just as Keohane benefited from Mr. Shield’s decision to award Pulte Homes the Town Farm contract, so did Conlon benefit from Sweeney’s decision to remove Mearn. In both instances, the decisions proved fateful and allowed the opponents to create an alliance of interests.

As in all races there are also intangibles. They are difficult to define (that’s why they are intangible!), but the demeanor of the Conlon campaign was temperate where the Sweeney campaign was more adversarial. The best example of this might be Mr. Irwin’s pointed questions of Ms. Conlon at the COA debate. They were legitimate questions regarding the MWRA, Conlon’s support of the CPA, and her association with Planning Board member Emily Innes. But they may have backfired. The MWRA issue had already been beaten to death. The CPA question allowed Conlon to cite the support of the Cronins (i.e. the support of two prominent seniors in a room full of seniors). And taking her to task over decisions made by a campaign supporter who is part of a board that in fact makes the decisions came across as aggressive.

Mr. Sweeney ran a campaign based on a clear message and specific positions. He represented himself as an advocate for the taxpayer who opposed the CPA, MWRA rate increase, 33L flight path, and 40B development. Ms. Conlon, in our opinion, ran on an approach rather than a platform. Conlon as a board member of Fuller Village is also opposed to the 40B on Brush Hill Road; but the emphasis of her campaign was on consensus building and collaboration with other departments. That position prevailed.

Her victory is a mandate of sorts. To do what? That question may miss the point. It is not what Conlon will do that matters as much as how she will do it. The recent Board of Selectmen has at times seemed like three men in a tub. They never seemed to gel as a board. They often appeared to have their opinions formed before they sat down together rather than evolve their respective positions into one that was mutually shared. We expect Conlon to have a positive effect in changing that culture and inserting a more deliberative and considered approach.

One last thought – party affiliations are not relevant in local elections. This election proves that being a Republican or Democrat is not a dependable barometer of . . . anything.

Here is a slideshow of pictures from last night’s victory reception for Katie Conlon held at Steel & Rye. Photos by Catherine Walsh.

[slideshow_deploy id=’30551′]