Legal

That time when Newton’s mayor blew off my email about the Fessenden School abuse scandal

Boston, Other , ,

My email to former Newton Mayor Setti Warren, dated May 10 2016. This was two days after The Boston Globe Spotlight team (the same group that uncovered the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal) released a report detailing the decades-long culture of abuse and cover-ups at the Fessenden School in West Newton. Here’s a complete copy of the email:

Dear Mayor Warren,

On Sunday, May 8, the Boston Globe published a Spotlight team investigation into pedophilia at dozens of private schools in New England. One of them, the Fessenden School, is located in West Newton. A group of former students have given statements indicating that not only were they victimized by pedophile faculty at Fessenden, but administrators downplayed their reports and failed to report abuse to police and state authorities, as required by law.

One of the faculty members, an assistant headmaster at the school, was brazen enough to brag in a message to his Harvard classmates that “my life seems to have been filled with 250 boys each year to … put to bed and to love” while another faculty member proudly displayed a Nazi flag and other Nazi memorabilia in his dorm room. A third was the school psychologist — the man whom some of the victims (as well as other confused or struggling young students) may have turned to for help and reassurance. 

Fessenden itself has sent a series of letter to alumni (see links below) admitting that 16 former students have come forward since 2011 to describe their abuse at the hands of “at least five individuals who were members of our community” in the 1960s and 1970s. These numbers do not include victims who reported sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual behavior before 2011 or taking place outside of the 1960s and 1970s.

It is important to note that not one person has ever been investigated for abuse of Fessenden students, or charged with any crime. Pedophile teachers may have been able to commit more crimes against children after leaving Fessenden in the 1970s and 1980s. At least two of them are still alive, enjoying freedom while their victims have suffered a lifetime of pain. I have heard that one former student committed suicide in the 1970s, and his classmates believe that he may have been abused by one of these men.

Further, there is evidence that Fessenden administrators failed to notify police and state authorities of the abuse when they learned of it. Up until the 1990s and perhaps later, the M.O. of the Fessenden administration was to settle claims out of court.

I would like to ask you about what reports, if any, did Newton Police or child welfare authorities receive from students, parents, teachers, or administrators concerning physical or sexual abuse of children at Fessenden’s Newton campus? I realize that state regulations require reports of abuse to be filed with state authorities, but I think it is conceivable that some local residents or students may have first approached the Newton Police.

I would also like to ask if the abuse of children, or the failure of private entities (including Fessenden’s administration, board members and legal counsel) to follow reporting requirements falls under any municipal statutes.

Finally, I would like to ask your administration to make a public statement condemning the great evil that occurred at the Fessenden School … and offering support to the victims as they seek justice.

Sincerely,

Ian Lamont
Auburndale

I never received a reply. There was no acknowledgement. There was no statement condemning the abuse. There wasn’t even a note in his newsletter pointing to the Spotlight revelations. I assume that there was no outreach to the legal department at Newton City Hall, or the Newton Police Department.

We now know that during this time period that Howie Leung, a faculty member at the Fessenden Summer ELL program, was allegedly grooming students participating in the Fessenden program. It apparently started in 2015 with a 13-year-old girl, and was about to happen again in the summer of 2016, according to an investigation that took place several years later. This is despite Fessenden’s repeated promises that it had turned a new leaf and was doing everything to protect children under its care. Quoting former Fessenden Headmaster David Stettler in 2011, the safety of students was the school’s “highest priority.”

Here’s the initial report about Leung in the Concord Monitor, dated April 17, 2019:

When he was a teacher at Rundlett Middle School, Howie Leung wrote a letter to a 14-year-old student that police said was “very expressive and emotional.”

“I love you,” Leung wrote, and admitted, “I was pressuring you and you didn’t want to let me down.”

The letter was written to a former Concord student who Leung is accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting at Concord’s middle school and at the Fessenden School in Newton, Mass., a five-week boarding camp for girls and boys ages 9 to 15. The letter was uncovered as part of an investigation by police in Concord and Newton.

… The report says much of the abuse occurred while she was an unpaid helper at the Fessenden School, which provides an overnight English Language Learning summer program to help students gain skills in speaking, writing and reading English.

The victim said Leung assaulted her repeatedly in his office, in the tunnels of the school buildings where the campers were playing tag, and in her own dorm room, assaulting her approximately 20 times over the course of two summers, the report said.

leung booking photo fessenden case

Leung was actually caught, investigated, and charged not because Fessenden School reported it, but because some of Leung’s grooming activities took place near Concord (NH) High School. That school district also dropped the ball, and recently settled with victims. But Fessenden is not party to the agreement:

The experiences of both former students were detailed in an investigative report prepared by attorney Djuna Perkins, who detailed years of inaction by school administrators to numerous red flags and boundary violations between Leung and female students.

In the most recent settlement agreement provided to the Monitor this week and dated Feb. 7, the school district agreed to protect the identity of the former student. The payment was made to the student who witnesses said Leung was kissing in a car near Concord High School in 2018. Despite the school district’s internal investigation, Leung was allowed to remain on the job for three and a half more months before any action was taken against him. However, that report led to Leung’s eventual arrest by Concord Police.

The agreement notes that the Fessenden School in Massachusetts is not released from any claims through this settlement agreement. It also specifies that Leung is not released from any claims in his capacity as an individual.

Even though the Concord school district failed to take action for months, investigators in NH apparently notified their counterparts in Massachusetts. In 2019, This led to charges of

aggravated rape of a child with a 10-year age difference, two charges of aggravated indecent assault and battery on a child under age 14, and two counts of aggravated indecent assault and battery on a person age 14 or older.

I wonder now what would have happened if Mayor Warren had done something in May of 2016, after the Spotlight report came out. Issued a public statement condemning what happened at Fessenden over many decades. Directed his law and police departments to examine relevant statutes, and their historical handling of such cases. Maybe even notified Fessenden that it had to do more to ensure no child under its care would ever experience abuse again.

As far as I know, nothing happened. Which is strange, considering his active participation in the discussions just a few years earlier surrounding Steven Chan, a Day Middle School teacher arrested for child pornography. Here’s how the Newton Tab described his address to concerned parents:

Mayor Setti Warren opened by saying that he had just two things to say to parents.

“Public safety is a priority to this community,” Warren said. “We take it very seriously. I believe that he (Chan) should be prosecuted to the extent that the law allows.”

Warren also told the crowd that his [daughter] began kindergarten today.

“I feel confident as mayor that not only will she get a great education, I am confident she’s safe.”

What about the safety of children at Fessenden? Did they not matter?

Or maybe Warren was focused on other things. I’ve written about him before, in connection with reforming Newton’s real estate development, taking control away from city councilors and giving it to a developer-friendly planning department. Over the objections of Newtonville residents and their city councilors, he was instrumental in getting developer Robert Korff of Mark Development what he wanted at the Orr Building on Washington Street in Newtonville, which later became Trio Newtonville. He also made it possible for developer Dinosaur Capital to lease prime land in Newtonville for the equivalent of just over $10,000 per year. Units at 28 Austin Street now require people with incomes measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Warren’s term ended in 2018, and he ended up Harvard Kennedy School, where he is now executive director at the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics.

His successor, Mayor Ruthanne Fuller, hasn’t once mentioned the Fessenden School even though the Leung case came to light during her first term.

Leung faces trial in Massachusetts in 2023.

To date, Leung has been the only teacher ever charged with abusing children at the Fessenden School, despite decades of reports and the arrest of two teachers in the 1970s for assaults that took place outside of Fessenden. In the 1970s, Fessenden administrators lied to the media and to investigators about abuse on campus by teachers there. At other times, they never reported claims of abuse to authorities. When the older cases came to light in 2011, Stettler claimed the school had changed, but its failure to monitor one of its employees in the years that followed shows it was lip service.

 

 

Should diaries and other private papers be left to descendants?

genealogy ,

We had a conversation recently about a book on Swedish Death Cleaning. It sounds morbid, but it got us talking about the types of papers we want to hand down to the next generation, which might be important to family historians and genealogists of the future. This ties into our family business, which designs and sells high-quality genealogy charts. for recording ancestry and family stories.

While we do not advocate saving papers of limited value (business records, financial statements, school reports) what about other types of documents, that may be considered core genealogy, like a diary?

1918 pandemic diary

Such documents could include personal letters, journals, or writings that reveal something of a person’s life or perspective. We had conflicting ideas about this:

Me:

What I wouldn’t give for a copy of my great-grandmother’s diary!

Spouse:

A journal is a very personal place for expressing random, rambling, and sometimes unsettled thoughts. It’s therapeutic – once you put it on paper, it makes you feel better. But I wouldn’t feel comfortable for people to look at my private thoughts.

She makes a great point. Privacy concerns extend to other types of documents, too. Would you want an old letter to an ex, written when you were 20 years old, preserved and shared with descendants? What about an angry letter, or a document detailing painful medical issues?

Famous authors sometimes request the executor to destroy private papers. Franz Kafka, Edward Albee, and others had specific instructions governing letters, manuscripts, and other documents.

When hundreds of Newton families were displaced by the Mass Pike

Boston ,

I’ve been reading a fantastic book on the history of the Massachusetts Turnpike: Building the Mass Pike by Yanni K. Tsipis. Growing up in Newton, this road has been a part of my life since an early age. It was the main road into Boston and west to New York. Walking to and from Newton North High School I would cross over the Lowell Ave. bridge. One summer, I even worked in the Star Market suspended over the Turnpike.

But Tsipis notes the dark side of the Turnpike’s history: From Auburndale to Newton Corner, hundreds of families and small businesses were uprooted by construction, many of whom were bullied by staff and contractors on the way out:

Families whose properties stood in the way of the new highway received only 30 days’ notice to vacate before the Turnpike Authority took title. The extension’s construction displaced some 550 families in Newton. … One irate neighbor cited their ‘terror, nastiness, and insults.’

Nowadays, this type of abuse is not possible when it comes to new construction. That said, one thing has remained pretty much the same: developers always seem to get what they want, no matter what residents say. And once again, it is residents in the north side of the city who feel the brunt of the plans of rich developers like Robert Korff (Mark Development) and their allies in Newton City Hall and the City Council, especially the southside wards (5, 6 and 7).

https://www.arcadiapublishing.com/Products/9780738509723

The Harvard Extension School teaches a terrible lesson in democracy

Harvard Extension School , ,

I write a lot about the erosion of democracy in my hometown of Newton Massachusetts, but today I am going to switch things up and talk about the erosion of democracy at the Harvard Extension Student Association (HESA), the student government organization of the Harvard Extension School.

Bottom line up front: The Harvard Extension School has rigged HESA elections to exclude a certain activist from running this year, and will prevent other idealistic students from running for leadership positions in the future. As a student of modern Chinese history, it mirrors (on a far smaller scale) the abuse of democracy taking place right now in Hong Kong, in which Communist leaders in neighboring China rewrote the rules to eliminate activists and rivals and maintain political control (Quoting the New York Times: “New rules imposed by Beijing will make it nearly impossible for democracy advocates in the territory to run for chief executive or the legislature.”) It’s a terrible lesson for Harvard Extension School students, but is also yet another example of how HES students get second-class treatment that other Harvard schools would never impose on their own students.

Student government is not glamourous. There are no perks, leaders oftentimes find themselves criticized by students for not doing enough on certain issues, and school administrations tend not to take them very seriously. Nevertheless, groups like HESA are an opportunity for students to come together and work on issues that are important to the student body. For many, it is their first elected leadership role, experience that will serve them in their future careers or volunteer activities.

I never participated in HESA when I was a student at the Extension School. We had two young children at the time, and between home life, my full-time job, and my studies, I didn’t have the extra bandwidth. But I did vote in elections, and watched the organization under successive administrations.

Over the years, I have seen some fantastic HESA leaders and volunteers come and go. I have also seen a lot of drama. But nothing compared to what happened in the past month, in which Harvard Extension School administrators under the Dean of Students Office (DSO) and several staffers forced HESA to adopt a new set of election rules that effectively prevent new students from running for leadership positions.

This was clearly done to exclude a certain student activist from running for HESA President or Vice President or any board position. This student is the founder of the Extension Studies Removal Initiative, which seeks to remove the ridiculous and demeaning “in Extension Studies” designation from Harvard Extension School degrees. But the new Extension School rules, forced on HESA by the Harvard Extension DSO, will affect hundreds of other students in the years to come, disenfranchising a large segment of the Harvard Extension School student body.

Signs that something were amiss came in March with the news that the HESA president had abruptly left a few months before his term ended. No explanation was given. Then came the bombshell at the end of March that, just as the new HESA elections were getting started, a new set of eligibility rules were being instituted. Here’s what they said:

 Going through the highlighted sections above, the first shocker is ALB students (undergraduates) were excluded from running for HESA President. Note that almost all matriculated ALB students are working adults, including some who are older and have more life experience than their ALM (graduate) counterparts. A typical ALB academic profile is someone who is returning to school to complete a college undergraduate degree later in life.

The next point: Two full terms are required. Because the first rule says only admitted degree candidates can participate, this must mean two terms after matriculation, which requires completing three courses with a B or higher. Practically speaking, this means students would need to have at least three terms and at least five courses to participate in HESA elections.

This would be roughly analogous to the Harvard College Undergraduate Council suddenly announcing (at the direction of Harvard College administrators) that first year students are no longer eligible for the Executive Board, the central leadership org within the council. Currently, 3 of 5 Harvard UC EB members are from the class of 2024. Of course, there would be outrage from every first year student at the College if this were forced upon them.

The third point about not mirroring DCE organizational efforts can mean a few things. Before this year, I would have assumed it means HESA leaders can’t campaign on a platform to improve, say, online educational tools used for distance classes because that’s the bailiwick of the school itself. But I now think this line was inserted to specifically exclude the ESRI founder from running – because according to the DCE’s new dean, Nancy Coleman, removing “extension studies” from degrees is one of the goals of the Harvard Extension School.

The fourth point is clearly designed to prevent people like the ESRI leader – or a leader/board member of any other Harvard club – from concurrently serving in a HESA leadership role. It would be akin to the Harvard Law School suddenly declaring that leaders of Disability Law Students Association or Environmental Law Society couldn’t also run for elected representative positions in the Harvard Law School student government.

Keep in mind these HESA rules weren’t implemented by an inexperienced student leader who is vague on democratic concepts. It’s not even within the new HESA constitution or bylaws for HESA leaders to unilaterally rewrite the election rules. It came directly from the Dean of Students Office (DSO). When students pushed back, DSO walked back the rule against ALB students from running, but kept the other restrictions in place. Here is a screenshot from the DSO explaining the reasoning:

Neugeboren Harvard comment

If ensuring “leaders are knowledgeable about the needs of the students they serve and about the School,” then by the same bizarre logic Dean Nancy Coleman and her predecessor Dean Huntington Lambert – both outsiders who had zero experience with the Harvard Extension School before being hired – should never have been tapped for leadership roles here. Similarly, if this is part of Harvard’s culture, then every school at Harvard – including Harvard College and the Harvard Law School – should have similar rules in place to keep out the inexperienced first-year students. Of course, only the Extension School does.

What the Extension School should immediately do is rescind these discriminatory eligibility rules for HESA leadership positions and reschedule a new election.

One final thing: In the course of researching this post, I discovered that the Harvard Extension School DSO Dean and at least one other DSO staff member are listed as Title IX coordinators at Harvard with responsibility for overseeing an important federal civil rights program that governs gender discrimination. I find it hard to believe that people who were assigned such important roles to protect the civil rights of Harvard students, can turn right around and deny the rights of Harvard students by rigging election roles to exclude an entire class of people from participating in elections for student government.

Update: The Harvard Extension School reached out to me after I contacted FAS to complain. The response:

Elections for leadership of the Harvard Extension Student Association (HESA) are student-run, and the Dean of Students Office (DSO) serves in an advisory role, only. Hence, changes made to this year’s eligibility requirements were not orchestrated by the School or the DSO, as you suggest.

This was immediately contradicted by more reporting from The Crimson, “Jura Wins Extension School Student Government Election, Commits to Transparency After Election Rules Dispute,” and statements made by HESA and DSO staffers:

Kenneth “Ken” Downey, Jr., the outgoing HESA director of communications, told The Crimson last week that the Extension School’s Dean of Students Office was responsible for the changes, though Division of Continuing Education spokesperson Harry J. Pierre has repeatedly denied the DSO was involved. … Downey Jr. said the Dean of Students Office was responsible for the changes and referred to statements made by [DSO staffer] Addison during a virtual “Meet the Board” event posted on HESA’s Facebook page on April 14. ‘HESA does not oversee any of the elections,’ Addison said during the event. ‘They [HESA] don’t make any decisions with regards to elections.’”

When multiple people – including DCE employees – are saying the same thing, backed up by a video clip and a detailed explanation from the DSO dean himself defending the new policies, I am strongly inclined to believe the evidence in front of me, rather than the spin from the Harvard Extension School.

Very disappointed in the Extension School and its officers.

Newton City Council candidate Bryan Barash pledges to reject developer and lobbyist donations, takes it anyway (Updated)

Boston , ,

Updated: Two donations were returned weeks ago. He indicated he won’t return the rest. Details below.

“Follow the money.” It’s practically a cliche in legal, government, and journalism circles, but it truly is a powerful technique for exploring relationships and motivations at all levels of society. Earlier this year in Newton, we saw how developer money was used to make a referendum turn in its favor through a massive cash injection to a supposedly grassroots community group (see As sole donor of the “Yes” campaign, Northland’s deep pockets try to steamroll Newton’s democracy). That developer subsequently got the green light to build more than 600 units of luxury housing in Newton Upper Falls, off Needham Street.

Now with two city council seats up for grabs in a special election (following the election of Ward 2 Councillor Jake Auchincloss to Congress and the tragic death of Ward 1 Councillor Jay Ciccone), we see candidates stressing their integrity and dedication to serve the residents of Newton. One candidate, Bryan Barash, even pledged to refuse money from developers and lobbyists on the transparency page of his campaign website, stating:

bryan barash newton developers pledge

When I first heard about this, I thought, good for him. I honestly hope every other candidate for Newton City Councilor now and in the future can make a similar pledge and keep corporate cash out of our elections and local democracy. I love my hometown, and am tired of seeing so many of our elected officials bending over backwards to accommodate developers and other corporate interests.

A recent history of developer influence in Newton

It’s one thing to say you are going to follow high-minded ideals and listen to the citizens of Newton. But when the rubber hits the road, I have learned that in Newton local politicians often disguise their true intentions.

In particular, there is a lot of doublespeak and false promises when it comes to real estate development. For many Newton councilors and candidates declaring “we support affordable housing,” they actually mean “we’ll support a sliver of affordable only if there are thousands of luxury condos and boutique apartments.” They’ll use phrases like “housing with a range of price points,” or “abundant housing,” not letting on that the range skews heavily toward the most expensive units, and the primary beneficiaries of this abundance are rich developers as opposed to the ordinary citizens of Newton. Almost all of these councilors live in Newton’s tony southern and eastern wards bordering Brookline, far away from Needham Street and the northern villages where the developments are planned.

The result of this ongoing deception: gigantic luxury developments Riverside in Auburndale, Trio in Newtonville, and Northland in Newton Upper Falls. In these developments, there is next to nothing for the following groups of people:

  • Seniors and disabled people living on fixed incomes
  • Teachers, firefighters and other public workers
  • Recent immigrants
  • Young people who grew up in Newton trying to move back to their hometown
  • Anyone earning the Massachusetts median income of ~$77,000 per year or less

The numbers show what’s happening. Here’s the breakdown for Riverside:

  • 582 units total
  • 102 affordable (18%)
  • 480 luxury (82%)

Here’s the breakdown for Northland:

  • 800 units total
  • 123 affordable (15%)
  • 677 luxury (85%)

Affordable vs luxury housing in Newton Massachusetts

Successive Newton mayors have also made false promises, making a big show of listening to residents but prioritizing the profit-focused needs of developers. Over the protests of many Newtonville residents, former Mayor Setti Warren and many city councilors (especially on the south side, miles away from the projects) gave the green light to develop 28 Austin Street in Newtonville, where the developer paid a mere $1,050,000 for a 99-year lease. It now offers “luxury boutique living” where a two-bedroom apartment requires an annual income of nearly $150,000.

It happened again across the Pike in the Orr Block. Warren and allies on the Newton City Council, with assistance from the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce, went to bat for developer Mark Development to force through a mostly luxury development on the corner of Washington and Walnut Street. Renters and small businesses that had been in Newtonville for decades were sent packing. The new complex, Trio Newton, now promotes “luxury apartments in Newton” with prices starting at $2,600 per month to rent a 600 square foot studio (I did the math; your income needs to be at least $104,000 per year to rent an apartment at Trio). 75% of the 140-unit complex are similarly priced. The remaining 35 units (25%) are affordable via lottery.

More recently, a similar farce took place with “Hello Washington Street,” Mayor Fuller’s exercise in building community buy-in for high-density, market-rate housing from West Newton to the Lake. The plans put forth by Mayor Fuller, her planning department, and their consultants ignored the wishes of residents, as demonstrated by the thousands of comments from residents and the survey conducted by the Newtonville Area Council. Not surprisingly, one influential and experienced stakeholder — the powerful real estate developer behind Trio and Riverside — stands to benefit even more from the proposed zoning changes on Washington Street.

Now we are seeing a “debate” about rezoning Newton. I put “debate” in quotes because it appears the Newton City Planning Department has already decided in favor of high-density housing activists, developers, and their proxies in the Newton City Council.

Not coincidentally, the beneficiaries of this high-density housing strategy will be developers – any house that can be torn down, chopped up, and divided into overpriced multifamily units will be. The result: thousands of more “market rate” apartments, condos, and townhouses that are out of reach to any household making less than $100,000 per year. In the midst of the pandemic, most residents have no idea of what’s being forced through by activist southside councilors and the Planning Department.

Are there any projects which favor the needs of ordinary residents over luxury housing? Yes: The conversion of the West Newton Armory into housing. I support this project, which will turn an unused National Guard facility into 100% affordable housing. This type of project is the exception, unfortunately.

Following the money to Ward 2

There is a database of campaign donors for local races in Newton and other cities in towns in Massachusetts. I decided to check it out, not only to see who is donating money to the candidates running for the Ward 1 and Ward 2 seats, but also to determine how my own recent donation shows up in public records.

This useful state-run resource is operated by The Office of Campaign and Political Finance, and as I will shortly demonstrate, helps improve transparency in our democracy. It’s a searchable database that shows donations from different corporate and individual campaign contributors, from local council races to mayoral contests to campaigns for state positions.

Here’s how to display all of the donors for a particular Newton City Council candidate:

  1. Go to https://www.ocpf.us/Reports/SearchItems
  2. In the field that says “Provide part of the filer’s name,” enter the first or last name of the candidate.
  3. For the next field, “then select a filer,” chose the correct candidate (sometimes there is more than one with a certain first or last name)

You can also search for specific campaign donors using the “Contributor” field.

The resource is not perfect. Donors self-identify their occupation and other details, which can be left blank or fudged, or data transfer problem may arise when the campaigns attempt to upload information to the state database. I discovered for my own small donation of $50 to Barash’s competitor, the occupation and employer information I submitted via an online form (“small business owner” and the name of my company) did not show up in the OCPF database. The date was also wrong, showing a date in early November when the donation was actually one month later.

But other people donating to Newton political candidates do have more complete information attached to their records. The database shows that the Ward 2 candidate who made a pledge to refuse money from developers and lobbyists has in fact received donations from property developers, lobbyists, and others attached to luxury housing initiatives, high-density zoning reform, and businesses that are regulated at the municipal or state level.

I’m leaving donors’ names out of this post. But I will share some other details about their backgrounds and relationships.

The self-identified real estate developer has made regular donations over the years to candidates for state representative, mayor and city council in midsized cities, and the mayor of Boston.

One lobbyist’s website lists a realty and development corporation as a client. There are other businesses and organizations both big and small on his client list and the state lobbyist database.

There are registered lobbyists for retail marijuana and transportation.

There is a person who is listed as a “consultant” and puts his employer as “self employed” on the OCPF database, but his name matches the name of a registered lobbyist in the Commonwealth’s lobbyist database. Update: this donation was returned weeks ago, per Barash’s “No Fossil Fuels” pledge. This was not reflected in the state campaign finance database when I looked at it in mid-December.

Several attorneys donated to the campaign. One of the attorney’s firm’s website lists government relations and lobbying at the top of its list of specialties. The second firm specializes in real estate development law, including zoning, permitting and “neighborhood grassroots outreach.” Its website lists specific projects in Newton, including dozens of townhouse condos and tens of millions of dollars worth of commercial property.

Another donor works for a nonprofit group seeking to reform planning, zoning, and permitting laws.

And so on.

This candidate is not a bad person, and has a right to ask for donations from followers. Those donors also have the right to donate money to their preferred candidates for Newton City Council, just as I and many other residents are doing. But it’s a red flag when those donors may conceivably have business in front of city officials or councillors, including high-profit housing projects and commercial initiatives worth millions.

It should be noted that lobbyists aren’t bad people either, and in some cases promote important work or advance good and worthy causes. Quoting a 2014 OECD report titled Lobbyists, Governments, and Public Trust:

[Lobbying] can provide decision-makers with valuable insight and data and facilitate stakeholders’ access to the development and implementation of public policies.

But lobbying also grants power to the entities paying for it, and in some cases that power can be abused. The same OECD report states:

However, it can also lead to undue influence, unfair competition, and regulatory capture to the detriment of the public interest and effective public policies.

In my view, Newton residents should indeed be worried about the pernicious influence of  money in our local democracy.

Feel free to leave comments below.

Update 12/14/20: Someone has accused me of posting misinformation and says I should “not be allowed” to write about a public candidate for Newton City Council taking money lobbyists and developers. A reminder to readers that this is a blog, hosted but not controlled by Harvard University (through my affiliation as an alumnus of the Harvard Extension School), and everyone has a right to disagree and express their opinions (I invite anyone to do so in the comments below). It is not illegal or wrong for me or others to post facts obtained from a public database, no matter how inconvenient or uncomfortable they may be. If there is something factually incorrect about those donations, please let me know and I will update the blog post accordingly.

Update 12/15/20: In a closed Facebook group, Bryan Barash criticized negative campaigning but explained that his pledge only applies to donors “who [are] paid to lobby at the city level in Newton or [have] a special permit for a development in Newton” and called on other candidates to do the same. Barash said he did return donations from two people who violate his No Fossil Fuel pledge – these lobbyists were apparently connected with the Weymouth gas compressor station that was the subject of a front-page Boston Globe article this month (“In Weymouth, a brute lesson in power politics“). As for his call for other candidates to not accept certain contributions, I would call on Tarik Lucas in Ward 2 as well as Ward 1 candidates Madeline Ranalli and John Oliver to go even further, and unequivocally reject ALL campaign contributions from for-profit developers and registered lobbyists. The Northland Investment Corporation’s approach to the March 2020 referendum set a terrible precedent for elections in Newton, in which winners can be decided by which side (or which candidate) has the biggest for-profit sponsors. These three candidates can do the right thing and set a new precedent that keeps special interest cash out of our local democracy.

Update 12/17: Removed the graphic referencing a donor who no longer works for the listed real estate firm. The donor also said the firm only operated in Cambridge, not Newton. I apologize for the error.

 

What did the Fessenden School know about “Howie” Leung?

Boston ,

There is a deeply disturbing report in the Concord Monitor, a New Hampshire newspaper, about how school administrators in Concord had failed to act upon red flags relating to the behavior of teacher Primo “Howie” Leung around students at a middle school there starting in 2015. Leung, who was concurrently a teacher at a summer program operated by Fessenden School in Newton, Mass., was arrested earlier this year and charged with two counts of aggravated rape of a child, one count of indecent assault and battery on a child under 14, and one count of indecent assault and battery on a child over 14. Some of these alleged assaults took place at a summer program operated by the Fessenden School.

To date, Leung has been the only teacher ever charged with abusing children at the Fessenden School, despite decades of reports and the arrest of two teachers in the 1970s for assaults that took place outside of Fessenden. At the time, Fessenden administrators lied to the media and to investigators about abuse on campus by teachers there, and at other times never reported claims of abuse to authorities. Since 2011, even though myself and many others have called for an independent investigation about abuse at the Fessenden School, the school and its administrators (including former Headmaster David B. Stettler) and lawyers have striven to cover up reports, downplay allegations, and deflect responsibility for the horrors inflicted upon students.

However, where Fessenden failed, investigators in New Hamsphire persevered and published what they learned. The reporters at the Concord Monitor, Alyssa Dandrea and Jonathan van Fleet, summarized what happened. We now have a better idea of Leung’s alleged M.O., even while the Fessenden School claimed it had cleaned up its act. Here are some excerpts:

The girl, a former Concord student who is now 17, told police she was sexually assaulted by Leung multiple times in 2015 and 2016 at the Fessenden School in West Newton, Mass., which provides an overnight English Language Learning summer program.

In 2015, the girl would have been 13 years old. Think about that for a moment. This is during the tenure of David Stettler, the same administrator who pledged that the safety of students was the school’s “highest priority.”

Concord school officials were alerted Dec. 10 [2018] that Leung had “engaged in inappropriate conduct” with an 18-year-old female student, who is a different student than the victim Leung is accused of sexually assaulting. Leung was reportedly seen by other students kissing the senior girl in a car in Concord.

District officials said they did not report the incident with the 18-year-old to Concord police because of the student’s age. However, they did forward the results of their investigation to the Department of Education, which ultimately notified authorities.

Leung remained on the job for 3½ months before he was put on paid administrative leave.

Here, we see that this school took the Fessy path, avoiding notifying authorities and even keeping the teacher on the payroll — and around students — after serious red flags were raised. The difference between Fessenden and Concord, though: Concord at least notified somebody, who eventually dropped a dime.

At school board meetings in recent months, community members said there were many red flags before Leung’s arrest that should have caught the attention of administrators. Parents said he had close relationships with several female students he taught and would bring them coffee or buy them lunch.

Perkins said students should not be permitted to spend “significant time” with teachers whom they don’t have for class, and that students should not be permitted to change their schedules without written permission from their parents. She also encouraged the development of a policy that discourages staff from socializing with students outside of school.

Some Fessenden alumni will remember similar tales from the dark days of Fessenden in the 60s and 70s, when teachers like Arthur Clarridge groomed young boys with offers of car rides and special attention.

In 2014, a Rundlett Middle School student told her friends the way Leung treated some female students made her feel uncomfortable.

The girl, who was in seventh grade at the time, was called into the office the day before Christmas break, accused of spreading “malicious and slanderous gossip” and suspended for three days by principal Sica.

“A sexual predator will use any tools at his or her disposal, including ambiguity of rules, a lack of enforcement of rules, or a charismatic personality to accomplish it,” the report continued.

Sound familiar? Look at the comments by students who were abused at Fessenden and tried to report what had happened. Adults ignored them, and in some cases Fessenden victims were expelled.

District communications obtained by the Monitor in a right-to-know request this summer show that officials were aware of interactions between Leung and the 18-year-old student that included “friendly emails,” the “frequent” presence of the student in Leung’s classroom, Leung’s recruitment of the student to the Fessenden School summer program, and Leung giving rides home to the student and a $200 gift to the student that he said was for her mother.

So the Fessenden program was allegedly used by Leung in cases involving two students. The question I have: How old was the second student when this started?

More importantly, what did Fessenden do when it came to training and monitoring this teacher? Remember, Leung was only charged for alleged abuse at Fessenden after New Hampshire educational officials reported him. The Fessenden School (led by Headmaster Steven J. Armstrong since July 2018) either failed to monitor him, or if they had suspicions, never reported them to authorities.

Two reports about Leung were made to the Concord School District. The longer 100-page report which probably contains additional details about Leung, has not been made public. The shorter 10-page report consists of recommendations for schools to detect predators while improving student safety.

But at least the reports were made. Fessenden has not attempted any sort of independent report. Indeed, of the six points I highlighted at the end of “Headmaster David Stettler’s latest (and probably last) letter to Fessenden alumni“, five still remain true:

  • David Stettler only told alumni about some of the earlier cases in 2011, and only because the Boston Globe had just reported some of the cases. In other words, it was damage control, not an effort to promote transparency or justice.

  • No Fessenden administrator, board member, or legal counsel has ever been cited for negligence in failing to report abuse of children at the Fessenden School.

  • The child predators were able to get away with their crimes for years at Fessenden, and possibly continue their activities after they left. They got away with these sickening crimes, scot-free.

  • The victims were left without support, ashamed of what had happened to them and traumatized by the abuse. Many have been unable to come to terms with what they experienced, and as adults became addicted to drugs or suffered problems relating to people. Some committed suicide.

  • There has never been any independent investigation into what happened from the 1940s through the 1980s and how the school handled those episodes (the “comprehensive, detailed, and impartial investigation” he refers to below relates to a current member of the Fessenden faculty).

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: There needs to be an independent investigation of what happened at the Fessenden School over many decades and why administrators, Fessenden’s lawyers, and Fessenden trustees failed to monitor staff and report predators to authorities even after reports of abuse surfaced.

Since Leung’s arrest, the Fessenden Summer ESL program has apparently been shut down. The director of that program (who oversaw Leung) is still employed by Fessenden, according to the staff directory.

Why Amazon’s “Buy Box” policy attracts counterfeit books and cheaters

Uncategorized , , , ,

If you follow publishing news like I do (I own a small publishing company that specializes in how-to guides and technology cheat sheets) you have probably heard about Amazon’s misguided policy change from a few years ago that allowed third-party sellers of books to “own the buy box” on publishers’ book listings. I predicted at that time that it would attract a wave of counterfeit books, which has proven to be true. But I didn’t anticipate another kind of cheater: Third-party book sellers passing off used books as new.

Amazon opened the buy box to booksellers in 2017. It said that it was following the same policy that was used in other parts of its marketplace, which allows third-party sellers to control the buy box on product listings if they offer the product at a lower price than the official source, which is usually the manufacturer or distributor.

Publishers immediately cried foul. This statement from the Independent Book Publishers Association outlines the concerns of independent publishers (disclosure: I was an IBPA board member at the time and gave feedback on early drafts).

The types of books most likely to be pirated

As an Amazon FBA seller of other types of goods (namely, genealogy charts and forms) I knew very well the threat posed by counterfeits. It’s a long-standing problem that has attracted lots of negative press (“Amazon May Have a Counterfeit Problem“, “Leveeing a Flood of Counterfeits on Amazon“, “How counterfeits benefit Amazon“) and impacted my company, which was forced to invest in Amazon’s anti-counterfeit service Transparency.

For an example, one publisher, Bill Pollock of No Starch Press, reported repeated incidents of counterfeit books being sold by Amazon. The first reports surfaced in 2017, and earlier this month it happened again.

I have been impacted by another problem that IBPA predicted: Third-party sellers flogging used books as new. It’s actually a far bigger problem for me than counterfeit books, and I now pay an independent contractor to help me monitor my own listings.

Here’s what I think is happening:

Publishers or Amazon sellers who have products that are easy or cheap to copy and have high list prices have the most to lose with the Amazon buy box policy. There is a real risk of pirates taking over listings with counterfeit, low-quality copies. Potentially, they will have to deal with third-party sellers passing off used goods as new.

My company publishes IN 30 MINUTE guides and cheat sheets. They are relatively low-margin and have a low retail price – $11.99 to $12.99 for most books, $6.99-$7.99 for the cheat sheets. Yes, they could copy the books, and do some cheap digital short runs to get bogus inventory into the system, but because my list prices are already so low I don’t think they could make much. The pirates know this, and tend to go for higher-priced titles (including textbooks) from other publishers. No Starch Press was a repeat victim of this, and I have heard of other cases, too.

Third-party sellers flogging used books as new

As mentioned earlier, I do have issues with other sellers listing used items as new. They are almost always third-party sellers concentrating on the book market, and offer the books as “new” with amazingly low prices to win the buy box or push my listing out of it. They have not purchased the book new through wholesale channels in which I operate (such as Baker & Taylor or Ingram), because the discount is below my wholesale prices — in some cases, below the cost of printing and shipping the book from the printer!

In all cases in which I have ordered one of these “new” books to determine the source, they have turned out to be used. This seller even sent a copy of our shrink-wrapped book about LinkedIn with a USED sticker on it:

Amazon Buy Box used book sold as new

This book was sold as “new” on Amazon, winning the buy box, yet was a used copy by the seller’s own admission!

Third-party book sellers playing games with shipping prices

Here’s another trick third-party sellers use to take publishers out of the buy box: Offering a new book for a ridiculously low price and then charging a ridiculously high shipping fee.

Check out the example below for C. Diff In 30 Minutes. The paperback retails for $14.99, but my listing is no longer am shown in the buy box because a third-party seller from Missouri is offering the book for $3.99. Sounds like a great deal, right?

C Diff Bogus Buy Box 3-99 sample croppedBut clicking “4 new from $3.99” takes people to a page that shows the seller charging an additional $27.99 for non-expedited shipping from Missouri to the Boston area, even though USPS Media Mail costs $2.75 for book that size, USPS First Class around $5, and a two-day Priority Mail flat-rate envelope $7.95.

C Diff Bogus Buy Box 3-99 plus shipping 640pxIt’s also not clear if the book being sold is actually new. At least one customer of the third-party seller reported that a book sold as new was actually used and “looks stolen”:

Amazon stolen book report

When I notified Amazon of this problem, they restored my publisher’s listing to the Buy Box … but the “3.99” version is still listed for sale, even though the actual cost to the customer is more than $30.

Used sales are an important option

Don’t get me wrong — it’s fine for sellers who resell used copies listed as used for a profit, and think it’s a good option for students and others who can’t afford a new copy. I also have no issue with a customer or library which received a copy of one our new books not wanting or needing it, and turning around to sell it as new (or returning it).

That said, every time a third-party seller lists a used book as new on Amazon and underprices the publisher, it’s taking money that the real publisher would otherwise get from the sale of an actual new book. It deceives buyers, and it cheats authors and publishers out of revenue and royalties.

What they are doing violates Amazon TOS, too. Despite repeatedly reporting the bogus “new” cases to Amazon, I have not received any indication that Amazon took any action. The seller of the shrink-wrapped example with the “USED” sticker mentioned earlier is still selling books as a third party seller, and has lots of negative reviews:

Amazon seller negative reviews

After observing the mess caused by the Buy Box policy, and the apparent inaction on the part of Amazon to proactively stop the cheaters or punish wrongdoers, it’s clear that publishers are on the losing end of this fight. Pirates and sellers know it, too. Amazon’s message to them:

Win the buy box however you can. We don’t care if the original publisher/creator gets nothing. We won’t police your listings. We probably won’t punish you if you get caught, or we will only give you a light slap on the wrist. Even if many of Amazon’s customers are complaining, you can still stay in business on Amazon.

In terms of sellers of other types of goods winning or losing the buy box, Amazon makes available special services to brand owners (trademark owners with items in the Amazon Brand Registry) to fight counterfeits, including expedited take-down requests and access to paid services such as Amazon Transparency. The number-one point on the Amazon Transparency “learn more” page is “Proactive counterfeit protection.”

Sounds great in theory, but brands have to pay for it! For me, it works out to about 15 cents per item to use this service, not including additional manufacturing and design fees.

In other words, I’m paying for Amazon’s failure to police their own marketplace and prevent pirates and cheats. I’ve told them I won’t be proactively signing up brand SKUs for this service unless Amazon greatly reduces or eliminates the cost.

What has your experience been with Amazon counterfeit books or other goods?

Riverside and Newton’s draft zoning plans for Washington Street reveal “visioning” for what it really is

Other ,

Recently, the Newton Tab published an article about the massive new development proposed for the MBTA Riverside T stop on the Auburndale/Newton Lower Falls border. The Tab article, titled “Crowd offers feedback about Newton’s Riverside site,” quoted Mayor Ruthanne Fuller – a Chestnut Hill resident – describing the visioning process for Riverside in far-away Auburndale:

“‘This process, in part, is trying to figure out what is the right size,’ said Fuller.”

I have news for Mayor Fuller, and her allies on the City Council from Wards 6, 7, and 8: The “right size” of the Riverside development is already known.

The last time local residents in Ward 4 were asked for input to right-size development at Riverside, discussions took more than five years. The resulting agreement, finalized in 2013, determined that the right size for Riverside was 580,000 square feet, including nearly 300 hundred new housing units.

It’s not local residents who want to go through this process all over again. It’s being driven by Mark Development and business partner BH Normandy (who negotiated the 2013 agreement). Instead of the agreed-upon 580,000 square feet, they are demanding 1.5 million square feet, including two 200+ foot tall towers, and many hundreds of additional units of luxury housing. They stand to add hundreds of millions of dollars in additional value to their project, while residents of Auburndale, Newton Lower Falls, Waban, West Newton, and other parts of Newton are saddled with massive costs related to traffic, schools, infrastructure, planning, and more.

And despite the mayor’s insistence that she is listening to local residents, the evidence that we see in the actions and policies of her administration is that while we may be heard, the preferences of Newton Voters – particularly those living in the city’s northside neighborhoods and Newton Upper Falls – are largely ignored.

For example, the Newtonville Area Council’s recent survey of Newton residents found that only 12% (Per NAC email: “Actually, it was 4% of all respondents, and 5% of those with a height preference”) were receptive to buildings five or more storeys tall along Washington Street. Of those who expressed an opinion about the number of housing units, 86% supported 500 or less.

Similar opinions were articulated during the long “Hello Washington Street” visioning process. The following comments were left by citizens on one of the “pop-up” centers in West Newton to collect feedback about Washington Street:

Hello Washington Street Visioning Process pop up center Newton

The comments include:

“Too tall”
“Too big”
“Bad shadows”
“Big buildings ugly”
“Too urban”
“Air rights over pike”
“This doesn’t look like a suburb. Where are the trees?”
“No trees. Towers destroy neighborhood feel”
“Too tall. Too many people for the space. Too many cars. Overshadows existing homes. Overcrowding of the school system.”
“Seniors have few school age children and many no longer drive.”
“This is bogus. So unappealing I;m sure it’s only offered to make the other scenarios look better by comparison. West Newton resident.”
“No. This is not Boston. We do not have to agree to make Korff rich.”
“Never. We don’t wan’t Manhattan. ”
“Have you been to Manhattan?”
“I love Manhattan and Tokyo.”
“No high rises in Newton!”
“Be careful. You will drive away all of the [] who make Newton a magnet.”
“No one who wants to make Newton a magnet can afford to live here now.”
“Underground parking is good. But these cars will still be driving around the city.”
“Way too tall. Big shadows on small houses.”
“Large number of affordable units”
“Build this over the pike”
“What about the existing residents who cannot unfortunately [] this monstrosity”
“Boston? MGH?”

Now that the second draft of the vision and zoning plans for Washington Street have been published, it’s clear that there is a huge gap in what residents asked for and what we will be getting. Huge tracts of land from West Newton Square to the Armory/Trader Joes, parts of Newtonville on either side of the Pike, the lots where Marty’s and Whole Foods now stand, and the commercial parcels diagonally opposite Our Lady’s church in the Lake, will fall under the new “Village Gateway” (W-VY), “Station Area Central” (W-SC), and “Station Area Commercial” (W-SM) zoning designations:

draft washington Street zoning map feb 2019

According to the draft, the maximum height by right for all of these designations will be 5 stories. If developers successfully apply for special permits at any of those sites (a requirement to maximize the value of their investments) they will be able to place gigantic buildings between 6 and 10 stories tall.

This represents thousands of new units of housing (most of it market rate/luxury), and millions of new square feet of office and lab space. That’s not what residents asked for, but that’s what we’ll be getting if city councilors approve the plans for Washington Street. Similar zoning designations will likely be applied in other neighborhoods all over the city — a handout to developers worth billions of dollars, and a nightmare of traffic, massive infrastructure and school costs, and lost quality of life for the residents of Newton for decades to come.

Nobody cares about preserving an MBTA parking lot (or, for that matter, run-down commercial properties along Washington Street). But when it comes to replacing what’s there now, the people of Newton are tired of negotiating deals that are later ripped up because developers insist on getting more, and participating in acts of political theater in which their opinions are solicited and subsequently ignored. Any new vision for Riverside should align with what we asked for — and the city, the MBTA, and developers agreed to — six years ago.

If you are a Newton resident, please contact ALL Newton City councilors TODAY (easy way: EMAIL THEM ALL AT ONCE via citycouncil@newtonma.gov) and let them know what you think about the Riverside development. Even if you don’t live in Auburndale or Newton Lower Falls, your taxes will end up paying for developers’ profits through increased road, school, infrastructure, and other costs. The developers’ tactics to rip up a signed agreement also sets a precedent for similar gambits in the future all over Newton, including Washington Street, Newton Upper Falls, Newtonville, and elsewhere.

Riverside MBTA developers Robert Korff and BH Normandy negotiating in bad faith?

Uncategorized , ,

Developer Robert Korff and his company Mark Development couldn’t have asked for a more helpful boost from the Newton Tab in the article titled, “Some concerned over short timeframe of Riverside visioning process,” published online on December 28.

In addition to publishing verbatim developer Korff’s Riverside PR spin points, the Tab failed to question some extremely dubious claims. “The Riverside development could be the economic engine for the city of Newton, but it’s going to require the density that we’re proposing,” he told the paper.

Economic engine of the city? What he’s proposing sounds more like a profit engine for Korff, with no additional benefits for Newton — in fact, it comes with significant costs, as I will shortly explain. And why were there no questions about his intention to rip up a signed deal he and his partners already have to develop the parking lot area at the Riverside MBTA station in Auburndale?

Let’s be clear about what’s happening here, since the Newton Tab wasn’t. In 2013, Korff’s business partner BH Normandy was granted approval to build a 580,000 square foot development at Riverside that includes more than two hundred new housing units. This deal came after six years of negotiations and lobbying with neighbors, local politicians, and city planning officials.

Now developer Korff and partner Normandy want to rip up the 2013 agreement, and force through approval for a far larger development that’s 1.5 million square feet in size, contains two 200+ foot tall towers with mostly “market rate”/luxury housing, and is only reachable by Grove Street, a narrow road connecting Auburndale and Newton Lower Falls.

Why are the developers trying to ram its new proposal through now? It apparently relates to the fact that Newton city council elections are taking place in November 2019, which would require them to start the application and lobbying processes all over again — possibly with a new slate of councilors voted into office based on their stances on the waves of oversized luxury development taking place in northern villages – Auburndale, West Newton, Newtonville, and the Lake – and other parts of the city targeted by developers, such as Newton Upper Falls.

Developer Korff is orchestrating a PR campaign in the pages of local media, in “fireside chats” with neighbors, and PR street teams going door-to-door in Auburndale and Lower Falls that aims to grant himself and his business partners hundreds of millions of dollars in additional property rights. We don’t know what the exact figure will be, as this is surely a starting point that will be ‘reluctantly’ scaled back to something that still grants him a huge payout. He’s done it before — check out his tactics with the Orr block in Newtonville, which included using the threat of 40B and having the Newton-Needham Chamber of Commerce criticize skeptical councilors and community groups on his behalf.

His new plans for the MBTA Riverside development represent an aggressive land grab that would come at the expense of Newton residents, who would be forced to shoulder massive costs relating to schools, traffic, infrastructure, and parking. Meanwhile, there’s nothing in developer Korff’s PR points about affordable housing, housing for seniors, or housing for middle class families, as shown in the flyer his PR team dropped off at my house last month (see below).

The impact would be especially hard on residents of Newton Lower Falls and Auburndale, who thought the Riverside deal was settled five years ago but have since learned the negotiation was merely a preamble to yet more aggressive demands from developers. No one cares about preserving an MBTA parking lot, but there’s already a signed deal that developers, residents, and politicians agreed to. Developer Korff’s attempt to renege on it should be shot down not only on principle, but also to avoid setting a precedent for other real estate deals signed by Korff and other developers throughout Newton.

If you are a Newton resident, please contact all ward councilors TODAY (EASY WAY: Email everyone at once by using this email address: citycouncil@newtonma.gov) and let them know what you think about the Riverside development. Even if you don’t live in Auburndale or Newton Lower Falls, your taxes will end up paying for developers’ profits through increased road, school, infrastructure, and other costs. The developers’ tactics to rip up a signed agreement also sets a precedent for similar tricks in the future all over Newton, including Washington Street, Newton Upper Falls, Newtonville, and elsewhere.

The misleading flyer handed out by MBTA Riverside developers. The actual size of the proposed development is 1.5 million square feet, not 547,000 square feet. The “new neighborhood” phrase suggests this is intended as a luxury enclave, distinct from the existing village structure of Newton.

Robert Korff Mark Development RIverside MBTA parking lot development flyerflyer 121818 SMALL

 

All about Amazon Transparency

technology , ,

Amazon has rolled out a new program for brand owners, manufacturers, and Amazon Sellers called Amazon Transparency. I’ve explained what Amazon Transparency is and the requirements for getting started over on the Lean Media blog.

In a nutshell, Amazon Transparency is the answer to a very vexing problem: How to crack down on counterfeiters who are using the Amazon Seller program to flood Amazon with counterfeit goods.

My Amazon Transparency blog post touches upon some of the legal aspects involved (First-Sale Doctrine and U.S. trademarks) but also gets into some of the practical requirements for Amazon Transparency, including production, packaging, UPC/GTIN registration, and more.Amazon Transparency

You may also be interested in my Amazon Deep Dive for Publishers.