richardhowe.com

Today’s Lowell Sun political column (a kinder, gentler version than appeared last week) portrays Mayor Bud Caulfield as the driving force behind a move to replace Lowell’s elected school committee with an appointed board.  From today’s Column:

SO WHAT do two mayors chat about while watching a ball game?  “I asked [Mayor Menino] how he was able to get an appointed School Committee in Boston,” Caulfield admitted. . . . Menino told Caulfield that it was Boston’s business community that took the initiative to make the change from the 13-member elected committee to a 7-member body appointed by the mayor, a change heavily supported by Menino’s predecessor, Mayor Ray Flynn.  In 1989, Boston residents supported the change in a nonbinding referendum. In 1991, the state Legislature approved the city’s home-rule petition, backed by the business community, to make the change. It went into effect in January 1992. In 1996, Bostonians overwhelmingly supported the continuation of an appointed School Committee in another ballot question.  It’s too late to put a referendum on the Lowell ballot for November’s election, but some are already gearing up for the municipal election in 2009.

As Jackie Doherty recalls, when she first ran for school committee back in 2003, there was talk of changing to an appointed committee and as The Column points out, the late Grady Mulligan had advanced a proposal to alter the makeup of the Lowell School Committee.  That happened back in August of 1999.  Mulligan’s proposal called for expanding the school board from seven to nine members, with four (as opposed to the current six) being elected at large and four being appointed by a “Board of Overseers” with the mayor serving as the ninth member. The appointing authority (the Board of Overseers) would consist of nine individuals appointed by the School Committee, the City Council, the city manager, the school superintendent, the teachers union, the Citywide Parent Council (2 appointees) and the Lowell Plan (2 appointees).  

According to an August 22, 1999 Lowell Sun article, most of the city council then in office supported the proposal.  Mayor Eileen Donoghue said “Given the distinct lack of interest in the School Committee this election season (there were only nine candidates in that fall’s school committee election) and the importance of having educational experts on the committee given the nature of public education today, I think Councilor Mulligan’s plan has merit.”  Councilors Peter Richard, Larry Martin, Rodney Elliott and Bud Caulfield all said they favored some form of appointed School Committee.  Councilor Richard Howe Sr. said “I have serious reservations about creating a board that is not based on the public electoral process.”  Armand Mercier said he hadn’t decided whether to support the motion and Councilor Rita Mercier “couldn’t be reached for comment.”  

For those of you keeping score, four members of the 1999 council are still in office.  According to the Sun article, Bud Caulfield and Rodney Elliott supported a change in the makeup of the school committee while the positions of Armand Mercier and Rita Mercier couldn’t be determined.  No one on the present council has spoken publicly on this issue but my guess is that it won’t get beyond the talking stages.  While it would seem to be a safe move for a councilor to vote to put such a proposal on the ballot in the form of a referendum to “let the people decide,” that’s all Grady Mulligan wanted to do and he was thrown out of office in the next election.  Other things may have contributed to his defeat, but he only lost by 88 votes.  

For a councilor to support such a proposal today would be unwise politically.  In the 2007 council race, only 456 votes separated fourth place from ninth place and I would guess that between school committee supporters, school department employees and others who perhaps resented the attempt to curtail the individual voter’s voice in government, there’d be at least that many people with a reason to vote against councilors who supported the proposal.  And besides, if a Boston-style plan did pass, what would become of the incumbent school committee members?  They’d undoubtedly run for city council and, since they all would have good name recognition, pre-existing political networks, the confidence of having won city-wide already and a solid base of motivated supporters (i.e., those angry about the council’s support of the proposal), they’d be formidable candidates.  

But as interesting as it might be to speculate about the political fallout of an appointed school committee proposal, the reason it won’t go anywhere is that it wouldn’t make any difference.  Last I checked, no one was holding up the Boston public schools as an icon of excellence in public education.  The reality is that school committees, whether elected or appointed, have little influence on what goes on in a community’s schools.  The only hope for real reform lies with the state legislature.  Back in 1993, that body enacted historic legislation (Ed Reform) that tremendously improved public education in Massachusetts.  Perhaps it’s time for Ed Reform II.

3 Comments »

In today’s Saturday Chat, Kendall Wallace calls for reason and objectivity to play a big role in the negotiations between the city and the Lowell Spinners over the extension of the ballteam’s lease of LeLacheur Field.  I agree with him although I’m still worried.  The Spinners came here in the first place because their prior home, Elmira, New York, gave up on the team.  I don’t want history to repeat itself.

In his column, Wallace cites a post I wrote on this topic at the end of June which is here in case you’re interested in rereading it.  I wrote more last evening, focusing on the legislation that created the Arena Commission which controls both the ballpark and the arena.

No Comments »

Ominous emanations from the city council towards the Spinners at the end of June caused me to write of my concern about the team’s future in Lowell.  Armed with a fiscal enviousness fueled by sold out games, long concession lines, and back of the envelope calculations by armchair experts with their own axes to grind, our city leaders seemed poised to overplay their hand when negotiating an extension to the soon-to-expire lease with the Spinners on LeLacheur Park.  Every mayor and planning director in New England has to be monitoring this very closely, crafting too-good-to-be-true offers to attract the Red Sox class A affiliate to their communities.  Leominster’s already expressing interest.

 This misplaced boldness was nowhere to be seen last Tuesday night during the discussion of the future of the management contract for the Tsongas Arena.  When it comes to the arena, boldness was replaced by confusion.  Some councilors demanded that all parties – management company SMG, the AHL Devils, UMass Lowell, the city and the arena commission – “all sit down with the council arena subcommittee so we can hammer out an agreement” while other councilors cautioned that such a course constituted the council negotiating contracts which would be illegal (All contracts involving the city are negotiated and executed by the city manager under our form of government).   

The buzz behind the scenes, of course, is that “Bernie” (meaning the city manager) will handle it all, driving tough, but fair deals to re-up the Spinners and to transform the Arena into a fiscally sound concern.  That’s encouraging, but it also leads me to ask, what authority does the city manager have to do either of these things?

Chapter 325 of the Acts of 1994 (approved by the state legislature on January 11, 1995), established the Lowell Arena Commission which “shall consist of five members, three of whom shall be appointed by the city manager with the approval of the city council and two of whom shall be appointed by the chancellor of the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.”  The act goes on to grant the Arena Commission exclusive authority over every aspect of the arena, including “to contract with a private professional manager or management firm” to which the commission may delegate the authority of operating the arena.  As for the city manager and the council, the only authority the legislation grants to them (besides appointing a majority of the commission members) is to pay the bills – “The city, upon recommendation of the city manager and the approval of the city council may appropriate to the commission such funds as it deems necessary for the purpose of managing, operating, promoting maintaining, repairing and improving the arena.”      

Six months later, on July 24, 1995 in Chapter 79 of the Acts of 1995, the legislature amended the arena commission to accommodate the construction and operation of a “publicly owned outdoor stadium facility” (i.e., LeLacheur Field).  While this legislation increased the members of the renamed Lowell Arena and Civic Stadium Commission to seven (four from the city and three from the University), it did not alter the governance structure in any substantive way.   

Maybe this law has been amended a third time and the manager has been granted express authority to conduct these negotiations.  (If it has, I’m sorry I missed it).  But if no such amendment has occurred, the law clearly directs the Arena Commission to negotiate both the new lease with the Spinners and the new management contract with SMG for the Arena.   If the Arena Commission is dysfunctional (or worse), then let’s replace its members or ask the legislature to abolish it and replace it with a more practical governance structure.  But most seem content to ignore this law and nothing good will come of that.  Too many shortcuts on both these “venues” (the councils’ new favorite word) have got us where we are today. 

4 Comments »

A moment of unintended comedy broke out at tonight’s council meeting.  A company called Extranet (could be spelled wrong) wants permission to run fiber optic cable along utility polls in the city and use the cable to connect a bunch of small transmitters that will greatly enhance everyone’s ability to transmit and receive text messages.  In trying to win over the council, the company’s representative said something like “As my teenage daughter told me the other day, ‘Everyone knows that text messaging is the most efficient way to communicate.’”  I felt sorry for this guy, because he had innocently wandered into the council’s technology minefield, most recently exemplified by last meeting’s debate about the propriety of using hi-tech cell phones to send text messages during council meetings.  The Extranet rep was so enthusiastic in his presentation that I was waiting for him to say “And we’ll even put a transmitter right here in the council chamber to permit you to text back and forth during meetings.”  He didn’t say that but it wouldn’t have mattered if he had – the reception he received from some city councilors couldn’t have been any chillier. 

2 Comments »

This evening, the city council adopted a new ordinance dealing with the upkeep of abandoned and foreclosed properties by a 9-0 vote with no debate.  Among other things, the new ordinance requires the foreclosing lender to post in a conspicuous place on the front of a foreclosed home the name and telephone number of the local point of contact responsible for the upkeep of the home.  With more than 450 foreclosures in Lowell in the last 18 months, this is sorely needed not only as a way to expedite the return of the foreclosed property to the ranks of functioning properties, but to minimize the damage done to the homes in the neighborhood surrounding the foreclosed property. 

Unfortunately, all signs indicate the current foreclosure crisis will only worsen.  Witness the lead paragraph in a front-page story in today’s New York Times: 

As home prices decline and Washington struggles to end the economic malaise, Wall Street is starting to send a sobering message:  The worst is yet to come.

And if evidence more local in nature is needed, just look at the legal notices of today’s Lowell Sun where 14 Notices of Mortgagee’s Sale (the document advertising an upcoming foreclosure auction) were printed just today.  This is the highest number I recall seeing in a single day.  In case you’re interested, here are the addresses, all are Lowell unless otherwise indicated:

1. 5 Dane Street

2. 77 Kelley Circle

3. 11 Jamie Road (Dunstable)

4. 36-38 Ferry Lane

5. 45 West Fifth Street

6. 109-111 Ennell Street

7. 24 Bellevue Street

8. 16 Merrimack Street Unit 4D

9. 767-773 Central Street

10. 9 Old Lowell Road (Westford)

11. 820 Bridge Street Unit 6

12. 12-14 Harris Ave

13. 278 Pleasant Street Unit 3

14. 7-9 Hampton Ave

2 Comments »

The editors of the Valley Patriot were quite interested in the dust-up about cell phone usage during Lowell City Council meetings, so my July article for the VP analyzed that issue.  Rereading it now, the controversy seems dated.  As happens so often with this council, an issue arrives with Lowell Sun-assisted heat and fury and then disappears without a trace.  (For instance, when I bought a carton of milk last week, it had a “missing” notice for the proposed residency ordinance).  Anyway, here’s more on text-gate:

A week before the Celtics seventeenth world champion cast a pleasant glow on the region, basketball fans spent more time debating whether the games were fixed than who would win the series.  This diversion was prompted by a letter sent by disgraced former referee Tim Donaghy to the judge about to sentence him on charges that he conspired with gamblers to fix NBA games.  Donaghy alleged that NBA executives routinely directed referees to manipulate games in order to boost ticket sales and TV ratings, a charge the NBA vigorously denies.  

One of the more interesting reactions to this controversy came from William Rhoden, a sports columnist with the New York Times.  Rhoden asked former Lakers’ great Magic Johnson if the players could get by without officials.  While stressing that the NBA needed on-court officials, Johnson acknowledged that every player grew up playing pickup games on the playground where there were no referees and the players policed themselves.  According to Johnson, these games were “as pure as it is when you have referees” although “the game may be a little longer, some of the calls may be disputed, and then there’s going to be more trash-talking.”   

Sounds like the Lowell City Council.  Like most legislative bodies, the council polices itself, a process that usually works quite well, relegating the procedural rules to the background and letting substance dominate the debate.  But this summer, for some reason, the council has started fighting about the rules and, like the occasional pickup game between two long-time opponents who dislike each other and carry much baggage from prior matches, the meetings have been longer, more rulings are being disputed and there’s been more – I don’t want to say “trash-talking” – but the rhetoric has grown more heated and personal.  

A motion by Rita Mercier at the June 10^th meeting to “prohibit the use of cell phones and/or any communications device during regular, special or any other city council meeting” ignited the most recent controversy.  In explaining the motion, Mercier said the use of cell phones during meetings “created a negative appearance and cast a dark shadow over the city council.”  She said it was apparent that some councilors were sending text messages to other councilors during meetings, adding “I’m all for socializing, but during the city council meeting is not the place for such behavior.”  Mercier also commented that such communications possibly violated the state’s Open Meeting Law.  Mercier went on:  “How many times do we take our cell phone out of our pocket and go to the cloak room as if we can’t make a decision on our own without being directed by someone else who called to offer a new question to be asked?  It’s unprofessional.” 

Councilor Mike Lenzi seconded the motion, commenting that it was an issue of professional courtesy.  Using cell phones during meetings “sets a bad precedent.  There are important things being said and everyone should be paying attention.”  Councilor Alan Kazanjian also supported the motion, saying that in the 15 years he served on the Board of Appeals before becoming a councilor last January, he never once saw anyone use a cell phone during a meeting.  He said he was “taken aback” by city councilors using cell phones during meetings and that they should not be used out of “professional courtesy.”  Councilor Armand Mercier also spoke in favor of the ban, saying that he always turned off his phone at the start of the meeting and that talk of using cell phones to access information during meetings was a “red herring.” 

While Mayor Bud Caulfield did not expressly state his position, he strongly implied that he supported the motion when he responded to a suggestion by Councilor Kevin Broderick that they should obtain guidance from the District Attorney’s Office regarding cell phones and compliance with the Open Meeting Law by saying “It doesn’t matter what the DA says, councilor.  If five councilors say there will be no cell phones, there will be no cell phones.”  But that’s not necessarily true, since a rules change (as I understand it, at least) would require six votes and the four remaining councilors all expressed reservations about an outright ban on the use of electronic devices.  

Councilor Kevin Broderick, who many suspect was the primary target of Mercier’s motion, acknowledged that he did occasionally use the text message capability of his phone during council meetings, suggested this was a case of some councilors being more comfortable than others with advances in communications technology.  He acknowledged the need to update council rules to address the use of email and text messaging but said that many of his constituents contacted him via those methods and they expected a rapid response.  Broderick also said he should be able to use the internet access provided by his cell phone to go online to retrieve information relevant to the matter being discussed at the meeting.  

Councilor Jim Milinazzo was critical of Mercier’s motion, saying that he, Mercier and Broderick had all discussed the matter in a collegial and light-hearted way just days earlier.  As far as he was concerned, the matter had been appropriately addressed in that informal manner and that raising it again as a formal motion was  “disappointing.”

No Comments »

Over on the Lowell SUN Forum there has been a thread running since June 9^th entitled “Do you Remember?” To date there have been 1099 comments – nostalgic memories of places, businesses, some people and aahh those youthful experiences. Granted some are off-the-wall, nutty and even weird. But it did get me thinking about how much people like to reminisce even when their recall might be somewhat imperfect. So I decided to use a “reliable source” – the Lowell Sunday SUN of October 1, 1972 – to remember “what was what” 36 years ago. Why 1972? Well, it was a hot political year at the national and local level – a time of turmoil, an unpopular war, calls for change, stock market unrest, unemployment woes, a presidential election and yet somethings were “business as usual.” Sound familiar?

• The SUN editorial “Why McGovern trails…” listed many reasons all laid to George McGovern’s “continual nonsense statements.” Statements on bugging, bombing, barbarism aimed at President Nixon and accusations that the Senate “chamber reeks of blood” or any “young person or worker that votes for Nixon is too confused to know which end is up” are some examples.

• The Congress was discussing reducing the SS retirement age to 60; welfare reform; guaranteeing a minimum annual income for a poor family.

• Lowell City Manager Jim Sullivan and the City Council differed strongly on longevity pay for police and firefighters.

• SUN schools reporter Carolyn Miegel reported her personal experience eating the cold but nutritionally acceptable lunch at AVCO – bologna & cheese sandwich with butter, a fresh peach, orange juice and milk. Lowell High School freshmen were housed at AVCO under the watchful administrative eye of Jimmy Finn. By the way most students were bussed there for free.

• School Superintendent Hugh McDougall convened a meeting to explain the mandated bi-lingual programs.

• Dr. Everett Olsen became the President of Lowell Tech (LTI).

• The Lowell Central Labor Council met to endorse John Kerry for Congress in the 5^th District while Roger Durkin supporters placed a nearly full page ad touting him as the Lowell candidate for the 5^th Congressional District. George Jessel was booked for a Durkin fundraiser at the Speare House.

• The SUNday Magazine’s feature story was “Recycling Lowell incinerator trash can produce valuable material.”

• Human Services Corporation (HSC) arranged a Lowell-canals boat trip led by planner Gordon Marker that included a Congressional aide and Lowell SUN reporter Toni Parsons. “Can you envision the frame of the mills used for apartments, can you visualize boutiques, condominiums overlooking the canals and the Merrimack? Can you? Can you? Can you, Lowellian?” Marker barked during the tour.

• A Belvidere Open House at a Trull Lane West home advertised a three-bedroom ranch at $36,900.

• The Patriots versus the Redskins was a sell-out game at Foxboro.

• Jobs were listed in the classified ads at Symphonics, Mammoth Mart, Sanders Associates, the Banqueteer and Lawrence Manufacturing.

• There were ads throughout the paper for JM Fields, Grants, Bigelow Home Furnishings, Bon Marche, Cherry & Webb, Sears, Purity Supreme, Capital Warehouse, Larkin’s Dinette, Giant Bargain Outlet, Jim Pierce Ford, Lallas Buick, Hallissy Chevolet, The Haven and the Princeton Lounge.

• Woulk’s Winds of War was on the best seller list.

• Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were celebrating their 25^th Anniversary.

• Fall foliage was near peak.

• The Lowell high School Class of 1947 gathered for their 25^th Reunion.

   

What do you remember? I remember a bruising Democratic Primary in the 5^th District. I remember trouble in Northern Ireland… voting for George McGovern… that Independent voters were important in the 5^th District election… that even in 1972 women who were mentioned in SUN stories - especially in the Lifestyle section - were usually identified by their husbands names… that Frank Phillips wrote for the SUN… that Paul Cronin was the Republican in the 5^th district race… Hale Howard… the Middlesex Training School issue… and so much more.

No Comments »

Our good friend Mehmed Ali left Lowell not too long ago bound for Bagdad as a temporary employee of the State Department.  I’m not sure whether he’s already in Iraq or not, but when news broke yesterday morning that a bomb blast in Bagdad had taken the lives of two US soldiers, a civilian employee of the Defense Department and a civilian employee of the State Department, I immediately thought of Ali.  He was not involved in this incident, thankfully, but it serves as a reminder that Iraq is still a very dangerous place and that whatever our opinion of the policy that brought us to Iraq, our thoughts should be with those like Ali who are risking their lives there on the ground.

2 Comments »

When City Councilor Rita Mercier filed a motion last week requesting that the council ban the use of cell phones and other electronic devices during council meetings, it was pretty clearly a salvo aimed at council colleague Kevin Broderick who apparently uses his cell phone to send and receive a random text message, sometimes during council meetings.  Challenged on his occasional text messaging, Broderick’s reply shifted the debate from text messaging to text reading, for he specifically challenged Councilor Mercier’s practice of reading from prepared remarks when commenting on motions, a practice that violates Robert’s Rules of Order according to Broderick.  The council’s rules subcommittee will take up both issues. 

Ironically, the council has unintentionally stumbled into what I see as a major issue – the role of technology in local government.  What if Councilor Broderick is using his phone to receive a text message from a constituent who’s watching the meeting at home and wants to comment on the issue then under discussion.  How does that differ from a councilor leaving his or her seat and taking two steps back to the rail to listen to the comments of a constituent who is physically at the meeting?  I don’t think it’s any different, yet councilors routinely communicate with spectators in the council chambers (often leading to suspensions of the rules which is a whole other issue).  What if all the councilors joined the 21^st century and had the ability to receive text messages.  Wouldn’t that give them the ability to conduct an instant poll or focus group on the issue being debated and thereby influence how to vote on the issue?  Believe me, I’m not advocating that.  We do live in a representative democracy in which we elect leaders to exercise their best judgment on the issues that come before them, not to be slaves to public opinion.  After all, if we use technology to provide instant feedback from the citizens on issues before the council, why would we need a council at all.  Why not let the people vote for themselves?     

1 Comment »

This was originally posted on June 15 but disappeared during our technological disruption.  Sorry about the missing comments.

The current system of trash disposal gives city residents a pretty good deal – curbside pickup of unlimited amounts and voluntary recycling all for only $100 per year.  But the city’s cost of collection and disposal greatly exceeds the revenue generated by that fee and city’s recycling rate is only 7%, so the city council seems ready to change the current system.  The most likely proposal would increase the fee to $125 per year, but would also limit each household to one 65 gallon trash container each week.  Anything beyond that would have to be placed curbside in an officially tagged bag that would cost $1.50 each.  As an incentive, all recycled materials would be collected for free. The tough economic times we now face make this the right time to implement this new system.  The high cost of gasoline and food has everyone talking about bicycling to work and growing their own vegetables, so conservation and recycling fit right into that mindset.  Still, many will complain about paying a higher fee and having to comply with a pay-as-you-throw system.  The free 65-gallon weekly container, over the course of 52 trash days, gives you a yearly allotment of 3380 gallons of trash.  I’m not sure how much the bags will hold, but assuming that they’re standard 45-gallon trash bags, you’d have to fill up 75 of them to equal that amount of trash.  At $1.50 per bag, that would cost you $112.50, just $12.50 less than the annual fee, so that pretty much balances out. The larger challenge will be one of logistics.  Where do the 65-gallon containers come from?  Will the city or a vendor provide them to us?  Do we pay for it or is it included in our annual fee?  What happens when one gets stolen or crushed (both of which have happened to my green recycling bin through the years)?  Where do we buy the tagged bags?  If we use a tagged bag, can we put it in an unapproved barrel to protect it from getting ripped open by dogs or squirrels?  What happens to unapproved trash?  Will it be left on the curb?  What will the city do in that case?  Pick it up and bill the offending household later or issue a citation and let the wind disperse the trash through the neighborhood?  What will be done to prevent or penalize illegal dumping?  So many questions – and having answers to all of these questions before implementing this system will be crucial to the ultimate success of the system.  Whether our city government is up to that task is perhaps the most important question of all.     Dick

No Comments »