The Lowell City Council met last Tuesday night. In this newsletter, I’ll discuss several issues that arose at that meeting.

****

The Markley Group LLC, represented by former Mayor Bill Martin (who is the last attorney to have served on the Lowell City Council), came before the council with a petition to amend its fuel storage license from a maximum of 71,000 gallons to 167,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Normally, the council would have sent a petition like this to a public hearing at some future date, however, due to opposition to the petition from citizens and at least a few city councilors, it was instead referred to a joint meeting of the council’s Environmental and Neighborhood subcommittees. Some councilors seemed inclined to vote against the entire proposal on Tuesday night, however, the City Solicitor said the law required the council to hold a public hearing on the petition before making a final determination.

Markley is a data center and cloud services provider that’s recognized as a pioneer in the field. It allows companies to put their own computer servers, digital storage devices, and networking gear in Markey’s facility, thereby freeing the client company from the costs and complications of doing this on their own. Markey not only provides the critical space, but also a guarantee of a highly secure, always-on site.

This always on service refers to electrical power outages which is where the diesel generators come in. Like all computer sites, Markley has battery backups called uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) that keep the computers running without interruption when the power goes out, but a UPS only lasts for a few minutes, so generators are needed to kick in and provide electricity until the normal power has been restored. It’s the industrial equivalent of a homeowner having a portable gasoline generator tucked away in their garden shed for use when electricity is lost.

I assume Markley has done projections for how much generator-created electricity would be needed in the worst-case power outage scenarios, and how much fuel would be needed on site to keep the generators running for that long. To continue the homeowner analogy, you need a couple of already-filled gas cans along with your portable generator because when the power goes out, the entire region could be affected making gasoline unavailable if you don’t already have it. And just as the homeowner should test run their generator once per month to ensure it starts when the power goes out, the Markley generators do their own test runs on some recurring schedule.

With the US economy now being propelled by trillion-dollar investments in artificial intelligence, there is massive demand for data centers like the one Markley operates in Lowell, so it’s not surprising that the company is growing and needs more backup power.

However, that demand does little to address the legitimate concerns of two groups: the neighbors living in the homes adjacent to the Markley facility, and those concerned about the environmental harm done by burning diesel fuel to generate electricity.

Councilors must balance those concerns with the fact that Markley is a large employer in the city – the last time Markley came before the council, dozens of its Lowell-resident employees were present – and it is also one of the few substantial private businesses based in Lowell involved in the modern tech economy. That, along with things like the UMass Lowell LINC project, helps brand the city as a place where tech companies can do business.

Sending this to the joint subcommittee meeting was probably the best outcome since it will allow everyone to speak out and hopefully provide councilors with more information with which to make their decision when it comes back before the council at a public hearing.

****

The same deliberative, inclusive approach to council decision making was absent when a joint motion by Councilors Corey Robinson and Erik Gitschier requesting “the proper department draft an ordinance banning safe injection sites within city limits” was reached.

A safe injection site is a dedicated facility where individuals can use their own illegal drugs under the supervision of trained staff, usually including medical personnel. The primary purpose of these sites is to prevent overdose deaths since the staff on site can immediately respond to and revive affected individuals. Also, such sites can cut down on drug use out in public and the resulting debris including used needles. The site also provides opportunities for drug users to obtain addiction treatment, social services, mental health care and other basic medical services.

Those who oppose these sites argue that they sanction illegal drug use; attract drug dealing and related crime; require significant public funding; and violate federal and state laws.

That last point is especially relevant to this issue because as far as I can tell, the Massachusetts state legislature has never passed a bill that would make these kinds of sites legally permissible. A few bills have kicked around the legislature, but they’ve not come close to passage. And as the Acting US Attorney for Massachusetts said earlier this year, such sites are “categorically illegal under federal law.”

Coincidentally, the day after the Lowell City Council took up this issue, the Boston City Council did the same. According to the highly-respected local news blog Universal Hub, three Boston City Councilors – Ed Flynn, Erin Murphy, and John FitzGerald – proposed a resolution opposing the siting of any safe injection site facilities in Boston. The motion was defeated by an 8 to 3 vote with councilors in opposition explaining that no one was proposing such a site and that legislation that would permit it was a long way from passage at the State House. They added that if the issue arises in real life, it would be incumbent on councilors to hear from health care professionals and from anyone else with an opinion on the matter before deciding whether to allow or prohibit them.

In Lowell, a different result was reached in two respects. First, the Lowell City Council voted to prospectively ban such sites by a 9 to 1 margin (Councilor Vesna Nuon opposed and Mayor Dan Rourke absent). The other difference in Lowell was that no one other than the makers of the motion were allowed to discuss it before the vote was taken.

Here’s what happened: The clerk called the motion, several members of the public spoke on the motion, and then as is council practice, the makers of the motion were called on first. Councilor Robinson gave a lengthy explanation of his reasons for making the motion. When he finished, Council Vice Chair Paul Ratha Yem, who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Mayor Dan Rourke, called on Councilor Gitschier as the co-maker of the motion. Gitschier immediately said, “Could I have a roll call, please, on the motion.” After a short pause, the city clerk began calling the roll. Councilor Wayne Jenness interjected, “Can we discuss this, still?” Councilors Gitschier and Robinson simultaneously said, “There’s a roll call on the floor.” The roll call continued with the 9 to 1 result. Vice Chair Yem then asked Councilor Jenness if he still wanted to speak to which Jenness replied, “It’s a little late now. . . we generally get to discuss motions before they’re voted on.” With that, Vice Chair Yem called the next item on the agenda. (If you want to see it yourself, it’s on the YouTube recording starting at 2:08:00).

I don’t know how Mayor Rourke would have handled this had he been chairing the meeting, but that is really besides the point because it’s been apparent from past practice that some on the council misunderstand Robert’s Rules of Order regarding the consequences of someone asking for a roll call vote on a motion.

While the Lowell City Council has adopted its own set of rules, it also follows Roberts Rules of Order to govern procedural matters during council meetings. A core principle of Roberts Rules is that after a motion has been made, seconded, and stated by the chair, all members of the council have the right to debate it before it is put to a vote.

A councilor may request a roll call at any time. Roberts Rules deems that request to be an “incidental motion” meaning it is only related to the method of voting on the main motion. What has created confusion among Lowell City Councilors is that Roberts Rules states that a request for a roll call is “nondebatable.” They seem to believe – incorrectly – that “nondebatable” cuts off debate on the main motion which is not the case. It is the request for a roll call that is nondebatable so when such a request is made, the chair should request the clerk to call the roll to determine whether the method of deciding the main motion will be by roll call vote (as opposed to voice vote or some other resolution). If the call for a roll call vote passes – it only needs a majority vote – then debate on the main motion continues, however, when that debate comes to an end, the main motion must be decided by a roll call vote.

Roberts Rules does provide a specific mechanism for cutting off debate and forcing an immediate vote on the main motion. It’s called a motion “to call the question.” This motion is also nondebatable and, if it is seconded, requires an immediate vote. However, to pass, it must be supported by two-thirds of councilors present and voting. If that threshold is met, then debate on the main motion ends and that motion is immediately voted upon.

From Tuesday’s episode and when this has arisen in the past, it seems some councilors have merged the motion for a roll call and the motion to call the question into a hybrid that is used to their tactical advantage as the circumstances dictate. (The Lowell Sun, in its “Council debates harm reduction programs for Lowell’s drug crisis” story, has a similar interpretation of Roberts Rules.)

****

The Bailey School on Campbell Drive in the Highlands has been before the council several times regarding the desire for sidewalks to enhance safety for children arriving and departing. The school was back on the agenda Tuesday for a different reason, this time with a motion by Councilor Erik Gitschier requesting a report on the playground located on the school grounds. A neighbor with a young child spoke on the motion and explained the state of disrepair of the playground.

My recollection is that soon after the school opened in the early 1990s, the Parent Teacher Council raised a considerable amount of money which it used to fund the construction of this playground. Perhaps the fact that the park was not initiated by the city explains its orphan status when it comes to maintenance. From remarks made on Tuesday, it seems that this and a few other playgrounds located on school grounds fall under the responsibility of each school’s custodial staff as opposed to the city’s parks department which maintains all other playgrounds. This organizational boundary between the parks department and school maintenance personnel allows things like maintaining the Bailey School playground to slip through the cracks. Several councilors cited this as evidence of why a combined city and school facilities department is needed.

****
Speaking of things falling through the maintenance crack, you can put the Kerouac Commemorative in that category. As Steve Edington, a past president of Lowell Celebrates Kerouac, wrote in a recent Lowell Sun article that was reposted on richardhowe.com, there seems to be some confusion about whether maintaining the site is the responsibility of the city of Lowell or the National Park Service. Whatever the case, the commemorative is currently in disrepair with the annual Lowell Celebrates Kerouac Festival just two weeks away. (Visit the LCK site for the full schedule). Hopefully something will be done before the many out-of-town visitors arrive for the festival. And if the federal government shuts down this week, the task would be left to the city since the National Park Service staff would be furloughed for the duration of the shutdown.

****

For me, the highlight of recent Kerouac Festivals has been the walking tour of St. Joseph’s Cemetery at 96 Riverneck Road in Chelmsford, which this year is held on Friday, October 10, 2025, beginning at 11am. Led by Kerouac scholar Kurt Phaneuf, the tour visits the graves of real-life friends of Kerouac who became characters in his novels.

For a taste of the information shared on this tour, Kurt has shared a couple of biographical sketches for publication on richardhowe.com in the coming week with an introductory post published yesterday.