There was no Lowell City Council meeting this past Tuesday so today I’ll cover some of the things discussed at the council’s September 22, 2026, meeting which I omitted from last week’s newsletter.

I found a couple of procedural discussions among councilors to be both interesting and important. The first involved the time set for a council meeting to end.

The rules of the city council state that meetings must end at 10 p.m. In the past, a proposal to let the meeting go beyond 10 p.m. had been framed as a suspension of the council’s rules. If more than one councilor objects to a motion to suspend the rules, the motion fails. In recent years, at least two councilors have objected, which brought the meeting to an immediate end and rolled all unfinished items to the start of the next meeting.

On Tuesday night, Mayor Gitschier phrased the procedural motion differently. Instead of calling for a “motion to suspend the rules” he asked for a “motion to go beyond 10 p.m.” The roll call found two councilors, John Descoteaux and Mayor Gitschier, voting no. In the past, the meeting would have ended then, but this time, Mayor Gitschier announced the motion had passed and the meeting continued.

Councilor Rita Mercier asked for some clarification, given that for as long as she’s been on the council, just two councilors voting no terminated the meeting, yet on this night the meeting was to continue.

City Solicitor Corey Williams was called upon to explain. He cited Council Rule 5 which specifically states that the meeting shall end at 10 p.m. “unless otherwise voted by majority vote of the city council.” Williams interpreted that to mean that a motion to continue the meeting only needed a majority vote to pass and the prior interpretation, that just two No votes were needed to halt the meeting, was incorrect. All councilors seemed to accept that interpretation. Given the plain language of the rule, it would be hard to argue otherwise. Still, the prior interpretation has been used for decades so this change set aside a long-held precedent.

****

Another procedural question arose with an informational communication from the City Manager to city councilors that announced the resignation of two board members, Hunter Berube from the Youth Commission and Sean Callahan from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

However, City Manager Golden interjected that Mr. Callahan had rescinded his resignation so councilors should disregard it. Councilor Belinda Juran then observed that since Callahan’s September 17, 2026, letter of resignation said it was effective immediately and since the council does not have to formally accept the resignation for it to be effective, she didn’t believe the resignation could be rescinded.

Solicitor Williams was asked his opinion. At first, he said the question turned on whether Callahan had resigned in the middle of a term or whether his term had already ended and he was in a holdover status. When told Callahan was a holdover, Williams said he would have to be reappointed.

Then someone pointed out that if there was a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting before the next council meeting at which Callahan’s reappointment could be formalized, Callahan would not be a member of the board at that meeting. Solicitor Williams then seemed to say that in that scenario, it would depend on whether the City Manager had accepted Callahan’s resignation.

I’ll point out that this answer seemed inconsistent with Williams’ earlier one that the effectiveness of the resignation depended on whether there was time still left on Callahan’s term, but it made no difference because, as Mayor Gitschier pointed out, the city manager’s letter to the council said, “The following members’ resignations are accepted” so no one could argue the resignation had not been accepted.

I’m guessing there is some potentially controversial matter scheduled for the next Board of Appeals meeting which made this interesting but otherwise benign procedural discussion a high-stakes game of political chess behind the scenes. But I have enough to do trying to follow the city council without getting into the board of appeals, so I’ll leave that to others.

****

Another procedural matter arose on a proposed vote to “amend council meetings in October, November and December to be held only on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month.”

This is something Councilor Dan Rourke promoted earlier this year only he wanted to make twice per month meetings the norm council subcommittees meeting on the off Tuesdays. My recollection is that his earlier proposal ended up before the city council’s rules subcommittee which held a hearing on it. The subcommittee ended up opposing the schedule change.

Then this vote appeared on the council agenda. When it was called, Council Sean McDonough objected to the second reading of the motion. Procedurally, that automatically delays the motion to the next meeting. It is a rarely used tactic, but it is an option.

Councilor Rourke expressed his displeasure with the maneuver which prompted Councilor McDonough to ask for a point of personal privilege (which allows him to speak about something not before the council). He explained that this vote is substantially similar to the proposal discussed by the subcommittee; that that discussion generated considerable input from the public; that the public would likely want to give input before this vote was taken, but that since it came at the end of a very long agenda, the public was, as a practical matter, not given the opportunity to be heard.

Rourke explained that the subcommittee did have a hearing but that when the subcommittee reported back to the council, no further action was taken on the proposal. Rourke then said in all his time on the city council, he never recalls a three-member subcommittee deciding the fate of a motion. He said he wanted it brought back, either way. He said he didn’t think it was going to pass but it was an outstanding motion that should be officially voted on.

Councilor McDonough then rescinded his objection to the second reading. After some hesitation, Mayor Gitschier allowed the vote to be taken. Voting for twice weekly meetings were Councilors Dan Rourke, Kim Scott, Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Rita Mercier and Vesna Nuon. Voting to continue meeting each week were Corey Robinson, Mayor Erik Gitschier, Belinda Juran, Sidney Liang and Sean McDonough. That’s six votes in favor, but this vote needed a two-thirds majority to pass. That would be eight votes. Since it only got six, the vote failed.

****

My newsletter last week covered the resignation of Councilor Dan Rourke. Now, there will be a special election to fill Rourke’s district council seat.

The current procedure for filling a vacancy that occurs in the office of Lowell City Councilor or School Committee was established by chapter 138 of the Acts of 2024, which became effective on July 25, 2024.

If the vacancy occurs during the first 12 months of the term, the council must call a special election to be held not less than 64 nor more than 120 days after the special election is called. If the vacancy is in a district, the person elected must have lived in the district for at least one year immediately preceding the special election.

If the vacancy occurs on the city council during the second 12 months of the term, then there are some options:

• By a vote of not less than six councilors, the council may call a special election as described above; or
• Appoint an eligible voter to fill the seat. Such an appointment must be made not later than 30 days after the seat became vacant and the eligible voter must meet the residency requirement; or
• Leave the seat vacant for the remainder of the term.

If the vacancy within the second year of the term occurs on the school committee, the same provisions described above apply only it would be the members of the school committee making the decision.

Thus far in this upcoming special election, whenever it occurs, former council, mayor and state representative Rodney Elliott is running as is former vocational school committee member Ray Boutin.

If anyone else runs, I think there may have to be a special preliminary election to narrow the field down to two candidates for the general election, although I’m not sure about that.

****

The Boston Globe is doing an eight-part series on Gateway Cities in Massachusetts. Episode 2, which appeared on Monday, featured Lowell. “From five-and-dime store to modern apartment: How Lowell is building needed housing” (by the Globe’s editorial board) highlighted the recent conversion of the Hildreth Building at 45 Merrimack Street from a vintage office building to market rate apartments.

The rehab of the building started in 2024, the first tenants moved in this May, and the 50 apartments are now 60 percent occupied. The first floor along Merrimack Street has always been retail space – I fondly remember in my youth shopping at Woolworth’s and Kresge’s in the building’s ground floor – and that use has continued with the space now occupied by the Hive, a collection of independent retailers who migrated from Mill No. 5 when that space was sold two years ago.

The Globe article cites the importance of UMass Lowell to the area economy, quoting Chancellor Julie Chen about how the ongoing Lowell Innovation Network Corridor will bring well-paying jobs and affordable housing to encourage UML graduates to remain in the city after school.

The article also points out that Lowell was an early adopter of repurposing commercial and industrial buildings for housing but doing that meant the easiest conversions have already been done while the buildings that remain are the most challenging to convert to housing. Still, from the amount of construction one sees driving through downtown, it seems that developers are taking on those projects.

Given that the high cost of housing in Massachusetts is one of the reasons the state is less attractive to young people who grow up and are educated here but feel priced out by the high cost of housing, it seems that the more new housing that can be built in Lowell and elsewhere, the stronger the economy of the Commonwealth will become.

****

In this week’s Seen & Heard column, I wrote about a podcast interview of Ted Leonsis, a Lowell High graduate who owns multiple professional sports teams in Washington DC; reviewed the book, “Panic at the Pump,” a history of the gasoline crises of the 1970s; commented on a Globe article about surveillance cameras in Boston; and cited a New York Times Op-Ed on “how Flock cameras became the enemy.”

****

If you’re reading this early on Sunday, you still have time to get to Lowell Cemetery for the 10am tour (Oct 4, 2026) which begins at the Lawrence Street entrance.

Saturday, October 17, 2026, at 10am – “Secrets of Lowell Cemetery” tour which is part of the of the Poe in Lowell Festival. Edgar Allan Poe came to Lowell at least three times to lecture but also to spend time with a female friend who is buried in Lowell Cemetery. Learn their story and the stories of others involved in their orbit. This tour is free and begins at the Knapp Avenue entrance of the cemetery (77 Knapp Avenue).