Last Sunday afternoon, I sat at my kitchen table and filled in the ovals on my 2026 state election ballot. Earlier that day in my newsletter, I had described the eight ballot questions and the consequences of yes or no votes, so I felt well-prepared to mark my ballot. Imagine my shock when I got to the end of the ballot and found a ninth ballot question that I had completely missed when composing my newsletter.

I share that story to illustrate the complexity of this year’s ballot which contains twelve state election offices; a handful of Greater Lowell regional school committee seats; and nine ballot questions. All appear in three languages: English, Spanish and Khmer.

Whether you’re voting by mail, voting early in person, or voting on election day in the traditional manner, I urge you to review the ballot questions in advance, decide how you’re going to vote, and create a written answer key for yourself to use when you have the ballot in front of you. Doing that will increase the odds that you will answer all the questions and that your answers will reflect your intent.

That said, here is a concise statement of each of the nine ballot questions and a consequence of a yes or no vote on each. This list includes Question 9, which I missed in last week’s newsletter:

Question 1 – Public Records – A YES vote would apply the Public Records Law to the governor and legislature which under the current law are exempt. A NO vote would keep the system as is.

Question 2 – Public Defenders Unionization – YES would permit employees of the Committee for Public Council Services, the entity that represents indigent defendants in criminal proceedings, to form a union and collectively bargain, something current law prohibits. A NO vote would keep the system as is.

Question 3 – Combined Primary Elections – YES would eliminate separate party primaries and would have all candidates run together regardless of party in the primary election with the top two finishers advancing to the general election. A NO vote would keep the system as is.

Question 4 – Election Day Voter Registration – YES would allow a person to register to vote at the polling place on election day provided they present identification (including address) and sign a statement under oath that the information provided is accurate (with criminal penalties for false statements). A NO vote would keep the system as is, where registration must be done prior to the election. A NO vote would keep the current system.

Question 5 – Cap on State Revenue – YES would limit state revenue to the amount raised the prior year increased by the percentage wages increased in the prior three years with any excess being returned to taxpayers. NO would keep the current system.

Question 6 – Establish and Finance a “Nature for All Fund” – YES would divert 50% of existing sales and use taxes on sporting goods, RVs, and golf courses to a Nature for All Fund that would be used for natural conservation. NO would not create this fund.

Question 7 – Single family home minimum lot size – YES would allow a single-family home to be constructed on a lot at least 5,000 square feet in size that has 50 feet of road frontage and access to public sewer and water services. No would make no change to existing law.

Question 8 – Repeal legalization of marijuana – YES would repeal the law that made it legal to sell recreation marijuana. NO would leave that law intact.

Question 9 – Preserve the stricter gun control law passed by the legislature in 2024 – YES would retain the enhanced gun control law. No would repeal it. NOTE: Be careful of this question. It seeks to remove gun control restrictions that were imposed by the state legislature two years ago. Since the object of the question is to repeal the law, you might naturally feel you should vote against this effort which would suggest you should vote no. However, the way the question is worded, if you wish to retain the law and the stricter gun control provisions, you must vote yes.

****

The ever-increasing cost of operating the Lowell Fire Department came up at this week’s council meeting and at the prior one. (The council is back meeting each week after its twice-monthly summertime schedule.)

At the October 6, 2026, meeting, Mayor Erik Gitschier and Councilor Corey Robinson had a joint motion that requested the City Manager “reach out to all tax exempt, community partners such as UMass Lowell, Middlesex Community College, Lowell Housing Authority, etc., to explain the current fire staffing situation and ask for voluntary assistance with preventing brownouts.”

The motion passed on a voice vote, although I can’t believe any of the councilors realistically believe that the entities in the city that are exempt from paying local taxes under state law will significantly help fund the city’s fire department overtime. Every one of those entities has their own fiscal challenges so other than small, symbolic contributions to be able to say, “we’re trying to help,” that approach won’t do much to ease the overtime cost crisis.

The Fire Department came up this past week (October 13, 2026) on a motion by Councilor Belinda Juran requesting the City Manager “have proper departments explain benefits and costs of having firefighters and fire trucks respond to non-fire calls (including EMS and helipad calls) and the costs and feasibility of alternatives.”

Perhaps recognizing how complicated the fire department funding issue is, Councilor Juran sought a detailed explanation of why the fire department operates as it does with some options for how it might operate differently. In her opening remarks, Councilor Juran gave a detailed explanation of what she was looking for, so I’ll let her words speak for themselves with this transcript, which begins at 33:51 of the YouTube recording of the meeting:

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know that residents want us in government to provide safety whenever possible, including from fire, from crime, and medical emergency. And obviously that means supporting our fire department, police department, and local EMTs. And we’d all like the necessary equipment and expertise to be immediately available to us whenever we need it. But we also know we can’t have a fire truck, a police cruiser, and an ambulance on every corner along with their related trained team members. So as we have all been digging into the fire department overtime question, I think we need to better understand how our resources are being used and whether in the long run there are things we can do differently to do them better.

We’ve heard about fire trucks responding to medical emergencies even though we have EMTs and ambulances in the city. And I think there may be good reasons why that’s the case, but there are also costs to such responses. And the city council, I and other residents need to fully understand both the benefits and the costs so that we can make informed decisions.

Answers like, “Well it’s always been done this way might be part of the explanation, but I don’t think that allows us to think about whether there are other approaches. Um for instance maybe better triaging requests for help can avoid having to send a fire truck and a police car and an ambulance to every situation. Perhaps we need more ambulances in the city so firefighters and their trucks don’t have to be called out to act as EMTs. I understand that most firefighters are EMTs, but not all of them are. So, how do we actually ensure that we’re helping people when we send firefighters to medical calls?

We had a discussion last week about the helipad at the hospital and the fact that it has or doesn’t have a fire suppression system. So would having one there, a fire suppression system at the helipad, eliminate the need to have the fire department wait for hours for a potential helicopter crash landing as our mayor suggested last week and if so what is the cost?

We seem to have a structural problem with staffing with overtime with how the resources are being used and I don’t think we can simply throw more money at the situation even if we had the money and say that’s appropriate. We may need to think about doing things somewhat differently. I know I’m not someone who tends to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I think we need to at least understand if we can change some things or why we can’t rather than merely assuming that the status quo is the best way. And then if changes are appropriate but it may not be possible to make them immediately or even you know over a couple of years but we should have a vision for where we’re heading rather than just continuing on a path because it’s easy. So I think you know this kind of deep discussion would benefit all of us. Thank you.

A serious response to this motion could provide important information to councilors and to the community on how to address this issue, but whether a serious response will be forthcoming remains to be seen. Bureaucratic inertia and political pressure make that unlikely.

For as long as I’ve been following Lowell politics – which is for more than half a century – the cost of operating the Lowell Fire Department has been controversial, so this is nothing new. Still, if you believe that government is capable of rational action, getting a complete picture of what goes into these decisions is critical.

I’ll suggest some questions I think would be helpful to be answered by the city’s response to Councilor Juran’s motion, but first some observations.

Here are some facts from the official Lowell Fire Department (LFD) webpage:

• The LFD (is supposed to have) 215 firefighters
• There are 13 “companies” (i.e., engine, ladder or rescue trucks)
• Those companies are “strategically located around the city”
• Besides fires, LFD also responds to “emergency medical services, hazardous materials incidents, ice and water rescues/recoveries, automobile accidents, including extrications, and technical and high-angle rescues.”
• Besides staffing the companies, LFD has specialized units for Administration, Fire Prevention, Fire Investigation, and Hazardous Materials
• 109 firefighters are EMTs and 2 more are EMT Paramedics

Although not on the official website, I believe the 13 companies are deployed to eight fire stations which are located at:

• Moody Street (LFD HQ)
• Gorham Street
• Lawrence Street
• Branch Street
• Pine Street
• High Street
• Old Ferry Road
• West Sixth Street

My first question is, why is 13 pieces of equipment deployed at 8 locations the optimum organization of the Lowell Fire Department? Did a strategic analysis reach this result? If yes, was it in writing and can it be shared with the public?

In the past, there were far more than 8 fire stations in Lowell, however, all but 8 have closed. When and why did the others close? What was the thinking behind closing them? In the aftermath of closing those stations, did response time increase? Were the consequences of closing those stations quantified in any way? If yes, can that information be shared with the public?

There are at least two unique characteristics of Lowell that must be acknowledged in this analysis. First, the city has two major rivers (Merrimack and Concord) that impede trafficability and increase fire department response time, especially of second and subsequent units. Second, much of the city is densely populated and constructed, so the importance of a rapid and strong response to a fire in a built-up area is critical to prevent its spread.

(While response time is critical, it is no guarantee. On July 10, 2014, a fire on Branch Street killed seven people, even though that building was fewer than 100 yards from the Branch Street fire station which promptly responded to the blaze.)

Some on the council seem focused on the fire department providing fire suppression services at Lowell General Hospital when air ambulances arrive at or depart from the hospital’s helipad. The need for contingent, on-scene fire suppression capabilities is not simply to be there in case a helicopter crashes. Certain characteristics of a helicopter (as opposed to a fixed-wing aircraft) make the helicopter uniquely susceptible to fire at takeoff/landing and engine startup/shutdown. It has something to do with a lot of flammable fuel running through hoses that might leak onto super-hot engine parts, all sitting above the passenger compartment in a place that the pilots cannot see. Still, there are options beyond having a fire truck standing by. I believe the Mass General helipad in Boston, which sits on top of a high-rise building, has an automated system much like sprinklers within a building. Before getting into the feasibility of such a system in Lowell, an important question about the helipad is, how much does supporting it with a fire truck cost the city? Yes, there’s the wear and tear on the vehicles, but if the firefighters are on duty and being paid anyway, where are the savings? Would eliminating that duty allow the city to reduce staffing and alleviate overtime costs?  I’m not sure if it would.

A similar but much more consequential issue involves the fire department responding to non-fire incidents such as car accidents and medical emergencies. Certainly, if you’re having a heart attack and the fire department will arrive with a defibrillator in five minutes whereas the EMTs will only get there in twelve, you want the fire department to respond to medical calls. However, the city could modify its contract with the EMT service to increase its staffing to the point that EMTs would arrive as quickly as the fire department. Would that save money while offering the same level of protection? Perhaps, since privately employed EMTs likely earn less than firefighters working for the city. But since the firefighters are working anyway, how much money would be saved by not having them respond to medical calls? I suppose that fewer trips for the fire vehicles would make them last longer, but would such a change enable a reduction in the number of fire personnel needed per shift? Unlikely.

And would such a change be possible even if it was desirable and would save costs? I assume such a change in working conditions would have to be negotiated with the firefighters’ union. My guess is that the union would not be amenable to such a change because it would substantially decrease the number of calls fire units must respond to, and having those numbers higher rather than lower carries more weight in contract negotiations. (I also believe firefighters who become EMTs receive a salary stipend for having that qualification.)

Speaking of the firefighters’ contract, including it or a summary of its terms and conditions in the city’s response to Councilor Juran’s motion would clarify this situation. You will recall that last spring when City Manager Tom Golden proposed laying off several firefighters, a Superior Court judge issued an injunction against doing that because the relevant contract between the city and the union set a minimum number of firefighters that must be employed by the city and the layoff would have dipped below that number.

Hopefully the City Manager’s response to the Juran motion also clarifies exactly who is a member of the firefighters’ union which is Lowell Firefighters International Association of Firefighters Local 853 (IAFF Local 853). As I understand it, every firefighter from the newest recruit to the senior deputy chief is a member of that same bargaining unit. Only the fire chief is excluded. If that’s true, it means that the fire lieutenant in command of a vehicle or the deputy chief in charge of a shift are in the same union as every firefighter under their command. In that case, can an officer discipline a firefighter? What if the firefighter files a grievance against the action? Whose side does the union take: the officer’s or the firefighter’s? (I know the Lowell Police Department has separate unions for patrol personnel and for superior officers and the School Department has separate unions for teachers and administrators, but I don’t believe the Fire Department has a similar split.)

One thing I don’t expect to find in this forthcoming report is a breakdown of the politics involved. The firefighters’ union is politically active as is their right. One way they get involved is through campaign contributions.

If you go to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance website and search the “contributor” field for “Local 853” (for Lowell Firefighters International Association of Firefighters Local 853), the site returns 280 donations totaling $45,809. Scrolling through that list of campaign contributions, you find some made to current city councilors. Here are the ones I found (using 2017 as a starting point):

• Corey Robinson
  • $150 on 7/8/2021
  • $150 on 10/27/2022
  • $250 on 9/20/2023
  • $1000 on 6/6/2025
  • $1000 on 7/22/2026
  • Total – $2550
• Erik Gitschier
  • $150 on 7/8/2021
  • $150 on 11/9/2022
  • $250 on 5/30/2023
  • $1000 on 4/3/2025
  • Total – $1550
• Rita Mercier
  • $100 on 4/26/2017
  • $100 on 10/10/2017
  • $100 on 10/4/2019
  • $150 on 6/5/2021
  • $250 on 10/14/2023
  • Total – $700
• Sokhary Chau
  • $250 on 10/30/2023
  • Total – $250
• Vesna Nuon
  • $250 on 6/24/2023
  • Total – $250
• Kim Scott
  • $250 on 6/30/2023
  • Total – $250

There’s nothing nefarious about a city union making campaign contributions or with councilors accepting them. Still, it is useful information to have when evaluating this issue.

Political involvement is not limited to campaign contributions. Voting is a big part of it, especially when turnout in city elections is so poor. Remember, Lowell has approximately 125,000 residents with about 60,000 registered to vote. Yet in a city council election, barely 10,000 people vote. While councilors undoubtedly strive to do what’s best for everyone in the city, if they want to be reelected, they must reflect the wishes of a majority of the 10,000 residents who vote. In such a small electoral universe, a numerically small but highly motivated group, such as the members of the firefighters’ union, their families and supporters, can have an outsized influence in the outcome of an election.

Two final points: First, City Manager Golden has cited a small but significant number of firefighters who, statistically speaking, are abusing their sick time which in turn increases overtime costs to replace the absent firefighters. Because of employee confidentiality laws, the information forming the basis of that accusation cannot be made public. Nevertheless, if abuse is taking place, the administration must be diligent in pursuing disciplinary measures within the constraints of the collective bargaining system but should also release more information about the abusive practices. That information can be sanitized to retain individual worker confidentiality while at the same time educating the public so that voters have a full view of what’s going on.

Second, like any other municipal workforce, firefighters retire from time-to-time on a schedule that works best for them. There are no advance notice requirements for retirements so conceivably a firefighter could decide to retire, submit their papers, and be gone in just a few weeks. However, the process of replacing that retired firefighter seems to take years rather than weeks. Serving as a firefighter requires extensive, complicated training. You can’t just hire someone off the street, give them a uniform and leave it to on-the-job-training to get the new hire up to speed. However, there seems to be a substantial shortage of slots available in the state’s firefighter training academies. I assume this affects communities across the Commonwealth and not just Lowell. For that reason, pushing the state legislature to increase and fund more training opportunities for new firefighters to speed the journey from hiring a new firefighter to having that person fully available for duty might be the most important factor in curbing Lowell’s fire department overtime costs.

Hopefully, the response to Councilor Juran’s motion will address some of these issues.