RichardHowe.com – Voices from Lowell & Beyond

Toil, Repeat, Rehash

Toil, Repeat, Rehash – (PIP #107)

By Louise Peloquin

     Pop quizzes, tests and exams are punctuating student days as the school year comes to an end. This is a time to reflect upon how one can “learn well.”

The learning tips provided in the following editorial are not outdated. Furthermore, clear writing and correct spelling in any language have always been challenging for students young and old including for yours truly!

L’Etoile – January 23, 1926

IN ORDER TO LEARN WELL

     In the Figaro we find (1) the following excellent reflections. They are dedicated to studious youth and to teachers:

     “It is not at the age of 18 that good intellectual habits are formed; it is between 7 and 12. Fifty-year-olds have all had those excellent elementary school teachers who pursued their noble profession with so much passion that they managed to teach spelling which, of course, is not sufficient but is nonetheless indispensable and is a proof of intellectual solidity. Why, yes why do young people in 1925 not know how to spell? That is the anguishing question that I very respectfully ask the Minister of Public Education. Oh that he not create a commission to investigate the issue!

     We should make the effort to reflect that human beings do not know what they learn; that in order to learn it is necessary to toil, to repeat, to rehash. Yes, if you have not learned the rules by heart … if that child within you has not leapt with pride, after having navigated all of the pitfalls to succeed in producing that masterpiece which is a perfect dictation, you will never experience one of the greatest joys of learning.” (2)

****

1. First presented as a “journal littéraire”, Le Figaro was named after “The Marriage of Figaro”, Pierre-Augustin de Beaumarchais’s five-act comedy written in 1778. It began as a single sheet printed on January 15, 1826 and became a daily in 1866. Its motto is a line from the play: “Without the freedom to criticize, there is no flattering praise.” Its content includes coverage of the arts, sciences, lifestyle, national and international news, economics and politics. Over 400,500 paper copies of Le Figaro are distributed daily, making it France’s second-largest newspaper after Le Monde. More than 245,100,000 readers pay it an online “visit” every day.
2. Translation by Louise Peloquin.

“I’ll hold you in my heart”

Charlie Gargiulo, a good friend and the author if the wonderful memoir, Legends of Little Canada, sent an email the other day. He had just heard about the recent passing of fellow author David Daniel (who contributed many pieces to this site).

The loss Charlie felt on learning of Dave’s passing made him recall the song played on the accompanying video, “I’ll hold you in my heart.”

Charlie wrote the song back in December 1994, on the passing of Irv Zola, the chief architect of the American Disabilities Act and a teacher of medical sociology at Brandeis University. This version of the song is performed by Patti Sardella, who was one of Irv’s students. She performed it at his memorial service.

Since then, Charlie has offered the songs to friends to honor the passing of a loved one, including his own family upon the passing of his mother and his son, Charlie Jr. who is on the left in the photo that accompanies the recording (Charlie Sr. is in the center and his Uncle Arthur, a main character in the memoir, is on the right).

Charlie shares the song now in the hope that it might bring comfort to anyone who has experienced a loss, especially on this Memorial Day.

CLICK HERE to listen to the song on YouTube.

Barney Frank: one of a kind by Marjorie Arons-Barron

The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’s own blog.

The year was 1976. It was nearing deadline time at the The Boston Phoenix. Editor Bill Miller, formerly of the Boston Globe, emerged into the newsroom from his small office. A hush fell as reporters turned to face him. Waving his hand in the air, Miller announced, “A hundred dollars to the first reporter who can write a piece without quoting Barney Frank!”

Barney was nothing if not quotable. He was quick, and he was devastatingly funny. He was also irascible, arrogant, dismissive, and, according to some who worked for him, downright mean. He didn’t suffer fools lightly, or anyone else for that matter. He was a master of the put-down. Very late one snowy presidential primary election night, he and I stood nearly alone outside the Copley Plaza and engaged. He was furious about something I had co-written (with Jim Barron) about a candidate he was backing. He haughtily misrepresented the article, scornfully criticizing things we had never said. I defended what we wrote. Barney continued his attack, contemptuously ascribing dark motives to us. Finally, as the snow got heavier, I said in exasperation, “Barney, you are one of the most arrogant people I know.” “Really, Marge?” he retorted. “How many arrogant people do you know?” I have chuckled about his quip for decades.

When he retired from Congress in 2012, I called him “the rudest Congressman you’ll ever miss.” What he was as well was a brilliant legislator, who knew how to get things done. Passionate about the issues he cared about, especially civil rights, he wasn’t afraid to be pragmatic. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 was a major piece of work to bolster the economy in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Its purpose was to prevent future financial catastrophes. He worked hard, as leader of the House Financial Services Committee, to provide money for housing and access to credit.

Like Ted Kennedy, Barney knew when to depart from liberal dogma, and he could reach across the aisle to get a deal done. From trucking deregulation (which I worked with him on for the PBS show The Advocates) to Dodd-Frank, he rejected knee-jerk positions. He was an expert in working the legislative process in a way that has disappeared from D.C. He also had a libertarian streak, curiously opposing data privacy protections and supporting widespread online gambling. (If we saw him this summer in Ogonquit, I planned to get his opinion on today’s excess of sports gambling.) During his four terms in the state legislature, he advocated for the legalization of prostitution in a Red Light District in downtown Boston.

When the Dukakis administration launched a successful effort to depress the Central Artery that cut through Boston, Barney eviscerated the idea by saying that, rather than depress the Artery, it would be “easier to raise the city.” His contempt for many others’ ideas was amplified by his fashion style. He was a slob. I once saw him wearing a jacket ripped down the back at the seam. He explained in he had just flown in and hadn’t had time to change, but the next day at a different event he was wearing the same split jacket. The only time I saw him care about his appearance was during a taping of The Advocates when Barney had us send interns out to buy a fresh shirt for him because his mother, Elsie Frank, was going to be in the audience. In his first bid for state legislature, he ran – and won – on the slogan “neatness isn’t everything.”

Nor, it seems, was niceness. A Massachusetts visitor to Barney’s Washington office told me he was appalled that the Congressman read a newspaper while he presented his case on a pressing issue. When I was producing a series of election debates at WCVB-TV, Channel 5, we asked all candidates to arrive at the station half an hour before the candidates in his race were to debate. He berated me for asking him to come early, saying he wasn’t in nursery school and could show up when his debate was to begin and not a minute sooner. Saying please and thank you was an unnatural act for Barney. When he wanted favors of others, he would ask his aide or others to act as an intermediary.

The people in the Massachusetts 4th congressional district came to view his rudeness as the price they had to pay for his hard work, wit, intellect and his attentiveness to the bread-and-butter issues of his district. Voters sent him to Washington 16 times. When he retired, he said that one of the benefits was that he would no longer have to be nice to people he didn’t like or even schmooze with constituents.

A closeted gay until 1987 (though many had figured it out long before), he came out in response to a question from a Globe reporter and became the first openly gay member of Congress. He was also the first gay in Congress to marry his longtime partner, Jim Ready. If Barney had come out sooner, he might have avoided the events that led to his 1990 408-18-vote reprimand on the floor of the House. His involvement with prostitute Steve Gobie, who claimed he had run a prostitution ring out of Barney’s house in the mid eighties, and Barney’s fixing parking tickets for Gobie and misusing his office to get modified the terms of Gobie’s probation were a low point to Frank’s long career. After the humiliating reprimand, he won reelection by a two-to-one margin but said goodbye to his dream of becoming the first Jewish House Speaker.

Barney was a fighter to the end. Shortly before his death this week at 86, he was finishing a book entitled The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy.  In the book, to be published in September, he warned the Democratic Party to reject political correctness and unrealistic policies. In his last interview on WBUR, he cited problematic litmus issues: “Open borders is one. Defunding the police would be another, along with insistence on political correctness and transgender participation in girls’ sports. And environmental issues like the Green New Deal — they just go too far.” In Politico, he said he was hoping to use his “reputation and my record of being on the left to give courage to many of my colleagues who I know agree with me but are inhibited from saying so.”

Barney Frank will be remembered for his protecting consumers and homeowners from predatory business practices, his leadership on gay, civil and women’s rights, his biting wit, and, oh yes, did I mention his rudeness — even to his friends?

Lowell Politics: May 24, 2026

An innocuous sounding item on Tuesday’s agenda generated the most significant discussion of the evening. This was “Sick Leave Usage and OT Update for FY2026” which included an eight-page document that provided historical data on sick leave usage.

When this item was finally reached nearly two hours into the meeting, City Manager Tom Golden made a passionate (and sometimes pained) presentation that reminded me of a sadder version of the more upbeat “state of the city” addresses that city managers give each year.

Golden began by saying one of his primary responsibilities as city manager is to protect the long-term financial stability of the city. The city is heavily dependent on state and federal funding, and we are seeing “an absolute seismic shift in how local government is going to be funded in the future.” He diplomatically addressed the federal government’s chaotic and destructive policies by simply saying, “I think everyone of us knows what’s happening.” Regarding state funding, he cautioned that if the referendum on this fall’s state ballot succeeds in lowering the state income tax rate from the current five percent to the proposed four percent, the impact on local aid will be enormous, all to the detriment of Lowell.

He then commended the 12 of 15 city unions that this year agreed to defer a two percent cost of living raise until the end of the fiscal year in return for reducing the number of layoffs of their members. (In the context of Golden’s later remarks, it seems that one of the unions that did not agree to that deferral was the one representing Lowell firefighters.)

Golden then reviewed some of the positive things that have been accomplished under his tenure, one of which is an overall culture of fiscal discipline which has resulted in a healthy reserve fund, high bond ratings, and lower borrowing costs. He then pivoted to the primary purpose of his remarks, saying “the same discipline is needed now more than ever, especially for overtime throughout the city.”

He continued:

Citywide sick leave is an area where additional controls are necessary. It’s an area that my administration has worked on and will continue to work on with our employees and our union leaders. There are departments that are doing extremely well and have been responsible. As an example, the Lowell Police Department alone reduced sick time from 15,278 hours in FY23 to 10,883 hours in 2025 and currently they’re on track at 9,637 hours for fiscal year 26. These improvements demonstrate what responsible management and cooperative effort with both of those unions has achieved.

Before I speak about the opposite side of the spectrum, this is going to be difficult to say. My comments have nothing to do with job performance. My comments have nothing to do with the excellent care that is given to residents in the time of need. I have had family members, friends today who serve on the fire department. I have family members that are taking the exam to become a firefighter.

Our firefighters have an extremely difficult job and we really truly should applaud them. However, for the last four years, I have raised concerns about sick leave and overtime with local 853’s union leadership’s team. Most recently, I truly believe I offered a fair and reasonable solution at the bargaining table that would have prevented layoffs.

We calculated the value of approximately $336,000 of savings while the actual salary costs were a little over $500,000. We started originally at eight layoffs. We got it down to six. And I have to say we worked with the union. We looked at the numbers. We tried to get it done. We tried to push it. But we needed a little bit more cooperation that at the time just isn’t there. We had something to do in a timely manner so we could get the budget to this council per the Mass General Laws.

But despite the offer that we put forward, the union leadership simply declined it. Instead, the union leadership determined the benefit of laying off the six firefighters outweighed what I had to offer. Additionally, the union leadership chose to wage a public relations campaign which is happening tonight.

However, as misguided this effort may be, it doesn’t change the math. Overtime costs have grown by an astronomical amount, roughly 300%. And the rate of escalation is simply not sustainable for the taxpayers of Lowell. In FY26, we are on pace to spend over $4 million in overtime. And this level of spending is not only unsustainable, but it’s also out of line with our peer communities. Brockton, Lynn, Lawrence, New Bedford, which are all four gateway cities with populations near and around 100,000, spend an average of about $2.75 million.

To address the root of the problem that is driving overtime, we must look at data. And that’s what we’ve been doing. And here is what the data shows. In fiscal year 2025, 112 firefighters used little to no sick time, which is commendable. . . . Sixty members used between seven and 15 tours of sick leave per year. Thirty-one members used 16 or more tours of sick leave per year.

Now, I apologize if somebody has an issue going on in their family. God knows nobody would want that to happen.

But when we’re talking about the difference between 112 members that are leading by example and doing the right thing which is commendable and the question of others we really need to look at this. This is not something that we can continue to afford.

When in 2001 we moved to the 24-hour shift. It was intended to reduce sick time and unfortunately it’s produced something the exact opposite. Sick time usage directly drives overtime. For every hour that someone calls in sick because of what this council has been trying to do, the city normally has to hire somebody back at one and a half times the rate. So that hour is costing us 2.5 times what it would normally cost [i.e., the person out sick receives their full salary and the person called in to replace them is paid at the overtime rate which is 1.5 times the regular salary.]

[Golden then made comments about time off by union leaders having increased by 60 percent which, per their contract, is filled by other firefighters who are paid overtime for filling the vacant shift.]

Shared sacrifice by the entire city cannot mean that the rest of the workplace steps up while one department maintains practices that costs are unsustainable. The fire department is critical to public safety, and its members perform life-saving work. But no department, no matter how essential, is exempt from the fiscal realities of what is going on in this country, in this state, and in this city. No department should expect others to carry the burden and not share it themselves, especially when overtime spending is up nearly 300 percent. Not when leave usage patterns cause mandatory callbacks. Not when union leave increased by more than 60 percent.

One of the charts in the “Sick Leave Usage and OT Update” report shows ten years of overtime spending by four city departments: police, fire, DPW and water & sewer. Here are the numbers for the police and fire departments by fiscal year with FY2026 showing year to date spending (FY2026 runs from July 1, 2026, to June 30, 2027):

• FY2016
  • Police – $876,193
  • Fire – $1,136,194
• FY2017
  • Police – $954,600
  • Fire – $998,820
• FY2018
  • Police – $951,384
  • Fire – $1,078,402
• FY2019
  • Police – $933,726
  • Fire – $1,032,390
• FY2020
  • Police – $807,245
  • Fire – $1,110,214
• FY2021
  • Police – $869,609
  • Fire – $1,377,098
• FY2022
  • Police – $1,142,720
  • Fire – $2,809,567
• FY2023
  • Police – $1,292,720
  • Fire – $3,324,750
• FY2024
  • Police – $1,445,480
  • Fire – $2,580,886
• FY2025
  • Police – $1,277,128
  • Fire – $3,368,314
• FY2026 (YTD)
  • Police – $996,876
  • Fire – $3,447,240

This chart shows that spending on fire department overtime has exploded during the past decade, especially when compared to the much more gradual rate of increase of police overtime during the same period.

After Golden spoke, Mayor Erik Gitschier responded to the manager’s remarks, saying in defense of the firefighters and the current system that the large amount of overtime is a function of firefighters working 24 hour shifts rather than the 8 hour shifts worked by police officers, so when a firefighter is out sick it is more costly than when a police officer is out. The mayor then urged the city manager and the firefighters union to work out their differences before next Tuesday’s budget session but closed by saying he supported using the city’s reserve fund to cover the overtime needed instead of closing any fire stations as a way of reducing overtime spending.

Interestingly, no other councilors spoke. Perhaps that’s because a vote earlier in the evening may have been a proxy for where councilors stood on this issue. It was a vote to transfer $822,000 to the Fire Department Overtime Account. The accompanying memo stated the fire department “has currently exhausted the remaining funding” in its salaries and wages overtime account, and this money was needed to make it through the rest of the fiscal year. (The money was coming from the police department’s salaries and wages account.)

Although this vote was listed far down the agenda, it came up early in the meeting – long before Golden spoke – when Councilor Corey Robinson asked that the fire department overtime funding vote be taken out of order. That request was seconded and passed by a voice vote. However, before any substantive action could be taken, Councilor Dan Rourke said, “Mr. Mayor, I move to table this.” Councilor Vesna Nuon seconded the request.

Under the rules of procedure, a motion to table a matter requires an immediate vote and is not debatable, so Clerk Michael Geary called the roll. Voting to table the overtime transfer were councilors Rourke, Kim Scott, Sokhary Chau, John Descoteaux, Belinda Juran and Vesna Nuon. Voting not to table the motion were Councilors Robinson, Sean McDonough, Rita Mercier, Sidney Liang, and Mayor Gitschier. Geary announced that vote as six to table it and five not to table it, so the overtime funding vote was “set on the table” and will remain unaddressed until six councilors vote to take it off the table.

In Lowell politics, as in life, its best not to believe in coincidences, so I assume this was a signal of support for the city manager in the face of off duty firefighters who were at the council meeting (or at least at City Hall) protesting the proposed layoff of six firefighters in the FY27 budget which will be debated this coming Tuesday.

For the fire department, sick time usage is a driver of overtime spending. Under previous city administrations, when firefighters were out sick, instead of summonsing off duty firefighters to fill the vacancies and paying them overtime, one of the city’s fire units would be taken out of service and the personnel assigned to that unit for that shift would be redeployed to fill the vacancies created by those who had called in sick. Shutting down a fire unit for a shift is referred to as a “brownout.”

The most recent city councils, however, have made “no brownouts” a priority, and Tom Golden, who became city manager in April 2022, has implemented that policy. While the no brownouts policy has kept all fire units in service continuously, it has also meant that as the amount of sick time used by firefighters increased, so did the city’s spending on fire department overtime.

Like Mayor Gitschier in his remarks, some councilors have been very vocal in their intolerance of brownouts. Certainly no one on the council wants fire units to be out of service, but the councilors who publicly proclaim that all fire units must be fully staffed at all times regardless of the cost put the city manager in a no win situation when it comes to negotiating with the firefighters union since the union has confidence that if it holds out against any reforms, councilors will side with them rather than with the city manager and his quest for some restraint in fire department overtime spending.

Of course, under our Plan E form of government, Golden can close all the fire units he wants and the council’s only recourse would be to fire him since councilors do not have the authority to force increases in spending from what the city manager recommends – councilors can only approve, reduce or reject those recommendations.

Conflict between the city manager and the firefighters union is not new. Back in 1993, City Manager Dick Johnson took a hardline against what he saw as firefighter intransigence at the bargaining table by ordering all beds removed from city firehouses. He also asked that the contract go to arbitration because of the deadlock. When the Lowell Sun wrote an editorial siding with Johnson, bumper stickers and signs that proclaimed, “The Sun ain’t so hot” sprouted around the community.

Somehow that conflict worked itself out. Such disputes usually do. Until they don’t. We’ll see what happens Tuesday night.

****

This week in my Wednesday “Seen and Heard” column, I wrote about last Monday’s Lowell  Public Schools Civics Day at the Lowell Memorial Auditorium; reviewed True Yankees: The South Seas and the Discovery of American Identity by Dane Morrison, which is about America’s early trade with China which helped fund the creation of Lowell; noted the obituary of Philip Caputo whose 1977 book, A Rumor of War, was an instant classic in Vietnam literature; and mentioned a New York Times analysis of the recent US presidential visit to China.

****

With tomorrow being Memorial Day, I reposted an article I wrote about the history of the holiday, and Leo Racicot reviewed my new book about Lowell servicemembers who died during World War II.

An excerpt of that book, Regret To Inform You: The Human Cost of WWII in Lowell, Mass. with instructions on how to download the free ebook version or order a paper copy online, is available here.