Left In Lowell

Folks, listen up, please. One thing to remember, as we toil in the day’s scrum. What is written in The Sun, will go on microfiche in the Pollard Memorial Library, as the permenant record of what the hell happened.

If you look at this, Search results for ‘LHA’, you’ll see there is enough difference to warrant a long pause, ………….. and serious contemplation.

Now TESTIFY!

“Testify
It’s right outside your door
Now testify
Testify
It’s right outside your door”

My-oh-my, how the Bernie Bashers are all jazzed up. The kabuki level is volcanic in the Council Chamber. The Blog of Record can’t kill enough trees. The heat from their pages are singeing little birdie bottoms all over the Merrimack Valley.

Now, WCAP spilleth over!!!!!!
(bold mine)
1/25/2012 City Manager Bernie Lynch on LHA, Resumes & Non-Profits

“Susan from Lowell” (13:00) I do think that, Mr. Manager, you lost all credibility and respect, last night, when you basically said that you didn’t know that, you know, the Council wanted you to bring all of the resumes forward. That the motion, you know, you weren’t clear on that. I mean, you’re supposed to be a professional, smart man and you didn’t know that. And, this has been an ongoing issue for some time now about resumes and you mean to tell me, you know, that you didn’t know you were asked to bring all 3 in. I think you blatantly lied, you know, right there and I think it should be a wakeup call to the City Council and to the citizens of Lowell. If you lie like that, you now, right out in public, God only knows what you’re doing behind closed doors.

By gosh, by golly. “Susan from Lowell” speaks truth to POWER! Woot! Whoa, wait, truth to power requires truth. Mostly, but not in the mouths of Bernie Bashers.

“Susan from Lowell” is about as sure of what Councilor Elliott said on Tuesday, January 17th; well as, Councilor Elliott. Here is the words C.Elliott used to offer a substitute motion, that fateful eve. (bold mine)

C. Elliott (42:13) After listening to the discussion, I started counting a number of individuals that have expressed concern over the resume issue. I’d like to make a substitute motion that we delay this until we get the resumes, and then bring it in, so that we have a chance to evaluate this individual.

Please verify my transcription, between 28:19 - 46:39.

The extended interview with Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. In two parts.

The time looms upon us for the cycle of choosing our Senate candidate for the Democratic party. First stop, the February 18th caucuses in Lowell.

If you are interested in being a Lowell delegate for Warren to the Democratic convention, and in other volunteer opportunities, there’s a meeting Thursday (tomorrow) night, Jan 26, at the Pollard Memorial Library, 401 Merrimack St from 7:00-8:30pm. You need to have been registered as a Democrat by the beginning of January to be eligible to be a delegate or to vote at the caucus. Please email Geoff at Geoff.feldman.2012@gmail.com or call the campaign, 617-286-6715, if you are coming so they can get a head count.

Please note: this is an organizational meeting for interested potential volunteers, not an open campaign event. Hope to see some familiar (and not familiar) faces there!

This diary is a special shout out to Councilor Ed Kennedy. Sir, I’m wary of you and what, I think, you mean to municipal governance. You are an ol’ skool Democrat. The kind I’m not enamored with. But, thanks for your leadership, last night. I think you successfully “split the baby,” in such a way, that any reasonable person could accept. You provided a means for the Council to provide a type of oversight that fits squarely within the bounds of Plan E. Your motion allows ‘due diligence,’ while concurrently protecting privacy.

What I’m hoping is the intended consequence of your sitting in the front seat, last night, is that your peers see the significance of conducting themselves in a manner that is in keeping with proper decorum and comity. Your amendment asserted that the Council Chamber is not a Colosseum. That Councilors are not combatants. That the Court of Public opinion stops at the rail that lies between “We the People” and our duly elected officials and their appointees.

For those not in attendance, last night; it should be noted that Tim Green & Mickey O’Keefe, shook hands and walked out together. They are Union brothers and know solidarity is paramount. Our Councilors, and those surrounding them, would do well to heed their living example.

I’m hoping we have pressed, “Reset.”

Let’s resume making Lowell a better Lowell than the way we found it, on this Open Thread.

This one from a new transplant making his way in Lowell. Great photos and and interesting perspective on life in Lowell. Welcome, and I’ll add you to the sidebar.

(Hat tip to KRS.)

I won’t write too much about last night’s City Council meeting and the discussion around LHA appointments and the appointment process in general - which came up twice, once to confirm Tim Green finally, and a second time around Elliot’s motion to demand all resumes from now on.

If you really want to know how I feel, you can go scroll down to the part of my Twitter feed where I expressed my frustration several times during the evening while “live tweeting” the meeting.

Suffice it to say, Elliot thinks he has a winner he because he can say he’s on the side of transparency, and Rita backed him up, but the rest of the Council grew really uneasy about the whole thing. I thought Nuon’s speech was particularly spot on, stating he wasn’t “comfortable” with undermining the Manager’s actual lawful job and the way this all shook out.

But the irony meter (or maybe it was the hypocrisy meter? or both?) went sky high during Elliot’s rant at one point, where he said he felt that when Tim’s son came up to him to lobby on behalf of his father (and I take it, not entirely politely?) while Elliot was out with his kid, that was inappropriate.

Inappropriate? Inappropriate?? Haven’t we been saying that the entire time that Elliot’s been hammering at this? Of course it’s inappropriate. It’s playing politics with an appointment process that is supposed to be nonpolitical. It’s O’Keefe lobbying to send his resume direct to the Council despite the fact he wasn’t picked. This is the what comes of putting politics ahead of our Plan E form of government; as the City Manager wryly noted, a perfect example of it.

That inappropriate lobbying is the end result of what Elliot himself wanted. You made that bed, sir, now lie in it. (By the way, the reasoned, measured, and polite manner in which the CM responded to Elliot was awesome. And yet Elliot kept on repeating the same tired thing over and over… obstinately refusing to let any other viewpoint make a dent in that head of his. Sigh.)

I tweeted that Elliot really was like a Bud 2.0. But I’m really not giving enough credit to Bud. At least he could occasionally be charming. But the raving and bloviating and creating a problem where once there wasn’t one, and absolutely refusing reasonable explanations for why it can’t be the way Elliot wants it? Elliot is Bud, spot on.

The end result of the motion by Elliot was an amendment by Kennedy that passed. Specifically, the Manager is asked to produce the resume of the intended candidate (ok, reasonable) and that City Councilors in need of clarification, or of evaluating the Manager’s choice and process, could individually and privately go and ask for other resumes that were submitted. The question was put to Christine O’Connor about the lawfulness of this, and she gave it the nod. This seems to me to be a reasonable gesture - of course we want the City Council to take an active role in assessing the city manager, and if they believe they need to know how his process for choosing appointees to boards worked, this is essential…while still protecting the privacy of the applicants who did not get selected. Elliot seemed incensed by this compromise.

So you know that this isn’t really about assessing the City Manager - it’s about making it all a very ugly public spectacle. I’m paraphrasing here, but Elliot’s response was, essentially, “So you’re saying I can see the resumes but I can’t make them public to my constituents.”

Last I checked, the constituents elected you to make determinations about your vote. What does constituents have to do with anything here? He might as well just have said, “But you’re saying I can’t talk to the Lowell Sun about the applicants?” Because we all know that his “transparency in the process” line translates to “what can I give the Lowell Sun so I can get quoted again?”

By the way, during confirmation roll call for Tim Green’s appointment to the LHA board, held near the beginning of the meeting, Elliot was the only “no” vote. How very mature.

Outside of LHA appointment manufactured controversies and a vote to violate the flag rules of the United States on behalf of former City Councilors, tonight’s Council packet included a very pretty, and very ambitious Trolley Study report.

It’s better and more extensive a proposal than even I expected! The report proposes (and mind you, it’s an initial proposal, so lots of changes could happen between here and build out, if it happens at all) to have a trolley line from the Gallahger, through Hamilton Canal District to downtown, and using the existing LNHP track (which they use mostly as historic ambiance than moving people from place to place), the trolley would split and a small branch heads to Middlesex College, and the other down Father Morressette Blvd past University Ave Bridge, then down Fletcher to Broadway to UML’s South Campus. Other stops include the Inn & Conference Center, the Tsongas Arena, and LeLacheur Park, as well as existing locations such as Boott Cotton Mills and the Mogan Center. Follow me after the flip: (more…)

The Tanner St meeting last night was well attended with local residents, business owners, and interested Lowellians filling up the conference room and then some (there was a funny moment when Adam Baacke was talking about the elected officials in attendance, and he mentioned Mayor Murphy was there but out in the hallway because it was standing room only). Speaking of official attendance, besides our mayor, notables included Councilors Mendonca, Martin, and Lorry.

I’ll take this rather long post to after the flip: (more…)

While Colbert and Stewart lambaste our Citizen United world with hilarious satire and extreme tactics, the Senate race in Massachusetts is having a quiet discussion all its own, with a pact between Brown and Warren (both sort of take credit, though it does appear Warren is the one to suggest something more binding). The pact, in case you live under a rock, is that any money spent for or against a candidate in the race by outside groups will be matched 50% from the candidate it benefited towards a charity of the other candidate’s choosing (thereby hurting the candidate it was supposed to help).

Even though this whole back-and-forth seemed a little gimmicky, and I felt at first that all we really needed was a strong, unequivocal condemnation from both sides, this pact does have some pretty interesting implications. For one thing, it’s an unprecedented candidate-driven pushback against the CU ruling, an acknowledgement of the damage of unregulated, unknown spending. We expect there to be a legislative pushback (so far, unsuccessful) or maybe eventually a constitutional one, but to be coming from two major candidates, that says something particular - a “we don’t want your help, your money, get out” from the parties involved.

There are concerns about whether or not certain deep pockets could get sneaky, create a SuperPAC that pretends to be for, say, Warren that runs ads against Brown, thereby costing the Warren campaign 50% of that ad buy - but I don’t think this will happen. For one thing, that SPAC has to spend double what it’d cost the candidate to make ads in support of them, and even if you make it kind of heavy-handed hoping it will backfire (look totally Rovian, for instance), you’d still be taking a risk of making a big ad buy that hurts the candidate you truly support.

Even more interesting, is will this stop the outside money? The Globe ran an interesting comparison of this pact to the 1996 Kerry-Weld agreement to not spend more than $5M on TV ads. Kerry broke that pact, claiming Weld already broke it by having an unfair low cost to his ad buys. Whoever did break actually it, it got broken.

Leaving us to wonder, is this really going to work?

[Weld’s communication director] Gray projected outside groups will spend up to $20 million in what is being pegged as a $60 million race - $20 million apiece by Brown and Warren, assuming she wins the Democratic nomination, and another $20 million from groups interested in their candidacies.
[…]
The League of Women Voters and the League of Conservation voters have already aired over $3 million worth of ads attacking Brown’s record, while a conservative group, Crossroads GPS, has aired over $1 million in ads attacking Warren’s.

If we’re already $4M into possibly $20M or more in ad buys for or against candidates from outside groups, can a pact like this stem the tide?

I think it will, at least for a little while. I’m certain the pact will get tested, though, so the question remains, will both sides stick to it to the detriment of their campaign, since the numbers here are not small? I’m less cynical about this, because the backlash from breaking this one is not one either campaign can afford. Warren, because she banks her campaign on her commitment to the middle and working class and to fairness, openness, and transparency - a break from her would undermine that. And Brown, whose poll numbers are not where they should be for an incumbent, can ill afford to look like the schmuck in all this.

I doubt Warren, at least, entered into this lightly. Brown either, for that matter. It’s a test of resolve against the tide of insanity that is the money flow in campaigns these days. In the end, I think I’m just glad someone’s willing to appear to put up or shut up. So, kudos to both sides. Now, let’s have the real, substantive debate from the candidates that Massachusetts deserves. Something that might well be possible when we’re not drowning in ads from outside groups.

There’s a good discussion at BMG, and also, what do YOU think? Gimmick, unenforceable, brave move, or something in between?