Left In Lowell

No Big Deal, Or Bad Management?

28 Responses to “No Big Deal, Or Bad Management?”

1. waittilnextyr Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

   Although the difference is small (Aa3 vs. Aa2 is probably worth about 0.05%, or $12,000 per million borrowed), it should have been noted when it changed as it would be a warning sign that future budgets, and budget decisions, should be carefully considered. The good news is that Lynch is on top of that.

2. K-R-S Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 4:25 pm

   And while this change in our bond rating “may not be a big deal..” to a few folks..an additional $12,000 per million
   borrowed is significant and only adds to our tax levy.

3. Lynne Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 4:42 pm

   For a $4M project (*ahemgarage*), that’s almost $50K.

   Doesn’t seem like much next to the whole city budget, except it could…say…hire another teacher and a half. Or pay for some potholes. It’s definitely irresponsible not to have all the info available when making choices about the city budget. Bad enough no one ever knows the state’s numbers going into the process.

   And again, of course, just proves why the councilors wanted to eject Cox. This is only one of a metric ton of indifference from the outgoing CM.

4. Mike Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pm

   Maybe he could have mentioned it when the backbone five told him he was fired.

5. Mimi Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 5:03 pm

   If the rating had gone up from Aa2 to Aa3, I am sure we would have heard that we were gaining $12,000 on every $1 Million borrowed.

   The City Councilors needs to be properly informed and in a timely manner on any issue that impacts their decisions. They can decide for themselves if the change in Bond Rating is a “big deal” or not.

6. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   July 6th, 2006 at 7:15 pm

   This is unbelievable! The council first became aware of it during the interview process for
   the new CM!

   If I were on the council I would make a motion to vacate the office of city manager immediately!
   To Hell with any prior “arrangements”!

7. pete the pirate Says:
   July 7th, 2006 at 7:54 am

   why don’t you let lynch spend enough time on the job to evaluate his performance before you all start kissing his butt. it obvious that you all hate cox, but don’t assume that lynch is going to deserve the pedestal you folks are putting him on. i hope he does a great job, but time will tell.
   how come the “backbone 5″ did’nt know about the bond rating? maybe we need some proactive people as cc’s, instead of a group of reactive mopes.
   ….here it comes…get defensive…let me have it!

8. waittilnextyr Says:
   July 7th, 2006 at 9:41 am

   The reason I think Lynch is “on top of that” is not that he mentioned it during the interview, but rather his discussion of long term budgeting during his interview, and the detail of the FY2005 Chelmsford budget report.

   The amount borrowed for the garage is around $28M, whereas the $4.5M discussed a couple of months ago was just the additional borrowing needed to cover the escalated cost estimates for the garage. So the total cost of the downgrade with respect to the garage is about $335K over 30 years. That is still small in the overall scheme of things, but a trend we would not like to continue.

   In defense of Cox, he has been consistently reluctant to spend down the “free cash”, whereas the CC generally looks at using that to control the current tax rate increases. The problem is that in the long term, the CC approach may increase costs, as we are now seeing with the degraded bond rating.

   So, the CC is complicit in the problem, but Cox had the duty to inform them of the downgrade. Now that they have authorized the additional $4.5M without increasing the sources of income, we may be looking at another downgrade in the rating.

   It seems that Lynch will do a better job in communicating these issues to the CC, and a better informed CC may make wiser policy decisions.

9. Lynne Says:
   July 7th, 2006 at 10:23 am

   Seriously, give it up, Pete. No one is kissing anyone’s ass. Is it not the truth that the current CM has (likely) known about a bond rating drop since maybe March (before the big firing, by the way)? Is it not true that Bernie Lynch, thinking everyone knew about it, was knowledgeable enough to know about it himself and talk knowledgably about it?

   Stop being bitter because Cox didn’t do his job properly and got himself laid off. If it’s not obvious to YOU that he didn’t do his job properly, it is to the rest of us.

   This doesn’t completely dissolve the Councilors - or the Sun - for not finding this out on their own sooner. However, if Cox was sitting on the information because he thought it was “no big deal,” then the fault lies primarily on his shoulders. End of story. It’s the CM’s job to know this stuff. Bernie obviously is starting out on the right foot in terms of his ability to do the job. Why do you think that’s kissing anyone’s ass? I call it fact.

   Obviously, everyone’s on the watch to see if Bernie can really do the job. It’s a big transition from suburb to city. But he’s already proving more useful than his predecessor, in many people’s opinions, including mine.

10. Mike Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 11:41 am

    “Stop being bitter because Cox didn’t do his job properly and got himself laid off. If it’s not obvious to YOU that he didn’t do his job properly, it is to the rest of us.”

    I’d have to say speak for yourself on that, it’s never been obvious to me, none of the council has given any performance reason (or any reason) why he was asked to go.

    It can only be assumed that it was personality based, and that generally happens after several years with the same manager. I’m not riding the council for that, it is their peroggative, but lets call a spade a spade - this was not about Cox’s performance. This city has never been better.

11. Dan M. Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 1:50 pm

    your all insane.. what you all need to do is let go of John Cox.. he is the reason the rating was so high.. haha you people sit here and pile on issue after issue.. why didnt any of the councilors look into the bond rating themselves?? You people are clueless to what Lynch brings to the table.. like a scandal in which he was having sexual relations with his secretary, she settled.. nope, lynne dont hear you bringing that up?? haha the man is gone, he resigned.. he did a good job, and he WAS asked to step down because of politics, dont fool yourselves or let facts get in the way of your arguments.. i cant wait till you all turn your backs on lynch, and call for his resignation, and then pretend like you never liked him.. hahah man this should be republicans in lowell, it gets more rediculous every week.. Get a clue he wasnt laid off and cox did his job well, ,look at lowell, compare it to Martins tenure, or the man before that…
    Lowell is in great shape, despite a small downgrade in the bond rating, which cox brought to record heights… haha man u make me laugh.. right on mike.. at least someone isnt making things up..

12. Dan M. Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pm

    also, i like the fact that you all pile on the merciers as well, because of their support for a man who did alot of good for lowell.. also is funny that they consistantly two of the most popular and voted for candidates… therefore making most of you out of touch with the pulse of the city..

13. pete the pirate Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    “give it up”?? where did i say i was bitter about cox’s situation. it was his job to lose, and he did. life goes on and i certainly know enough that what i say or you say has anything to do with what happens at ch.
    Thanks, Bernie Lynch, for already showing us what a real city manager looks like. And he’s not even on the job yet.

    those were your words, sounds like your lining his ass up for a big smooch.

14. Lynne Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 6:06 pm

    Wow, from that one line, you surmise I’m kissing ass? Why the hell would I even want to? I have nothing to gain from it, for one thing.

    Is it not the case that Lynch apparently kept himself informed? Can I not comment on this fact without being accused by detractors of kissing ass? Man, you people are sensitive.

    This isn’t a newspaper. I express opinion. It’s woven into everything I do. If Lynch slips up, I’m not gonna give him a pass just because he started out on the right foot. I’ll bitch about that too.

    Hey Dan M - yeah, odd-year voter turnout being what it is (less than 30%) and in the precincts where it happens most, it’s totally like the Merciers are so much more in touch with the majority of the city than anyone else is.

    The Merciers, for better or worse, hitch their stars to the GOB. I happen to not like that. A lot of people don’t like that. I call them on it. If they do something good I talk about that too. This isn’t about me liking them or not. It’s about what’s fair and what isn’t.

    Mike - you once again assume. Have you personally asked the councilors their reasons for letting Cox go? The city is so not at its best. It’s slipping. To some extent, just like the rest of MA. To another extent, to the detriment of the people who can least afford this wonderful boom of yours. And regardless, it is still immoral to ignore and shut out the non-connected residents of this city on the behalf of the connected, never mind how bustling downtown condo development is.

15. Fran McDougall Says:
    July 7th, 2006 at 6:13 pm

    Dan M. sounds a lot like the purveyer of “dead” air on a local
    radio station. Defamation of one’s character is the name of
    the game. Why is it rumor mongering is always associated with
    people who are less than candidates for MENSA? Let Mr. Cox
    leave with dignity and let the new city manager Mr. Lynch take
    over the job and prove or disprove himself before you let the
    hateful tongue waggers spread therir venom.

16. Kennedy Says:
    July 8th, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    Pete,
    It’s called “justification” that’s all this bond topic is all about. The backbone 5 (actually 6 ) had no good reasons to fire John Cox, so now they found
    ONE and the Lowell Sun blew it out of proportion as usual. Funny how there wasn’t an article that size when the bond rating was high. BIG deal, he didn’t kill anyone.

17. Lynne Says:
    July 9th, 2006 at 8:28 am

    So someone has to kill someone to justifiably be fired…lovely. (And yes, I’m not taking you seriously on that one - I hope I don’t have to anyway.)

    A lot of people have thought for years there was reasons to change the City Manager. And in short conversations with some of the City Councilors, though I won’t speak for them, they have thought so too, a long time.

    I just find it really strange how defensive some people are. What, did you get fired too?

    And I highly doubt that the City Councilors had ANYthing to do with the Sun writing about the bond issue. And they don’t seem to be using it for any post-justification. You can see it that way if you want, but you’re reading too much into it as far as I can tell.

18. Kennedy Says:
    July 9th, 2006 at 1:34 pm

    Lynne,
    I was being sarcastic, I thought that was very clear. It’s too bad that you have to respond w/ such mean comments…..No, I have never been fired from any job. Why do you get so angry when people don’t agree w/ you? Your mean comments say it all…….Maybe that’s why the local politicians don’t write on this blog? You could use a little “class”.

19. Lynne Says:
    July 9th, 2006 at 2:28 pm

    Um, I did put in a parenthesis at the end there, did you not read it? Yeesh.

    Again, do you take the letting go of CM Cox personally? You seem to. Ergo, you are being sensitive. It wasn’t you that got fired. That was my point. You act like it was your best friend who was shafted by an unfair boss. You don’t seem to have any perspective on the issue. Why is calling a spade a spade being mean?

    Plenty of people read the blog who don’t post for one reason or another. Doesn’t mean they don’t read it, or even agree with it, on occasion. I wouldn’t expect City Councilors to post, actually. I’d welcome them if they did but that’s not why I write.

20. Dan M. Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 8:47 am

    what RUMOR am I talking about. And its funny that Lynne belittles local government. The election doesnt carry any weight because only 30% on registered voters came out and voted? Is that what your saying LYnne>? wow how progressive. My point, which was 100% valid is that you talk trash about them, use sarcasm and dress them down because they support someone you dont. thats a joke, cox was dismissed because he didnt win your popularity contest. I love this BS about backbones.. hahah since non of the people to called for her resignation have one.. here is a backbone.. come out vocally that you do not liek the way he is handling his job WHEN HE EVALUATION COMES UP!!!! you know.. when those 6 people gave him praise and a raise.. hahaha seriously.. lets talk about facts. the plus column for john cox vastly outnumbers the negative column. YOU lynne priased a man who hasnt even taken office yet, and slanted your opinion to say that because this man happened to know that a bond rating had been decreased, he is taking up the cause of Lowell right away. Which is a joke, he was trying to get a job, and happened to say the right thing. PERIOD! it only goes to show how biased you and many of your writers are on here. Cox hasnt made a peep, has been 100% professional since the night he announced his resignation. Maybe its time that LIL does the same thing. Deal with local politics/state and government issues etc. dont go off on yet another tangent about john cox, reserve your false praise for lynch until his either deserves it, or shows you that he isnt this savior. A savior that this city doesnt need. and to touch upon your last post–

    Again, do you take the letting go of CM Cox personally? You seem to. Ergo, you are being sensitive. It wasn’t you that got fired. That was my point. You act like it was your best friend who was shafted by an unfair boss.

    if anything, its you and this site that have made this is personal attack blog against john cox.. it is YOU that brings up these little, really pointless things.. the fact is this.. as far as we know, john cox didnt/or has not yet informed the council that the bond was lowered.. PERIOD! his announcment wouldnt change that, the decision was made long ago, therefore it is merely an issue of when he was going to tell them.. nothing more.. mr lynch gets nothing in terms of credit for spitting out a fact that he was privy to because of his position. If he had gone in there and told them that the bond had yet again be upped, then you would praise him for his honestly etc.. cant have it both ways…

21. Dan M. Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 8:51 am

    hey fran, you wrote

    Dan M. sounds a lot like the purveyer of “dead” air on a local
    radio station. Defamation of one’s character is the name of
    the game. Why is it rumor mongering is always associated with
    people who are less than candidates for MENSA? Let Mr. Cox
    leave with dignity and let the new city manager Mr. Lynch take
    over the job and prove or disprove himself before you let the
    hateful tongue waggers spread therir venom.

    first of all, anyday you or anyone else would like to take a left in lowell MENSA or IQ test, let me know, I feel ill do very well. Second, its not a rumor, do your research. I was a resident of Chelmsford, and its no secret. Much like Cox’s issue when he was disciplined while working at the state house.. that info was easily seen here when the rest of the place was jumping on John Cox.. The settlement is there, the public record is there… so before you go supporting people, stop yapping weak insults at people much smarter than you and do the research.. thats all…

22. Fran McDougall Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 9:51 am

    Before submitting yorself to an IQ test, whether for MENSA or
    Binet, please correct the following:
    I’ll instead of ill
    (2) it’s instead of its
    that’s instead of thats.
    Just a small suggestion.

23. Paul@01852 Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 10:10 am

    Dan M. also seems to need help with sentence structure and rules of capilatliztio!

24. Lynne Says:
    July 10th, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    It’s never been personal, Dan, if you read carefully. I have enumerated a number of times the exact problems I have with his management. It’s never been a personal attack. I don’t know the man personally. However, groups I deal with have had interactions with his management, as have many individuals in this city. Bottom line is, you nor anyone else has come up with a defense for this point, nor any other I have stated, reasons I have outlined how he has not done his job properly or ethically. I’m sorry that some people take that as a personal attack, but the man is a public servent, and subject to public scrutiny…or do you think that taxpayers should have no say in who works for them?

    And Dan, Dan, Dan, you’re making a specious argument. OF COURSE the election counts. I’m just saying that anyone who’s supposedly “popular” by vote is still not getting a majority of eligible voters in the city to vote for them, on the ones that show up. I find the 30% (or really, less) number dispicable and pathetic. But it certainly doesn’t give anyone - not the Merciers with their “popular” percentage, or anyone else a mandate that means much.

    Stop ranting for five seconds and really read what people write for a change.

    I will point out that I have never said anything about Cox’s demeanor since the resignation announcement. I’m pointing out five years of behavior I find distasteful and not in the public interest. Yes, it appears Cox has been keeping quiet and leaving in a more dignified manner than his supporters did with that silly campaign. Great. He also gave some pretty nice big raises recently to certain people before he’s left the city government. Just because he’s being “dignified” in public doesn’t mean there’s nothing going on.

25. bob lighthouse Says:
    July 11th, 2006 at 3:05 pm

    Bond Rating & Beating A Dead Horse

    I am not a Cox support by any means. I wished and prayed that he was gone along time ago. However, at this stage of the game the CC should make a one brief statement rather then 9, which will be ignored. Something along the lines of “That it is this type of miss communication that has lead to their discontent with Cox’s style of management” might do

26. pete the pirate Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 7:33 am

    lynne, you obviously are not a veteran of lowell politics. the lowell sun plays a huge role in what the cc’s say. several cc’s are in contact with the sun on a regular basis, they know that crossing the sun on an issue means getting slapped around by the column on sunday. kendall wallace holds a lot of power in this city, he just is not on the payroll.
    how about the latest move by the sun. to honor john cox you can put out an ad in the sun. the sun will now make some $$$ off of cox’s demise. thats balls!

27. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    July 12th, 2006 at 12:51 pm

    The Sun will make 90% off the “Honoring John Cox” edition, the other 10 goes to Cox’s
    charities (Kelliher Family and Lowell Flood relief).
    Wonder if that means they will publish how much goes to the charities so
    we’ll know what they made off the “special” edition?
    Good for them if they can do it.

28. Dan M. Says:
    July 19th, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    Paul, you will excuse me if I type quickly. This site, like all other I write on, lacks a spell check, and when I am typing fast(because I am pissed) i tend to just type and send. But thank you paul, thank you for that enlightening opinion on this subject.

Leave a Reply