Left In Lowell

Got this press release today:

Jamie Eldridge Hits 100K Cash-on-Hand

ACTON – District 5 Congressional candidate State Representative Jamie Eldridge announced today a fundraising milestone — $100,000 in the bank, less than two weeks after Marty Meehan’s announcement that he is leaving Congress. 100% has come from personal donations to the campaign.
[…]
The announcement comes on the heels of Stephen Kerrigan’s departure from the race, as the field of candidates continues to narrow.

“Jamie is now the only candidate from the suburban communities – one-third of the district,” said campaign manager Michael Moschella.

This is in light of Niki Tsongas’ press release a week ago, stating she had raised $140K in her first couple weeks. Looks like the race is on!

One Smoot finds an excellent post (and blog) about the hue and cry over information of voters being available on the new DevalPatrick.com civic engagement site. “Stroll into your city or town hall: You’ll have no trouble finding your exact home address in multiple municipal records. Had any courthouse business? Bought real estate? Your exact home address may as well be on a billboard.”

Sco weighs in too, by the way. He has a technical background so his run-down also has some gravitas. In effect:

Since my login account was an artifact from the previous system — and I assume the people who beta-tested the new site were in the same boat — I never played around with the login screen and did not realize that it now acted as a search of the voter rolls, the same search function that left a bad taste in so many peoples mouths. This could not have been the developers’ intent since, after all, they locked down the search after one was successfully logged in.

When you search for yourself in the system in order to create a login, it comes up with your information (and any other matching it), so you can select yourself. Apparently, it came up with a little too much information, which probably isn’t necessary (just a street and town should suffice for most people, though you could imagine two Joe Smiths on one street I guess). This also means if you put in someone else’s name and town you’d get their info as well.

The upshot is, if you live in the modern world, your address is oh-so-easy to find, internet or not. Also, anyone can get that voter data from the state or from your town hall, and do all sorts of things with it (including publish it on the interwebs). So while I expect that the Patrick website probably shouldn’t have brought up all the data on a person searching for themselves in order to create a login, it’s not like that information is sacred. Sorry, it’s just not. It’s everywhere. (Hell, even your Social Security number, which is supposed to be private, can be easily found on the internet if you try hard enough.)

The Patrick team has already fixed the problem in question. A search for a last name and town brings up only names and streets of people, based on the criteria, so you can select yourself and create a login. Now, can we go back to talking about the objective of said website, which already is seeing quite a lot of activity around the issues people care about?

Well, I didn’t get the email directly (harrumph!), but Susan did, and since she’s sitting in the same room as me right now, I was notified right quick. (You’re lucky, Jamie!)

But I’ve taken a quick look, and there’s great content. Niki might have gotten her website up first, but I have to say, Jamie has more specifics on his first pass.

Must-reads: there’s a short and extended bio, a couple of platform pages already (on education, and on Iraq), and quite a lot on Jamie’s record. Plus, soon to come, Jamie TV and Jamie Radio! (The latter with the interview with yours truly!)

My husband will kill me for using that phrase as a title, because I haven’t ever found time to finish Watchmen, but it’s appropos for the newest journalist-blogger tussle (and this on the eve of the NENF conference in Lowell in two weeks, no less) about remarks from David Bernstein about the Governor, bloggers, and grassroots governing. Bernstein responded on the BMG thread, stating that he really meant to write his post about how things will be perceived in the media and the public. It’s too bad he couldn’t have been so precise on his original points, especially given that he tells us at the beginning he neither attended the event nor really looked at the relaunched civic engagement website, DevalPatrick.com.

Massachusetts Liberal points out that the Phoenix can hardly be considered part of the mainstream press, and its reporting is definitely from a different perspective much of the time. Others chimed in, however, like Charley in comments (bold mine):

Perhaps “professional media” would be a better term than “MSM”. And as David Kravitz said, we at BMG are big fans of the Phoenix’s political reporting, both by Adam Reilly and Mr. Bernstein. Even so, these guys sometimes line up with the MSM is some surprising (to me) ways.

It often seems to me that the debate between “Old” and “New” media lies squarely in that space. Loyalty to one’s colleagues sometimes trumps good reporting - and media critique - in the professional sphere. This is one of the reasons I’ve disagreed with Dan Kennedy on some occasions. I like Dan a lot, and I think he’s brilliant and sharp in many of his criticisms on the media, but I also see some of that cliquish tenacity in him as well. When fellows are attacked…for what appear to be good reasons…often the professional media, even those who are considered rogue elements like the Phoenix, sometimes fall back on that gut feeling that one of their own was hurt and they must rally around.

To media watchers who are not professional, who are simply media consumers obsessed with devouring news, this is severely disappointing to us. Though I suppose bloggers are often cliquish too - witness the voracity at which the blogosphere defended Jerome Armstrong when Beat the Press screwed up. Our case was strong, no doubt, but also our reaction was strong. It doesn’t help that bloggers constantly feel like the media is just waiting to swoop down and crush their contribution to the conversation - every time a media story comes out about a blogger and a lack of integrity, the media makes it a big story, even when the facts show it’s an isolated incident. Hell, in the Times piece prompting that Beat the Press segment, they outright deceived and lied.

So it’s obvious, we’re watching them, and they are watching us. With all this watching going on, let’s hope that democracy and truth somehow get served up to the people in the crossfire.

Reported by Marie at RichardHowe.com first, then with a statement issued on several blogs (including in the comments on Marie’s post), Steve Kerrigan has bowed out of the race for Congress in the 5th. Sco lists everyone he thinks is left. So far that numbers seven.

Because I’m really honestly not sure any more.

It’s human to want to be part of the in-crowd, I suppose. To have people forced to get your approval or acceptance because well, you’re that much higher in the kool hierarchy. But it’s another thing when there’s an unworthy gatekeeper between us and our democratically-elected government. We get some hint of this petulant attitude from the MSM blog Talking Politics today, which puts into writing that attitude that so very irks grassroots activists and bloggers. (more…)

If You Can’t Vote No, Abstain

Dear Senator Panagiotakos,
I’m writing this open letter in a public forum to ask you for something very serious. I’m asking for your help to preserve the civil rights of tax-paying and voting citizens of the Commonwealth. I am referring to the inevitable Constitutional Convention where, for the second time, legislators will vote whether or not to let civil rights of our gay neighbors, family members, and friends be decided by ballot. I’m talking about the anti-gay-marriage amendment.

I, and many of your constituents, have begged, pleaded, and cajoled you to change your mind on this issue. I’ve even used some strong language - which I still stick by - and many efforts to appeal to your logic and reason on this matter. It is obvious you have an unshakable conviction, which I can only presume is a personal religious one, and despite the fact it saddens me greatly, I have to respect that.

You have been strongly progressive on a lot of issues and I’ve been proud of your work more often that I’ve disagreed with you. It is your progressive spirit I appeal to now.

I am hoping to convince you, then, to abstain from voting on this matter.

I understand that you cannot bring yourself to vote “no” to the ballot initiative. A No vote, of course, allows for gay marriages to continue to be legitimate in the eyes of the state. It will not change your religion’s right not to marry gays in the church, but merely carry civil weight of the same rights and responsibilities of marriage that I myself have enjoyed going on seven years now. But we’ve exhausted all those arguments, so I will merely plead this: the people of the Commonwealth overwhelmingly wants this issue put to rest. They do not want another two years of a biting, hateful campaign. They don’t want any more out-of-state interference in our Commonwealth’s affairs; they do not want a vote. By voting “yes” on the constitutional amendment ballot initiative, you will be subjecting your constituents to inevitable media campaigns and harassment. And it will be that much easier to hurt our gay brothers and sisters with words…and maybe even worse.

If you go on the record with a “yes,” I believe your conscience will not be easy. In order to satisfy your religious convictions you would have put hate on the state ballot, put civil rights up for popular vote. What if interracial marriage had been put on the ballot in the midst of the civil rights era? Would that have been fair or just?

The bar for allowing a ballot initiative to change the state constitution is too low. By abstaining, you will keep your conscience clear on both accounts. If you cannot bring yourself to vote “no,” please bring yourself to allow the rest of the legislature to vote their conscience to prevent a civil rights disaster. You will have had no part in it, save to allow the Commonwealth to move on as it has, working on the important issues of the day, instead of continuing the distraction of hate and bigotry.

Thank you for your service,
Lynne L
Left in Lowell

Those of us who are frequent visitors to the city of Lowell’s web site have seen have seen major improvements in the quantity and quality of information made available during this past year. Many items of interest to residents of Lowell have been added, including the City Manager’s response to Councilors motion.

The newest feature Boards and Commissions, which you can find on the Government section, is a comprehensive listing of all of the City’s Boards, Commissions and Advisory Bodies; all 24 of them. (more…)

Charley had an amusing time reading the Globe editorial which essentially outlines how Sal DiMasi’s rejection of the more innovative (and controversial) proposals in the budget, like the corporate tax loophole closings, and budget business-as-usual, will hamper efforts for a balanced and sane budget.

However, that editorial reminded me of another of the interesting proposals Patrick put forth, which is to say, consolidating line items for departments to allow for more flexibility in spending by the executive branch:

Members of that committee, along with their counterparts at Senate Ways and Means, criticized the governor’s budget earlier this month because it consolidated many individual items from previous budgets into large appropriations, which would be spent at the discretion of departmental managers.

The Constitution gives the Legislature the power to appropriate money, as the Ways and Means members insisted. But lawmakers should delegate this power to line managers to make the decisions, rather than divvy up the money in advance on Beacon Hill. For instance, administrators of the trial court system would be better able to make savings in the $560 million appropriation proposed by the governor if they could move money freely among the courts, rather than be restricted by 149 individual line items. The Legislature has given the administrators some flexibility in the past, but it has always been hemmed in by unnecessary limitations.

There’s a balance to be struck between micromanaging where the money’s going, and allowing money to be moved around within a department to the best effect. It happens in business all the time, as well as government.

For instance, the lack of line items in past Lowell city budgets meant that City Councilors did not have the key information they needed to be sure the budget from the city manager was efficient or not wasteful. CM Lynch has promised to change this, put more transparency into the process, so that the people, and their elected representatives, can peruse the numbers and be sure they add up to a sound fiscal policy.

However, on the other hand, too much micromanagement stifles productivity and becomes inefficient. Have you ever worked for a boss who insists you get his approval for every little aspect of a project you’re on? How much do you end up twiddling your fingers waiting for him, or because you have to take extra time to explain the little details to him so he can even make his decision? When the whole time, you knew perfectly well what the next step should be anyway? And then that boss goes and makes a different call, that will actually take more time or produce less result than what you would have done?

Now is our state budget being micromanaged by the legislature? Anecdotally, I’d answer with a resounding “yes!” People I know who work for or with state agencies say time and again that the restrictions that come with the funding they receive makes them very inefficient. These people are all dedicated public servants who want to help people - in education, homelessness, child services, or wherever. I’m no budget expert, but the signs are there.

The only time one should resort to micromanaging a situation is when the person who executes the policy is a known problem (especially if you can’t or won’t fire them). I think that might be why the legislature got into the habit of doing it - under Republican governors, the legislature knew that money expenditures, if left up to Romney types, would not go to the priorities where the legislature intended them (for better or worse) to go. So, they line-itemed everything to death. (Romney still managed to screw people, like with the sound barrier between the new Route 3 and a very exposed neighborhood in Chelmsford.)

Now, we have the chance to stop micromanaging the line items under a Governor that honestly cares that state services be delivered and delivered well. Cutting the restrictions placed on appropriations will, in my opinion, only increase the productivity of those services, and the flexibility will allow Patrick to carry out the priorities we who elected him share. With few exceptions, the legislature shares them too. And he will do so with an efficiency we have not seen in this state in a long time. Tying the hands of this governor isn’t necessary. So, let’s get out of the bad habit of micromanaging.

I have to say, as disappointed as I might be with how much more this appropriations bill could have accomplished with stronger language or even cutting off funding for the Iraq debacle, that this is a good first step. This bill puts on a binding timeline for getting out (Aug 31, 2008), and mandates that our troops be adequately equipped and trained before shipped off to the combat zone (something we haven’t been doing, which is dangerous for them, and something which will further restrict the “surge” because we don’t have enough soldiers at readiness capacity). How anyone could possibly vote against the latter motion and still consider themselves “for the troops” is beyond me.

Of course, the Decider-in-Chief will probably veto, or at best, sign-statement this away, ignore the law, and cause a constitutional crisis (I’ve always said it will come to that), but the fact is, Mr. Bush, elections matter. The people spoke in November. Now, I don’t know if you care about your party or your legacy, but keep up this course, and both are in serious jeopardy. Your party will be lucky to gain a majority nationally in 20 years, at the rate they are going.

Given this Iraq bill, vetoed or not, and all the myriad scandals surrounding the White House right now (too many to count!), consider this duck totally lame.

Too bad it didn’t come sooner, before so many people died or so many lives were destroyed.