Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
I think I’d rather be painting walls than stuffing boxes. Oh, wait, I get to paint a hallway tomorrow. Eh.
So here’s an open thread…be good everyone.
A couple of musings before I go back to packing, though. Regarding the comments that surmise (not for the first time) that if I think CM Lynch doesn’t do politics, I’m crazy, I say, you are partly correct. Many of the decisions Lynch makes and has made have political consequences. As the saying goes, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, and you can’t satisfy everyone 100% of the time. Decisions like who to appoint to a city board (or not reappoint), what departments to consolidate, and so forth, yes, they become political. They can cause political uproar.
There are key difference between a decision that has political consequences, however, and one that starts out as a political calculation.
Think about it. What would have been the politically smart thing for Lynch to do when he first came into the job? Making friends with the politically powerful in both the private and public sectors of Lowell would surely have made things in his first year much smoother and certainly far more pleasant. Playing their game by their rules would mean less conflict by far. The fact that Lynch chose to forgo the expedient easy way for a harder, nastier slug uphill isn’t because Lynch likes to make things more difficult for himself.
No, Lynch chose to make decisions with political consequences because they were the right thing to do. Some, like halting the illegal benefits for city board members, Lynch had no other ethical choice, if he wanted to follow the law. (Didn’t stop the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but it makes no difference.) Other decisions are not so much a matter of law but a matter of fairness, and also of what’s best for Lynch’s true employers - the taxpayers. Some even I have and will disagree with, but I will disagree with them not as a matter of personal politics or loyalty, but because of the issue at hand. These decisions, while having political consequences, are not politically motivated. Therein lies the difference.
[powered by WordPress.]
43 queries. 0.703 seconds
August 30th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Lynne the Editorial in todays Lowell Sun, Is very damaging to your small minded political way of thinking. Shouldn ‘t there be oversight and disclosure even if it hurts politically.That is the way my friend Henry
Waxman discribes progressive goverment.Henry and senator Cilton have been
attacking the Bush administration to stop lying , engaging in secrcy and coverups concerning the Iraq War. Why would a progressive like you support that in your city councilors? You should tell your friend CM Lynch to realease the audit by Kopelman and Paige , that would be the progressive thing to do.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Oh here we go…what part of the words “there is an ongoing legal proceeding and releasing the report could harm the city’s chances of recovering taxpayer money” do you not understand? We’ve only said that about 20 times on this blog.
At least you’re finally putting your name on your comments, Pat, I appreciate that.
Campi’s on this warpath I think because Jim thinks it’s the way to hit Lynch (not because there’s a compelling reason to be pissed off), but there are very good reasons not to make the report public as yet. Would you prefer Lynch irresponsibly release this report and not give us the best shot at recovering some of our costs?
Lynch will release that report when the legal proceedings are over with. I want my money back, don’t you?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Hey Lynne, good luck packing… I’ve begun packing as well since I’m leaving for NY next week. I’m sure I’ll see you at CBA’s annual meeting on the 29th, right?
August 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
James: wouldn’t miss it!
August 30th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Well framed post Lynne. Much more positive avenue to go down.
August 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Pat:
Can you post the link to the editorial, I cannot find it? Thanks.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Anon: Thanks…but honestly, I think both the positive and the negative must be discussed. Generally, I vastly prefer the positive tact too, but…there’s a but.
If we gloss over the situation, we allow it to continue. We become enablers. Since I am neither an elected official nor am I a stakeholder (other than being a brand new property taxpayer), it gives me a little more leeway to say the things that so many others are thinking, but are too intimidated (either because they have something to lose, or they are in positions that don’t allow that freedom).
If we remain silent about the intimidation of those who have observed firsthand all the negative things that have been going on, we fail those victims of unfairness. It’s not pleasant, I do not enjoy doing it, but it has to be done, in my estimation, or else we are doomed to repeat this process again and again.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Mimi, here is the link: http://www.lowellsun.com/editorials/ci_6760067
August 30th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
I agree with that this audit needs to be made public very quickly. I respect Christine O’Connor’s opinions on issues but I hope that she puts this lawsuit on the fast track so that the City can release the information.
The editorial would have had greater impact with me if its primary motive was to urge the City to hurry up and go to court so that we can try to recoup some or all of this $290,000 and move on; but in my opinion its primary purpose was to try to discredit the six councilors who forced the previous city manager out of office.
By the way, when and in what court is the Sun filing its lawsuit against the City?
August 30th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Speaking of CBA, does anyone know what is happening there? Have the problems been resolved?
August 30th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
Not a word, Lowellian. I too am curious. Apparently, not “sexy” enough for the Sun.
August 30th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Mimi, as I recall, the Sun had filed suit with an atty. and THEN this editorial surfaces. Seems to me they do not have a case, because of the litigation issues. I would think that the CM has a fiduciary responsibility to protect the City’s interests (ie: the taxpayers).
August 30th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Pat, here’s the thing. Lynch doesn’t invite Wallace et al into his inner circle.
I recall listening to a CC election coverage (something very very public!) one year when Martin was manager and the results were delayed until Martin, and Wallace, who was in his office, reviewed them first!
I have not read today’s editorial, but I would bet you dollars to donuts (Dunkin) that your comments regarding the withholding of information has:
1. Information has already been given to CCs
2. Involve ongoing litigation.
Now Pat, you know as well as I do that one of the very few reasons for an executive session is to discuss stratigies for ongoing litigation. The difference under the Lynch administration is that the paper doesn’t get called into the CMs office and briefed after the executive session!
September 26th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Amerikanische Firma „ACG Logistics“ sucht nach Mitarbeiter in Europa fuer die Arbeit im Logistikbereich. Interessanter Job mit guter Verdienstmoeglichkeit.
Schicken Sie bitte Ihre Bewerbung an info@acglogistics.biz
October 4th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Amerikanische Firma „ACG Logistics“ sucht nach Mitarbeiter in Europa fuer die Arbeit im Logistikbereich. Interessanter Job mit guter Verdienstmoeglichkeit.
Schicken Sie bitte Ihre Bewerbung an info@acglogistics.biz