Left In Lowell

Of course, it’s an editorial. I suppose to a large extent that means it’s based a lot on opinion.

But I’ve long said that when it comes to truthiness in analysis, we’ve seen some real doozies from the Sun’s editor. Today’s Campanini article is no exception.

Look, I get it. He’s BBFF with certain people in town, and can’t help but defend them on any occasion. However, his responsibilities as an editor surely weigh on him in some fashion? Why is it fine to ignore certain facts when producing a diatribe of his opinion? Like this:

The propaganda continued when challengers Alan Kazanjian and Mike Lenzi entered the council race. The pro-Lynchers questioned their motives for running, since they too had longstanding friendships with Cox.

Excuse me? They themselves and their supporters told us what their motivations were (what, exactly, were those “I’m For Cox” rallies about, might I ask?). And the fact that Mr. Cox saw fit to endorse six people and spout it over and over again on the airwaves meant…what? That Cox was uninterested in getting them elected?

As for “propaganda,” what’s with this pot calling the kettle black twice in one week? I can only assume he meant blogs, because the candidates themselves didn’t talk much about the divisions in this city, WCAP certainly didn’t talk about it, and Mr. Campanini didn’t allow his reporters to talk much about those divisions either, now did he?

The Lowell Sun has how many thousands of readers, compared to blogs? The truth is, the Lowell Sun refused to talk about what was below the surface of this whole election (with a few exceptions), and therefore…many knew nothing about it when heading to the voting polls. The Sun was complicit in the coverup, so to speak. It’s not like this motivation of the Coxians was that hard to find - they put it down on paper themselves in nasty little pamphlets intoning their desire to “get back” at the six councilors that changed the administration (and need I remind you of all the things the Sun once reported on why this happened, regarding budget deficits and ignored DoR audit letters? Obviously I do, because the Sun won’t).

So, it’s a real shocker - people voted for familiar names and people who knocked on their door. That’s what’s evident, in the vote from one week ago, to almost anyone but the Sun editor. Campanini wants to ignore the well-funded and yes, well-run campaigns of the two challengers which got into the top nine. Instead, he’d rather you thought those guys didn’t make it on their own merits (merits, mind you, of campaigning on a pro-Lynch let’s-go-forward platform), but instead were put there by voters who want a divided council. So, he argues, they can “reconcile”? Let’s forget the fact Kazanjian raised tens of thousands or had the time to talk to thousands of voters, that Lenzi has strong community ties, and that they and their incumbent allies praised Lynch whenever possible, and make the supposition that this was a pro-Cox vote instead. Right.

Of course, MacMahon finished quite a bit behind the others, and Mayor Martin, on whose watch this all occurred and who was labeled a key target, finished third (his strongest finish ever). But that doesn’t speak to Campanini at all. Unfortunate facts are easy for him to overlook.

Then there was this:

Which brings me to my second point as to why Rita Mercier and Bud Caulfield remain the people’s choices. Back in September, they backed a motion calling on Lynch to publicly release the Stoklosa School report. The motion failed 7-2, with Armand Mercier joining Eileen Donoghue, Broderick, Elliott, Martin and Mendonca to suppress a public report that cost taxpayers $9,000.
[…]
Since September, O’Connor has told Sun reporters that a lawsuit was “imminent,” just like Lynch said way back in March.

Holy Jesus. Yes, I am swearing. This has been explained so many times, I grow weary of it. Campanini is still beating this dead horse - a horse that even Councilor Armand Mercier knew wasn’t going to ride. (Another inconvenient truth that Campanini wants you to forget). Why? Because there’s no there there. This report was done and paid for by the city, to determine the best course of action in a lawsuit. Where I’m from, it’d be a waste of taxpayer dollars to commission a report to help you in a lawsuit and then just hand it to the defense because some newspaper man has made it his crusade to bother people until they make it public.

But it gets worse. He then makes a mountain out of a molehill…when (drum roll please!) he created the molehill in the first place. Regarding the Public Records Division letter to Lynch, Campanini says,

Now Lynch and the City Council have the Public Records Division of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts — as well as The Sun — breathing down their necks.

Alan N. Cote, the state’s supervisor of records, wants to examine the Stoklosa report. In a Nov. 5 letter to Lynch, Cote writes: “As privilege claimant, you bear the burden of proof in demonstrating the City possesses a valid (attorney-client) privilege … As emphasized by the Supreme Judicial Court in the Suffolk decision, you will be required to produce a detailed index to support your claim of privilege.”

Cote doesn’t stop there. He requests Lynch to submit all “responsive records” for an “in camera review” to his One Ashburton Place office in Boston.

Okay. So let me get this story straight. The Sun’s editor gets a lawyer and decides to pursue an official investigation to get the Stoklosa report made public. The officials respond by…you guessed it! starting an investigation. They are obligated to, that’s Cote’s job. Get a complaint, investigate complaint. Send stock letter to list obligations under the law to the government office that the complaint is about. Campanini picks and chooses quotes from the letter without allowing the reader to know this is standard procedure in cases like these. He instead leaves you with the impression that it’s independent of his complaint, and that it backs up his assertion there’s something wrong in the first place.

Now, from what I understand, the city is obligated to send said documents to the Public Records Division for review. That division then decides if there’s a there there. Ie, if privilege can be claimed. By no means, however, is this “breathing down Lynch’s neck” any more than what is supposed to take place by law, because the Sun instigated it. We do not have a verdict from the PRD, of course, but Campanini leaves the impression there has been some hammer swung down on Lynch. Funny, I thought that was Cote’s job to make that decision?

So in essence, Campanini isn’t acting much different from one Mr. Dick Cheney, whose administration leaked (now-discredited) information about Iraq’s “WMDs” to the NYT then cited said NYT article as support for the notion that there’s WMDs in Iraq. Campanini asked for the investigation which he is now saying is “breathing down Lynch’s neck.” Only, he asked for it in the first place. Which, by the way, I have it on good authority that the city is complying just fine.

As to the lawsuit and its timing…Does Mr. Campanini realize these things don’t happen overnight? *sigh* Perhaps not. Let me explain. The law moves slowly. There’s negotiations beforehand…motions…you name it. Maybe some people believe Law and Order is real life, where every trial moves at the pace of TV, but in the real world, lawsuits take time, money, and perseverance. If O’Connor says it’s still ongoing and imminent, I believe her. Of course, Campanini doesn’t show any proof that the administration’s doing something wrong in pursuing this lawsuit (or dragging its feet for some purpose), but he doesn’t mind insinuating it.

Let me point something else out: Campanini’s basically telling us that someone was in violation of their oath of office, or of their employment, when he tells us, “According to sources, the report says there was a lack of oversight on the city’s part but no financial hanky-panky.” (Bold mine.)

That report was shown to the City Councilors under Executive Session. Mass General Laws state that you can enter E.S. to “…discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the governmental body…” The purpose of an E.S. is somewhat like the closed sessions of Congress when it discusses items of national security - when it is regarding sensitive material that should not be publicly disclosed, such as when you are trying to recoup taxpayer money in a lawsuit and pay for a report to help you do so.

The fact that Campanini claims to know what’s in the report indicates a violation of the E.S. and should be investigated. Who told Campanini? No one was supposed to. A fact the councilors all signed on to when they went into E.S. Maybe we should contact the Massachusetts State Ethics Commission?

But we all know why Campanini wants this report public…he even says so right in his editorial in a roundabout way: “According to sources, the report says there was a lack of oversight on the city’s part but no financial hanky-panky.” (As if “lack of oversight” was a good thing?)

What I think Campanini means (I’m reading between the lines here) is that he believes this report “exonerates” Mr. Cox’s administration. Which is all very nice, but it’s not about Mr. Cox, or the city’s conduct per se. Who cares about Cox? (I wish I didn’t ever have to write his name again, to be honest.) It’s about doing our best to recover $300K of taxpayer dollars. It’s not about throwing blame on the previous administration. But Campanini seems to be under some sort of impression that it was. I ask you, is this the sort of Editor we want for our local newspaper? Someone who threatens our city’s ability to get money back for the taxpayers based on his need to exonerate a long-gone previous administrator who also happens to be his pal?

Bottom line: his analysis of the election is flawed, as it ignores some really basic facts. His witchhunt on the Stoklosa report is equally based in deception and abuse of logic. And through it all, he plainly shows but does not disclose his close relationship or severe dislike of the people his paper is covering…just uses sly innuendos to malign people. It seems to me there’s one option for the corporate masters of the Lowell Sun in order to redeem this paper. And that’s find a new editor for the Sun who has real journalistic integrity.