Left In Lowell

For the first time (temporarily), Lowell is not in the middle of an election, and I am able to take advantage to our proximity to my home state with its first-in-the-nation access. I’m up in Manchester, NH at St. Anselm’s College, Institute of Politics waiting to meet Elizabeth Edwards. I have my digital audio recorder so live blogging will be minimal.

Elizabeth is arriving and we’re starting the blogger’s session.

I’m sitting next to Susan of Below Boston, who is live blogging here.

Elizabeth has way too much energy for 9 in the morning on a Sunday! (Or maybe it’s my lingering sinus infection and late night talking.)

She is talking about new media, how it’s the most democratic…all you need is a recorder or video camera or computer and make your statements. Talks about pamphleteers. Discussion, can react, fact check each other. See the conversation echo and reverberate, expanding the conversation.

Elizabeth reads a lot of NH and Iowa blogs as well as national ones. Doesn’t often post on the big blogs. She does some crossposting, as well.

She talks about a current NYT article which counts several front page stories on Clinton, Obama, even one on Biden, but none on Edwards (in the last week? or something). A little about how to try and offset that. With a national primary this would be terrible, but with several small states going first, it’s more about the engaged primary voter, outreach in any way you can. Also, smaller newspapers.

Elizabeth speaks eloquently about education, her home schooling experiences with her kids and how some of those methods might help our public schools.

Democratic leadership - in answer to my question about the influence of money in politics where lobbyists can write and water down legislation, Elizabeth told us John Edwards as president would not stop lobbying the American people on legislation he wants passed…to counter the effect of money’s influence. She says that money in politics is all about reelection - and that’s where you’ve got to fight this trend, and that John would go into in reticent legislators’ districts to showcase where the interests of the people are being co-opted by lobbyist money, which would put pressure on the legislator to do the right thing. (It was a good answer, and if I can get the podcast up, hopefully it recorded well, because it’s hard for me to summarize.)

She has interesting insights into NCLB, standards testing, mentions that value-added assessments in NH have been rejected by the system, but is a much better measure of a teacher’s success with their classroom. She thinks NCLB was an excuse for going to vouchers, once public schools failed there would be a push towards privatization, with its methodology. Need to fund the fix.

The roundtable ended with a poem about bloggers from the audience…very cute. So, I’m outta here, I’ll see if I can post this audio tomorrow.

If you are a subscriber to Comcast on Demand, I would strongly suggest that you watch the 1966 (Italian produced) film, The Battle of Algiers, which is now available at no charge on cable television. It is rarely shown on television and difficult to find at your local video store.

This is the film that was screened at the Pentagon a few months after the U.S. invaded Iraq. After the Pentagon viewing became public, there was a lot of discussion in the press as to why the Pentagon would show this somewhat obscure film.

At the time some suggested that the Pentagon was using this film to help their staff understand “the earlier efforts of a Western power to deal with terrorism in an Arab capital.” Apparently, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger thought there were similarities and a lesson to be learned from the French-Algerian War. He offered George Bush his copy of a newly published book, “A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962” written by historian Alistair Horne. Kissinger even highlighted passages for the President to read.

Those of you who want to try to understand French national psyche at it relates to their former “colonies” and the immigrants from those countries, this is a great film to watch.

Warning, the film is in black and white; documentary (cinéma-vérité) style, in Arabic and French with English subtitles and needless to say, lefty. If you are a film buff, this is a must see.

Concrete proof that The Village (see meaning of reference here) is hurting democracy.

Locally. Statewide. Nationally. They all suffer from the same disease, which has two pathogens…”sales”… and “access”…

I should have posted one a long time ago. Alas, I was in the Dr’s office waiting for an hour so I could get some antibiotics for a sinus infection.

I didn’t know sinus infections could feel like you got punched in the nose, or make the bridge of your nose red and swollen. Live and learn, I guess!

So have at it, I’m trying to salvage my day.

The Sun has the breaking news…as speculated previously, the director of LTC, Robert Haigh, has stepped down.

If you recall, I previously raised serious concerns about LTC’s director, based on very numerous sources on what was going on there. The LTC Board, at large, did not seem interested in exercising its oversight duties at the time. I do hope that the board will now take a more active role to reestablish LTC as the brave new world of community communications that it was a few years ago, and bring in a director who will nurture community involvement. That should be the primary concern.

No, not the one we’re supposed to be having today. (Anyone think this warm weather a bit odd?) What I mean to say is, I fully expect, if the Sun’s editor is on script, for him to lash out at the blogs once again this weekend, probably in the Column, for daring to challenge him. As opposed to, I dunno, actually answering the points raised…

So, any guesses as to how many words will be devoted into maligning Dick Howe Jr, or this blog, this weekend? Closest guesser might win a prize. This includes Saturday’s and Sunday’s papers.

Employees, agents and immediate family or household members of Left in Lowell are not eligible to enter this sweepstakes.

As Mimi points out, you have to read Dick’s blog post about the Stoklosa problem. Dick, unlike supposedly responsible media editors, gives you history and context regarding the whole thing. It’s a great reminder what the open questions were about the Stoklosa project, the three classrooms, and the whodunit.

Despite no change order, the project’s architect (DRA) and builder (Jackson Construction) eliminated the classrooms and brought the modified building close to completion until someone from the school department – which had not role in overseeing construction – visited the site and saw that the three-classroom wing did not exist. That’s when a furor erupted and the city council demanded that the three-classroom wing be restored. At that time, Jackson Construction sent the city a letter demanding an additional $75,000 to restore the three classrooms. Initially, the city refused to pay this extra amount since the cost of the three classrooms was already included in the original contract price. Jackson and the city went to mediation. Before the formal mediation ever occurred, however, the city manager settled the dispute with Jackson by agreeing to pay Jackson $290,000 and to release Jackson from any future liability. (In case you missed that, the city ended up paying Jackson four times the amount Jackson initially demanded to settle the dispute).

Dick also points out that the Lowell Sun, back in the day, was asking the questions it’s supposed to…not so much, these days. (Go read the whole thing, it’s good.)

Campanini not only points out that someone may have violated the Executive Session in talking to the media about it when he says he knows something about what’s in the report commissioned by the city for its lawsuit, but also that a “lack of oversight on the city’s part” is just hunky-dory, nothing to see here. Neither one sounds like a smart move if you’re Campanini…and what’s more, he might even be endangering our ability to get our tax money back should fault lie with the contractor who did the job.

Jim, quit while you’re behind. Seriously.

Has there been a change in leadership at Lowell Telecommunications Corporation? I have heard that today prior to the full Board Meeting, a high ranking staff member resigned. I am assuming that the Board will make some kind of announcement tomorrow.

I did not see anything on the Suns’ web site; and I am not sure if WCAP carried the news this afternoon. So if anyone knows anything, please let us know. With this change, I expect a new direction at LTC, and a more responsive and productive local access television.

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.

It it never easy to lose a loved one, especially someone who has accompanied you on your life’s journey. Our condolences for Councilor Mercier’s loss.

Let’s all take the time to appreciate the loved ones in our lives this holiday season.