Left In Lowell

Yesterday, the City approved a new three-year contract with the Lowell Firefighters union, IAFF Local 853. Congratulations to the City Administration (CM, Solicitor, CFO, etc..) and to the union leadership and rank-and-file members for coming up with an agreement; and more importantly to carry out negotiations without much noise and fanfare. I guess their union president must not have an ego . Compared to the mess that is going on in Boston, our firefighters are true professionals; and compared to the mess that is going in Lawrence (pink slips for 20 firefighters after a catastrophic fire) our City Council are true legislators.

The pay raises are nominal at the front end of the contract but pick up at the back end. The CM believes we will be able to recoup some of these costs with the introduction of PPO medical plans and some adjustments in the language of the contract.

I need to point out that there is no retroactive pay in this contract; the raise begins with January 2008. Also, let’s be honest whatever increase these guys are getting will go towards the increase cost of living, mostly healthcare.

Mike Lafleur has more of the details of the contract in his article in today’s Sun.

Also, I do not think this new contract addresses the station closing rotation which is now in effect. Given the recent rash of deadly fires in other communities, this issue will need to be revisited at budget time.

Tonight is the rescheduled SC Personnel subcommittee; this is the meeting where the process of screening a new superintendent will be created. This will take place at 7pm at the LHS cafeteria, and will not be shown live on cable, so any interested folks are encouraged to attend. Jackie has much more, and mentions that the meeting will be taped, hopefully we’ll be able to see that online afterwards.

Chalk this one up in the column of gee-we-expected-this-to-happen-sooner-or-later. It appears that Councilor Kazanjian’s little motion of last night to close down an ally in the city of Lowell was, well, a total conflict of interest.

The motion: “C. Kazanjian-Req. Mgr. take steps to block/limit access to Cumminskey Alley.”

But this alley is, drum roll please! right next to Kazanjian’s own building, mostly abandoned and unused (and seemingly not maintained). In other words, he’s an abutter, and shouldn’t be bringing up or voting on or discussing such motions. He, of course, did all three last night.

The motion was brought up because of some incidents mentioned at a recent area meeting (thefts at two businesses there) where the police think that the thief/thieves used Cumminskey Alley as access/egress. Of course, this motion sort of makes sense, but it really doesn’t. Are we going to shut every alley access up every time there’s a local crime near it? I submit to you, that this is not at all tenable.

But couple that with Kazanjian’s breach, once again (remember this?) of the conflict-of-interest statutes, so soon after being inducted as a new City Councilor, and one wonders exactly what excuse he’ll use this time? There’s no way to mistake his abutment of this alley. To quote the Sun on his response to that other incident, back when, on the ZBA, he voted on the D’nD development and didn’t recuse himself:

Kazanjian, a City Council candidate, said today he was unaware of the specific regulation in the conflict law pertaining to abutters’ property. “If I knew, I wouldn’t have voted,” said Kazanjian…

Can’t use that as an excuse this time! So what’ll it be?

Given all of the activities and discussion during the past two City Council meetings (LTC streaming video 1/8/08 and 1/15/08) floor as well as some of the press coverage regarding Lowell property taxes, one would think there is some kind of revolt. But if you read Mike Lafleur’s front page article in yesterday’s Sun (disregard the pictures and graphics) you will get a clear picture of what the facts are.

More than 40 percent of the nearly 23,000 residential properties in the Mill City will see their property-tax bills decrease this year. Roughly 24 percent of the city’s residential taxpayers can expect to see their bills go up by less than $100. But about 7,800 properties in the city saw tax bills increase by $100 or more. Hundreds were hit with increases of $300 or more.

According to the Lafleur article, the large increases were mainly due to “the state Department of Revenue pushing all communities to update and streamline how they assess properties… the state requires communities to reassess properties every year, to ensure they are taxed at ‘full and fair value’.” So in effect, those individuals who receive those hundreds of dollar increases in their taxes in previous years may not have been paying their fair share and now the scales have been balanced.

In CM Bernie Lynch’s blog reporting on the City-organized public meeting at the Senior Center “to explain the assessment process and in particular to address recent changes in appraisal methods,” the CM indicates that there were about 50 people there.

If you add the 76 people who have already filed for abatement (asking for a reduction on their property tax), that is about 126 property owners who are interested, compared to the 435 challenges filed in 2005. I do not remember the CC being so vocal and demonstrative back then when the reaction of the taxpayers was three times what is was this year.

If you believe that you are paying more than your fair share, here is the link to the Secretary of State page, “Abatement Tax Tip Facts.” It will guide you on how to file for property tax reconsideration with the City’s Assessor’s Office.

But please remember, if you want your property taxes not to rise, you need to have the CC control spending and look for new revenue. I know that this CC is looking into endorsing the Governor’s Casino Plan but I wish they would reconsider endorsing the Governor’s plan to allow municipalities to implement a local meal tax.

I hoofed it over to the GLAD (Greater Lowell Area Dems) breakfast today. It was good, actually, I caught up with lots of people I hadn’t seen in a couple months.

Ed O’Reilly was also there, ahead of next month’s Democratic caucuses to determine delegates to the state convention. Ed is running against Senator Kerry in the 2008 primary for US Senate.

He discussed a range of issues and took questions. Ed is a very intense guy who obviously cares a great deal about serving the public. Going up against an incumbent Senator, especially in this state, is either a very brave or very crazy thing to do, depending on who you ask.

I’ve met Ed on a number of occasions, the first being last year’s state Democratic Issues Convention. I also had him on WUML as well. I wrote down some memorable quotes from Ed. On being for single payer health care and the Conyers bill, Ed told us that he finds it strange that in this country, you have a right to see a lawyer, but not a right to see a doctor. He also talked about how really, the underlying problem with our system is the special interest and lobbyist money that corrupts our system. He used the mortgage meltdown as an example. Here’s a place, he says, where the government is being reactive instead of proactive, because though this problem has been tracked for years, big banks and mortgage companies paid millions to keep the issue off the the Senate floor.

Ed decided to run because he was frustrated with John Kerry and the lack of real leadership, from the war in Iraq, to the votes he has made on bread-and-butters issues, to his abandonment of the Ohio voters when it was very apparent that there was widespread fraud and abuse, and where Kerry could have stepped up and been a part of the investigations there. Instead, Kerry was not a party to the lawsuits, nor to the official Congressional Objection to certifying Ohio’s vote. Instead, Barbara Boxer was the one to stand up and demand that full accounting.

But Ed is also running on his platform, which he says in right in line with the Massachusetts State Democratic platform on all the major issues. What is more, he says, as a trial lawyer, he knows when to fight and when to compromise. The underlying message seemed to be that his opponent Kerry only knows how to compromise, failing his constituency when it counts.

Given how frustrated I am personally with Kerry both before 2004 and after, I’d say he’s largely correct.

Ed O’Reilly’s next hurdle, and the reason for his statewide trek to Democratic town committees and groups, is that he needs 15% on the ballot at the Dem convention. The Lowell Dem Caucus for all the city’s Wards is scheduled for Saturday, February 2, 2pm, at the East End Club at 15 W. Fourth St. To attend the caucus and stand for election as a delegate, you have to be a registered Democrat. If you are interested, you can find out your Ward here. Though this is a presidential year, many wards go underrepresented merely because not enough people show up in that ward. Lowell has eleven of them.

I am not endorsing anyone yet in the Democratic primary, but if elected as a delegate, I would vote for him at convention. For two reasons: Ed is definitely a credible, articulate candidate for the Senate seat who deserves a shot. And second, because a competitive primary can only be a good thing for our party, allowing for more debate and discussion, and giving voters a real choice. If you too are interested in democracy and choice, and want to go to the convention (which, by the way, is being held at the Tsongas Arena in Lowell this year, ), get yourself to the caucus for your town. You can find when yours is scheduled here.

I also wanted to address my thoughts on another item that came up during today’s GLAD meeting.

Ed answered some questions, the most contentious coming someone I believe is a Kerry supporter and whose wife is employed as a blogger for Kerry. They are people who I do like personally but there seems to be a disconnect on facts between what Kerry has put out against O’Reilly, and Ed’s response. The first is that “he didn’t serve out his term on the Gloucester School Committee.” The second is remarks O’Reilly made to the Globe about the Swift Boat attacks.

Ed responded to what appears to me to be a really misleading attack on his service on that School Committee. He also writes about it here. It seems like Kerry supporters on BMG and elsewhere are doing the thing they are actually accusing O’Reilly of: stretching a fact and omitting the details to make something look worse than it is.

As to the Swift Boat incident, he admits he made a mistake giving any sort of quote to the Globe in the first place. The Globe was rehashing the Swift Boat incident because it was in the news again - because John Kerry brought it back by addressing new taunting from those same folks. The quote in question:

For Kerry, the public showdown with Pickens represents not only a belated engagement with old antagonists, but also an early strike against a Democratic primary opponent who signaled Monday that he welcomes the scrutiny of Kerry’s military record initiated by the Swift Boat ad campaign in 2004.

“It goes to his credibility,” said Ed O’Reilly, a Gloucester lawyer mounting a challenge to Kerry in the Democratic primary. “It needs to be cleared up.”

Knowing what I about interviews with reporters, there’s a whole lotta context that quote could have been in that sound a lot less “blaming the victim” than where it wound up. I am not excusing Ed, nor assuming the quote was more innocent, but if O’Reilly had said right before said quote that Kerry could clear this all up easily, and that it’s about perception…meaning that O’Reilly himself was not questioning Kerry’s actual credibility on this but how the public sees it, it’s perfectly reasonable. Again, I do not know this happened but newspapers are famous for cherrypicking quotes. If what O’Reilly says is true, at the time, he donated copiously to Kerry during the Swift Boat attacks to try and help fund Kerry’s response, which I will agree with O’Reilly, ended up a complete disaster. In that Kerry never really responded at all. It was the single moment in his campaign where you can argue he lost the election, and to all Democrats, one of the most painful things was to have another four years of W because Kerry listened to hard to his consultants and not to the people regarding the faked Swiftboat controversy.

The argument that Kerry supporters have made on blogs (here on BMG, and here) is that O’Reilly wants to continue the discredited conversation on the Swift Boat attacks from 2008. I don’t know about that. I will say, I think Ed got mired in trying to get down to that level. The things listed here as “lies and smears” by Kerstin, are they really untrue or smearing? Ed wrote on Dailykos:

All John Kerry needs to do is release his original discharge papers showing whether or not he was honorably discharged or was given a general discharge. It is really that simple. Once he produces the honorable discharge at the time of his discharge, together with the “exit interview”, all of this will be past us.

Yes, how is that untrue, exactly? What he’s saying is that this would all become moot if these things were done. The public’s perception is, however, that since Kerry was unwilling to release these papers and still is, there must be fire with that Swiftboat smoke. Ed was, it appears, trying to address the practical matter of what would curb the smears rather than promoting them. He didn’t say he disbelieves Kerry or his honorable service (on the contrary, he wanted him to fight back in 2004).

The second quote from O’Reilly’s dkos post had one sentence regarding Ed’s disappointment on Kerry not throwing his own metals. Though I don’t personally think that there’s any way we can say for sure which story of Kerry’s or the media’s is true, I do know that the minutia (were they metals or ribbons? his or someone else’s?) was silly (can anyone else remember everything they did in a whirlwind time 30 years ago?) and though this may or may not have been a successful tactic of Kerry’s opponents to get people to believe a possible smear and O’Reilly really shouldn’t have repeated it as fact, is it really the end of the world?

I would advise Ed O’Reilly not to get bogged down in that level of minutia in the first place, even defending oneself. But I do see a pattern of tactics on the part of the Kerry campaign to obfuscate all the facts in order to cherrypick for themselves that which they can use as an attack, particularly on the School Committee issue, as a problem which needs addressing, and I think O’Reilly gave us a credible explanation today.

Is Ed O’Reilly sometimes overenthusiastic? I’d say, yes. (Hell, if I faced an uphill battle running against an incumbant, and the Globe called, I’d damn well talk to them, as media coverage is scarce.) However, is he teh ebil? Not a chance. And Kerry supporters on the blogs are turning me off in a bigtime way. If I were them, I’d stop trying to drag the race into minutia themselves and concentrate on promoting the record of their candidate. Unless they feel they can’t defend it?

I’ll be on Warren Shaw’s radio show on WCAP tomorrow from 10am to 11am. You can listen on WCAP 980AM, or streaming over the web from the WCAP website.

I don’t expect there’s a specific topic, other than, of course, it’ll probably center around politics.

Yesterday afternoon, Lynne and I were discussing starting a “We want Karla to Stay Campaign.” Then last night George Anthes on his radio show on WCAP brought up the same issue. Actually, he “ranted.” So now we have three people in Lowell who want the present Lowell School Superintendent to remain that position. This could be the beginning of a movement. I know that she is still expressing her desire to move on but perhaps if clearer heads prevail, she could reconsider

Anthes demanded that the School Committee take a stand. If you do not want to extend a new contract, than say so. If you want her to leave, then let us know. So, we are looking for one School Committee person to introduce a motion to ask her to stay; of course, we will need a second. Then we will all know where you stand.

I am quite confident that Karla will get many suitors who are willing to pay as much as we did without some of the headaches. But will we find a better School Superintendent?

Interesting article on a discrimination suit against Sheriff DiPaola.

Tousignant, who claims he was an award-winning all-star in the department when he supported DiPaola politically, alleges his career stalled after he helped Lowell Police Acting Deputy Superintendent Robert DeMoura’s campaign, according to a lawsuit he filed yesterday.

…

A superintendent later told Tousignant that he better watch out because “Sheriff DiPaola was out to get him,” Powers wrote in the lawsuit.

Tousignant then faced roadblocks when it came to his requests for sick time and time off, and he had run-ins with DiPaola supporters in the following years, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit also details a day-long surveillance of Tousignant’s Chelmsford home by two unmarked cruisers when Tousignant called in sick. The men in the cruisers allegedly videotaped Tousignant’s house.

Surveillance? If these allegations are true, not only does it show DiPaola as paranoid, among other things, but also that he’s using taxpayer money to assuage his paranoia.

I find this at the end interesting:

The lawsuit comes as DiPaola faces another discrimination lawsuit filed last year by John Shankhour, a Syrian corrections officer who claims he was taunted by racial slurs in the workplace. Powers also represents Shankhour.

I’m not a big fan of DiPaola’s to begin with (to put it mildly) but if he’s really behaving in this manner, I’m glad someone is standing up to him.

If you haven’t read Jackie’s post on the Sun editorials (including Jackie’s) about the attacks on Karla Brooks Baehr, go read.

As Mr. Lynne said to me yesterday, it’s funny how the biggest critics of Baehr are those who are full-on charter school advocates…especially those who have a personal, financial stake in charter schools. Pablo posted on BMG linking to Jackie yesterday too.

I’m not a big charter school fan (I’m sorry, where does it say my tax dollars have to go to your profits in exchange for dubious results, again?), though there are lots out there that are stellar…on average, they appear to be rather hit-or-miss. I’m not sure experimentation on a large scale, on our taxpayer dime, is the real answer to our education woes. But in any case, those who are evaluating Baehr for the top education job in the state should look carefully when assessing critics like Madigan, not only for accuracy (which Jackie demonstrates Madigan is lacking), but also for motivation. If Madigan believes that Baehr will not advance the initiatives for charter schools (and there’s every indication Baehr is not a big pro-charter leader), Madigan has a personal and financial stake in jamming Baehr’s appointment to the position…possibly in favor of other candidates who might be more friendly to handing out taxpayer funds to private enterprises?

By the way, good on the Sun for allowing Jackie a full rebuttal. Matt Murphy has done a good job reporting on this as well. And I just spotted this new Sun article from today from Murphy and Chabot, where Patrick’s Board of Ed. Chairman, Reville, chastises the attackers, saying that “the ‘attacks’ on Baehr will not weigh heavily in the decision.”

So, that sort of makes my rant above moot, as I was advocating that the folks making the decision as to who gets the Education Commissioner job think carefully as to who’s doing the attacking in the first place. It appears they’re one step ahead of me, which is good, as they are apparently voting on this now.

Frankly, this bracing response from the Governor’s people makes me proud to have been part of his campaign. Good management is hard to find, folks.

As to the Sun’s reporting on this, I know I’m dooming Murphy and Chabot to dirty looks from Campanini in the hallway for saying this, but great job in following up with decision-makers, instead of letting the she-said, she-said side-by-side editorials be the end of it. Give those kids a raise.

On another note, here’s what’s cool about blogging. I started this piece as an Open Thread with a link to Jackie as sort of a conversation starter. Then it mushroomed into a real post, so I went with it. Then, I checked the Lowell Sun site again and caught the new Murphy/Chabot article (I don’t get the paper Sun, so it’s new to me anyway), so I decided to include a reaction to that as well. And voila! What was a two-line post evolves into something completely else.

UPDATE: Baehr did not get the job. It makes you wonder if the hit pieces had any effect. Likely we will never know.

Tonight the LTC annual meeting, largely a fun potluck gathering and presentation, included voting for the new board, which got in with no trouble. Officially, this involved confirming the City Council and City Manager appointees to the board, along with the slate of four open seats from the membership.

I’m happy to announce and congratulate Mimi of this very blog on her confirmation to the LTC board. I know she’s a hard worker and cares a lot about LTC and its community-oriented mission. I look forward to seeing great things from LTC. I’m a lot more optimistic given the recent changes. (And seriously, it’s fun down there, everyone should consider coming to the next orientation.)

I’d also like to congratulate Richard Howe, Jr. on his election to President of the LTC Board in the traditional post-annual-meeting gathering of the board. Cue the anti-Howe Lowell Sun Campanini ranting and raving in the next few days - if Campy’s true to form, the sky will fall under Dick’s ministration. Cuz, you know, bloggers are just “teh suck.” Nevermind that Dick has the organization’s mission of community media well in mind or his honest and fair sense of access for all comers, including people who disagree with him, as long as the argument’s an forthright one. I, however, am really looking forward to an active LTC Board, which has its work cut out for it in finding a new director.

Now, can we finally find the people to get the School Committee’s subcommittee meetings televised and archived? I know, I know, every time we get an inch, we ask for a mile. Our standards are high!

Edit: and I just want to give credit to City Manager Bernie Lynch, who found it important enough to come to the annual meeting, and stayed for the whole thing. I gathered from the talk that it’s really the first time in years that a CM has showed up.