Left In Lowell

The Sun has posted on their web site the resumes of the semi-finalists as selected by the School Superintendent Screening Committee, chaired by former Mayor and City Councilor Eileen Donoghue.

Eight of the 21 individuals who applied were selected but two have already withdrawn their names, so the semi-finalist contains 6 names. The Screening Committee will now interview them and recommend 5 of them to the School Committee for the final list. The School Committee reserved the right to add any of the names that did not make the short list. By the way, two of the six semi-finalists also have applied for positions in other communities and two others are already employees of the Lowell School Department. (more…)

First they shove Dr. Karla Brooks Baher out the door and now are they trying to do the same to a prominent Lowell non-profit , ONE Lowell, whose sole purpose is to assist Lowell’s immigrant community.

Last night at the High School Sub-Committee meeting, by a vote of 2-1, recommended to the full School Committee to have ONE Lowell activities suspended at the High School. Jackie has all the details on her blog. She writes:

For the last few years, the nonprofit agency has worked with the school district regarding student attendance (they are currently involved with truant students and their families from all but one of our middle schools as well as the high school). Funded completely by grants, the group improves student attendance at no cost to the district on a referral basis—schools refer severely truant students, parents sign waivers to allow the agency’s involvement, and ONE Lowell’s bilingual staff visit with families and refer them to other programs and services as needed to get their children to attend school.

So what did ONE Lowell do that required such a drastic move? Although the organization has provided a report, it seems that 2/3 of the Sub-Committee would like to have regular, prepared narrative on each student. I think it would have made sense to pass a motion formally asking for this information; isn’t suspension pretty drastic?

If you read the High School’s report presented to the Sub-Committee, you will notice that the school has a number of programs in place to combat truancy. However, the “home visit” component has run out of funds for the year. I would think that the School Committee realizing that fact would welcome a partnership with a non-profit and be eager to work out any communication issues they may have.

Stay tune for next Wednesday’s School Committee meeting to see how the vote goes. We need to start paying just as much attention to the School side of government as we do the City Council; otherwise our School system will remain in the hands of the politically motivated.

Sorry for ze lack of post today, but paid duty calls. I’m workin’ on some stuff. So like, I dunno, thread it yourselves! There’s lots to talk about.

I’ll be out for a bit so hopefully the other mods will approve comments (hint hint heh) until I can get back to the internets. Hope you are all having a swell day. Think spring!

What, you don’t trust these guys with your open and fair internet? From Free Press:

Comcast Blocks Public Debate at FCC Hearing
WASHINGTON — Comcast has admitted hiring people to fill up the limited number of seats at yesterday’s Federal Communications Commission hearing at Harvard. More than 100 people were turned away when the event reached capacity. The public hearing was part of the federal agency’s ongoing investigation into allegations that the cable giant is blocking consumers’ access to legal Web traffic.

Timothy Karr, campaign director of SavetheInternet.com, issued the following statement:

“First, Comcast was caught blocking the Internet. Now it has been caught blocking the public from the debate. The only people cheering Comcast are those paid to do so. Clearly, Comcast will resort to just about any underhanded tactic to stack the decks in its favor. And yet Comcast still expects us to trust them with the future of the Internet?”

Read Portfolio’s story.

Read the SavetheInternet.com blog.

On tonight’s City Council agenda is an item that frustrates me. “#9: Resolution-Supporting legislation licensing resort-style casinos in Commonwealth.”

The actual resolution is here. I shake my head reading it. To quote part:

WHEREAS, the Governor’s resort-style casino plan will generate $600 million-a-year in new public revenues, and $800 million in upfront license fee payments to the state. In addition, tens of millions of dollars per year will be generated in income, sales, meals, hotel and other taxes and economic activity;

Right. So the Governor, listening to casino proponents (ie, casino lobbyists) gives out a bunch of numbers. Is the city council going to actually fall for this? I hope not. There’s a word for people who do: gullible.

There is, of course, nothing in the resolution about the dollars lost having to pay for addiction councilors, added police and court costs, the loss of taxable revenue of the entertainment dollars that will fail to go to other venues, or the closing of many restaurants and entertainment businesses as people decide to go to the casino instead. No mention of the dirty casino lobby, its penchant for screwing the state later on by getting the legislature to lower the tax on casinos, or the deteriorating situation you get with casinos in your vicinity. Nope. Just pie-in-the-sky numbers and a hope and a prayer.

If it’s too good to be true, it probably is. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Someone’s going to have to pay for it. I don’t think $600 million is worth it. In fact, it’s not going to be $600 million dollars, is it? It’s going to be significantly less, given all the other factors that are being ignored. Probably even a net loss. But we don’t know for sure, do we? Because we have not gotten any sort of objective study that tells us the real numbers. Just lobbyist dribble.

Vote it down, guys. Or, if you really want to examine this issue going forward, support a resolution for studying this issue for serious, get the real numbers, the real data, so that we can make sure that this route isn’t the screwfest for our state that I’m pretty certain it will be. That would be a real useful resolution if you ask me.

On today’s WBUR news, I heard a snippet of important reporting from yesterday’s Cambridge FCC public hearing on net neutrality. It sounds like the Chair, who is a Republican Bush appointee, is quoted as being against allowing the ISPs (internet providers) to pick and choose what traffic they can stifle. That’s good news for the future of free and fair use of the internet. You can listen or read the transcript of the report.

The Federal Communications Commission may have fired the first shot in what some are calling a fight over the future of the internet. Following a hearing in Cambridge yesterday, the head of the FCC said he’s ready to punish internet providers who purposefully slow down the transfer of massive files such as videos. WBUR’s Business and Technology Reporter Curt Nickisch has more.

[snip]

NICKISCH: After the hearing, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he’s prepared to stop Internet providers from hobbling traffic. That’s a key statement from a Republican who generally favors the market sorting things out on its own. Martin and the rest of the panel may get some help from Massachusetts Congressman Edward Markey. He introduced a bill last week that would give the FCC more authority on the issue.

This is why.

Commonwealth Care, the subsidized insurance offered by the state, is likely to get a hell of a lot more expensive this year — premiums up by 14%, co-pays way up.

Look, I’m all for universal health care. But I am not interested in poor-quality, expensive corporate welfare windfalls to piss-pot corporations. (Does it show that I’ve tangled with my own HMO far too often, given how much we’re paying?)

Public money for private health care is neither practical, affordable, or even that much help for the people who can afford it/get subsidized. It costs too much in overhead (private insurances’ administration costs far exceed that of public care here or in other countries…hiring people to deny you care), plus then there’s that pesky need to make a profit besides (that Medicare does not have). Health care solutions that mandate the public to buy into private health insurance explode into wasteful taxpayer boondoggles that only benefit the wealthy corporations that are already fleecing those of us with health insurance in the private sector.

Health insurers have proven time and again that they cannot, will not, or enjoy not fixing the problem. Their corporate need to make as big a buck as possible collides with the public good. That’s why health care mandates that do not include an option to opt into a central public health care system are doomed to failure while giving free money to private corporations that are already making a pretty penny. Maybe Obama’s health care won’t cut it either, but I refuse to think that the best way to go about this is to punish the middle class which won’t be subsidized and force them to get substandard care via the private sector, as Clinton’s health care plan does.

Last Tuesday’s the City’s Department of Planning and Development released the Draft Award list for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 2008-2009 program year Activities and Draft Award List. These programs fund local activities which benefit low-income and moderate-income residents and neighborhoods

The awardees make-up who is who in Lowell’s non-profit, charitable, humanitarian, social service community as well as the City of Lowell. Next year program funds are estimated to equal $4,380,763.26 but there will be about $23,000,000 of matching funds which will come from other Federal government sources, the State, as well as local and private donors.

The DPD also released the 2008-2009 Action Plan. (Caution: the pdf file contains 178 pages). According to the DPD web pages, “The Draft Plan will be available for review and public comment for a period of 30-days, beginning February 19, 2008 and ending March 21, 2008. All written comments received will be included in the Final Plan sent to HUD along with the City’s responses. The Draft Plan will need to be approved by the City Council prior to submitting it to Federal Government. And for those who do not like the internet, printed copies of the document are available at the DPD and the Library. (more…)

Last October when I wrote a post agreeing with Kendall Wallace, a lively debate ensued, even by LiL standards. So, here we go again.

The former Lowell Sun editor wrote in his weekly Saturday Chat on the recent discussion/debate/fight on the establishment of a central cultural office. This new position would coordinate the City’s marketing efforts and support the emerging and promising creative economy.

For background link here to Lynne’s (LiL) post or here to Dick’s (richadhowe.com).

In his column, Wallace quotes a 25-year old report written at behest the late Paul Tsongas.

‘Lowell is changing. It has been in the process of physical and economic revitalization over the past few years, preserving its heritage while finding new meaning and creative ways of flourishing in the modern world.

Resistance to change in Lowell is strong. Tradition and personal allegiances cloud objectivity and impede new directions. People who have influence fear losing it; some who will be asked to perform their jobs differently will feel unappreciated and overwhelmed and some will find it easier to stand on the sidelines and criticize rather than commit significant efforts and monies toward improvement.’

Yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. So here we are 25 years later and fighting the same battle. (more…)

Today’s Boston Globe’s Northwest section has a lead article on Lowell Police Superintendent Ken Lavallee and the drop in the overall crime rate.

The piece written by Russell Contreras, who covers Lowell for the Globe, points out:

Last year [2007, Lowell saw 4,199 reported crimes, down from 4,272 in 2006.
Total violent crimes - which include homicide, rape, and aggravated assault - fell 4.2 percent in 2007, while overall property crimes saw a 1 percent decline. There were 880 violent crimes last year, compared with 920 the year before. The number of property crimes dropped to 3,319 from 3,352.

As the paper reported, last week the Chief told the CC Public Safety Sub-Committee that “We [Police Department] are definitely making progress, but we still have a lot of work to do…I’m pleased, but I’m not completely atisfied.” (more…)