Friday Quick Hits
I’ll steal Charley’s frequent BMG headline and throw in some local stuff I hadn’t had a chance to comment on yet this week
- Yesterday’s Sun reported there’s a chance that the Hamilton Canal District will lose $500K in funding from the state. Not good. From the Sun:
Lowell is in danger of losing $500,000 in state funding for the Hamilton Canal District revitalization project because of what some officials on Beacon Hill view as a lack of need or interest from the city.
City officials during the past two years have made a habit of waiting until the end of the fiscal year to apply for the money that has been earmarked annually in the state budget for the project.
The need to consistently remind the city that the money is waiting for it, however, has led some House budget writers to view the earmark as expendable, telling the city’s Statehouse delegation they question whether Lowell needs the money at all, officials told The Sun.
Adam Baacke, Lowell’s assistant city manager for planning and development, said the city depends on that money to move the project along, and the timing has had nothing to do with the city not wanting to use the grant.
It sounds to me like maybe the timing for the use of the money may have given the wrong impression of the need. If there’s one thing our state delegation does well, it’s bring home the bacon. But I would also like to remind the legislature and the Governor of the newly coined “Growth Districts” of which the Hamilton and JAM plans are ready-made plans of such, even if not yet officially designated by Gov. Patrick. It would be nice to see Lowell fast-tracked as a Growth District, as the groundwork has been laid out and the goals are similar already. I’m guessing that would make such earmarks as we desperately need to move forward on the plans less vulnerable. Whaddaya say, Governor?
- The Sun also reported that Rep. Murphy (who represents the Highlands and Acre), has an Independent opponent this season, one Kenneth Patrician, an Iraq vet. Should be interesting to watch. I think challenges are good for our Reps, though I prefer intra-party primaries.
- Reporters write the stories, but the editor(s) pick the headlines. I mean, “Board to discuss Lowell superintendent’s contract behind closed doors” isn’t that provocative but you get the impression of a lack of transparency from it. The actual article is about the decision on whether to give Baehr her unpaid sick and vacation pay. But anyone knows that discussion of contracts and other employee negotiations is never done in public session. They are, by nature, something you do in private, because they are of a sensitive nature. To imply there’s something fishy about it just shows the bias of the editor when choosing the title (which doesn’t really describe the content of the article at all!). When are we going to get the professional editor we deserve running our local daily?
On the actual issue itself (amending the contract so that “non-renewal” by the employee fails to entitle her to her unpaid time off), I think that though we have budget woes and of course we’d like to save some of the $50,000 we owe Dr. Baehr according to her contract, it’s severely unfair to change the rules like this midstream. Totally unprofessional. If Dr. Baehr chose to work hard and not take vacations, or sick time, and it’s in the contract she and the Board negotiated and signed back when, it makes us look like ungrateful wretches to deny it to her. It’s money we would have paid had she taken those vacation and sick days, isn’t it? I hope that SC member Leary can take that into account. I hardly expect expect Faticanti, Conway, or Caulfield to change their minds on this, fair or not.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
#1 they can NOT take back earned vacation! That’s a state law.
#2 I believe I read that Baehr has earned something just over 30 days sick time. If they denied that to me I’d be calling in sick EVERY SINGLE DAY from now until Jun 30 when my contact expires! Bet *that* would make for a really smooth transition huh?
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I have to respectfully disagree with you this time Lynne (sorry). The School committee voted to amend the rules mid-stream. It’s not as though this was a benefit in her contact all along that they’re contemplating taking away. She never had it. Her original contract did not allow for this buyback if she choose not to renew the contact. That was the contract that was signed by both parties. The SC chose to amend it to give her money that she was not entitled to per the terms of her long standing agreement. Accrued vacation time must be paid out per wage laws. It’s is owed to her as it is to any other employee public or private. She was entitled to that whether it was in her contract or not. The Sick time is a whole different ball of wax. Most people in the private sector lose it upon terminating employment. Regardless of how employment was terminated. It’s a use or lose proposition. Some municipal employee contracts offer a buy back by percentage (usually 25-30%) upon retirement. But not upon a general separation. Many public entities have negotiated a “cap” on the retirement leave buy back value (example: 25% of the value of sick days on record not to exceed $5,000.00. Still others have an annual “buy back sick leave” provision whereby employees can sell back to the municipality a determined-contractual amount of sick days for cash. It’s really a racket. It is next to impossible to get these benefits out of union contracts once they are in. The amendment will give Carla something that she did not originally negotiate. That is the reality of the situation. Whether or not it was an oversight by either party doesn’t matter. She’s had a number of contract renewals that she could have negotiated this benefit if she wanted to. She didn’t and that was her mistake. I think the committee did the wrong thing by amending her contact at this late date. It just looks bad no matter how you slice it. The should have just let it be.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
why is the guy running against Murphy complaining about the VA? shouldn’t he run against Tsongas if thats his issue. I cant believe how many people don’t understand the difference between state and federal?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I was under the impression that the VA wasn’t as much the problem so much as the military hospitals. I hope he just has them confused and this doesn’t indicate an ominous turn for the VA.
From Ezra: