Email us!
LiL Fundraising for Elizabeth Warren!
Lowell Area Bloggers/Forums
- Art is the Handmaid of Human Good
- Blog from the Office of the City Manager, Lowell MA
- Captains Log (Paul Belley)
- Choosing a Soundtrack
- Corey Sciuto
- Downtown Lowell Blog
- Dracut Forum
- Dracut Musings
- Dracut Politics
- gerrynutter'slowell
- JackieDoherty.org
- Lowell Deeds
- Lowell Police Dept WebNews
- Lowell Public Schools Blog
- Lowellest Common Denominator
- lowellresident
- Middlesex Community College Blog
- MV Homlessness Blog
- RichardHowe.com
- Right-Side-of-Lowell
- Tewksbury Issues
- The New Englander
Lowell Politics
Mass Bloggers
- - Leftyblogs MA Blogroll - Almost all of my favorite lefty blogs in Massachusetts can be found here. Linking here keeps my own blogroll short but still up to date! Below are some other MA blogs which are not listed at LB.
- H2Otown (Watertown, MA)
- MargeBLOG (Williamstown)
- Michael Forbes Wilcox (Western MA)
- The Gazebo (Worcester area)
Media in Lowell
- Chelmsford Mass News
- Community Connections The online archive of many of WUML's radio shows.
- LTC :: Our community cable access channel (8 & 10). Excellent people, I've worked with them before.
- Open Source :: Chris Lydon's new show, broadcast on WUML and WGBH locally.
- The Lowell Sun :: Love it or hate it, it's the big newspaper in town.
- WCAP radio :: Talk radio in Lowell - still locally owned, and in transition.
- WUML :: The student- and community-run radio station of UMass-Lowell. Lynne hosts a radio show, Thinking Out Loud, 10am on Fridays.
Media in MA
Other Daily Reads
Politics Online
- City Council Agenda Past City Council agendas, posted in a mostly timely manner
- Lowellma.gov Official city website
Progressive Local Orgs
Snark and politics
The Arts in Lowell
- 119 Gallery - Art gallery with exhibitions of many local artists, interesting events, and living, breathing culture.
- Arts League of Lowell (ALL) - Artist community group, a recent but welcome addition to the arts scene in Lowell.
- Brush Art Gallery - Come and meet working artists in their natural habitats!
- Cultural Organization of Lowell (COOL) - Great local calendar of events.
- Lowell Opera Company - Community opera.
- Lowell Philharmonic Orchestra - Local community orchestra.
- Lowell Poetry Network
- Lowell Rocks - List of live music events
- Merrimack Repertory Theatre - A local theatre "presenting an exciting mix of contemporary and new plays in historic downtown Lowell."
- OUtlET - Paper and online 'zine making a splash locally with events in art, poetry, music, and everything in between!
- Revolving Museum Contemporary, local, public art space with a plethora of children's programs and art by and for the community.
- The Fine Print - Socially aware, themed, arts and issues periodic publication available throughout Lowell.
- The Image Theater - Theatre company which puts on all original works by local playwrights.
- Whistler House Museum - A great collection of contemporaries of Whistler at his historic birthplace.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:52 am
Thanks Jim.
July 11th, 2009 at 8:56 am
This is a outstanding example of leadership by Councilor Milinazzo.
July 11th, 2009 at 9:48 am
it has nothing to do with it an election approaching and milanazzo reading this blog and sensing the sharks area closing in?
are we now applauding wallace and his minion phelps for jumping on the 6 councilors? the same wallace who is a villain every other time? convenient.
lets get back to arguing about somebodys address…compelling!!
July 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Thanks to Jim.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Leader or opportunist? Time will tell.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Oh for god’s sake…we can’t applaud people when they do the right thing now, because we disagreed with them in the past?
The future of Lowell is way too important not to accept help from ANY source.
Jim is sticking his neck out for this and to be honest, I think it’s about convictions and not convenience. Convenience would be not pissing off that portion of the GOB electorate any more than he already has. Convenience would be for this to go away and for him to get on with a quiet campaign.
Milanazzo has put himself out there and if you think he’s right, you had better show up on Tuesday.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Anyway, if this is a democracy, (unfaked) pressure from a constituency is a GREAT reason to go forward with something. Don’t we want our voice to be considered when our elected officials make their decisions? So even if this is about “opportunism,” is that the worst thing? I’d rather it be about pleasing the electorate than pleasing the elite cronies.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Congrats, Jim. Your motion will go down in flames 6-3.
July 11th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Leadership? PLEASE…looks like pandering to me. It only took him 4 weeks, plenty of bitching and moaning by the regular contributors on this site and the Donahue op ed piece…give me a break
July 11th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
correction: the Sun editorial and the donahue letter
July 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Considering it was Milanazzo who brought the motion to reconsider, the very next meeting after the budget hearing, and THIS Tuesday is only ONE meeting after that, “TJM,” I’d say he’s actually doing the best he can in the schedule that the CC meets in.
Wow, give me a break. This is pretty pathetic, this whining and moaning.
July 11th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
my main point is that w/out the sun editorial, the phelps article, constant chatter on this site and the aforementioned letter to the editor - Milinazzo isn’t calling for an investigation…is that true leadership? I guess it is to LiL
July 11th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
Gee, you know that for certain? That’s a huge assumption. We can’t know that since we’re not omniscient. Unless you’re claiming to know the inner thoughts of Councilor Milanazzo?
And again, I point out that an engaged electorate getting their voice heard by an elected official who is willing to be pursuaded…is NOT something to complain about. He still had to decide to do it, if indeed your absolute left field assumption is correct.
Whine whine whine. Someone doesn’t do something and you whine. Someone does do something and you whine. Nothing can ever satisfy some people.
July 12th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Great point Lynne, how could I ever know that for certain?
What I do know for certain is, “a courageous leader” would have called for an investigation a lot earlier, regardless of the cc meetig schedule, not conveniently wait for support to build.
I will give you this…on this issue he is stepping up more than martin and brodrick. However, before we nominate milanazzo for the next Profiles in Courage award, lets find out what took him so long to call for an investigation?
As far as your rant about whining goes…I find it amusing coming from someone whos’ own blog makes a living constantly whining about the Lowell Sun, the GOB’s or anyone else that disagrees with you or your Lynch loving agenda.
But thats also why I visit, so keep up the good work.
July 12th, 2009 at 7:07 am
TJM:
Let me assure you that Lynne nor I “make a living” at this. I would venture to guess that Lynne has lost income in her business because of this blog.
As far as CC Milinazzo, from that very moment when “that” vote was taken, he spoke up. Furthermore, I heard very few voices in our community say anything. Maybe it is because some people are concerned about how they make a living.
But I appreciate your participation. This is what it is all about. More people getting involved in the dicussion and decision making.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Agenda much, “TJ”?
We critique the Lowell Sun when we see something missing, factually inaccurate, or not covered as thoroughly as it should be. You seem to have a selective memory, however, because when we see something useful or well done in the Sun, we link to it, quote from it, and praise it. This is on a case by case basis, because unlike the GOB, we like a reality based commentary using facts and not personal loyalties. That’s what scares the pants off them when it comes to this blog and us, and makes them hate us so much.
We do NOT have a Lynch loving agenda. That would be called projection (you know, believing someone else has the same sort of mindset as you do because that’s how YOU see the world). We are not cronies. We have nothing to lose or gain from Lynch staying or leaving, save the general well being OF THIS CITY. This was NEVER about Lynch in particular. It’s about professionalism versus cronyism in our city government.
Lynch knows full well if he ever pulled the kind of shit we see from the Good Old Boys, he would lose our support faster than you could say “compromised.” But every time I see an “accusation” of cronyism about Lynch from the “other side” and look into it, it turns out to be complete bull. Sorry, but I need proof and facts to change my mind. Not rumors and innuendo, unlike Rita Mercier who “never met the man” but called Sheehan arrogant. Yeah, OK.
Milanazzo HAS spoken up VERY strongly since the incident in question. Again, selective memory. Or maybe you didn’t hear his speech when he brought up the motion to reconsider?
Sure keep reading, and keep commenting if you feel inclined, but you’ll have to do better than that.
July 12th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“This was NEVER about Lynch in particular. It’s about professionalism versus cronyism in our city government.”
This point cannot be stressed enough.
The city is steadily climbing up to rival the best in MA. We must stay course.
July 12th, 2009 at 11:52 am
There is no way that Rita, Bud or any of the others (except Rodney the Weasel) will admit they may have been wrong on that vote. If they vote for Milinazzo’s motion, they’re admitting that the vote didn’t pass the smell test. If I had the threat of lawsuit hanging over my head, I’d bury this one.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
A vote is a vote and elected officials should not be investigated for casting a vote (unless incidental to a contribution or something, and even then the vote itself should never be penalized). A sacrosanct component of a free government is that members of legislative bodies, as the Constitution puts it, “shall not be questioned in any other place”.
July 12th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
PC, I don’t think even Rodney will change his vote. After all he is the one who said he doesn’t even know what Andy Sheehan did. Rodney has taken a terrible hit from his comments and vote on this issue, losing some of his most loyal supports and backers. And I know what I am speaking of because I am one one of those who are extremely, EXTREMELY(!) disappointed in him.
July 12th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Christopher:
I do not understand what you are saying. The question is did the City Council have the legal authority to take that kind of vote? Some of us think not.
Please explain your views based on the specifics of this case; it will be easier for me to understand. Thanks.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
TJM is right on target about Milinazzo pandering. It’s been too long since this bull started to make a move now. TJM is also right about Left in Lowell loving Bernie Lynch. Just admit it. He’s so “professional”. No back door politics with him.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“Lynch knows full well if he ever pulled the kind of shit we see from the Good Old Boys”
Lynne?! Language. Tone it down please. I don’t want to give you a warning.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:59 am
“But every time I see an “accusation” of cronyism about Lynch from the “other side” and look into it, it turns out to be complete bull.”
REALLY???
July 13th, 2009 at 8:47 am
To “A Concerned Taxpayer”: your scepticism should be backed with some evidence at least. A simple “REALLY???” lends nothing to the discussion.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:50 am
Yes, “REALLY.” Unless you think I’m making that up?
If you think you have something, by all means, spit it out. Back it up with facts and not rumor, innuendo, or plain old spite. (Which is what I’m guessing is the reason the description “arrogant” has been ascribed to Sheehan by what I can guess is some disgruntled employee who complained to Rita Mercier, while everyone else whom I know and trust who knows Sheehan personally says that’s the opposite of the truth). Otherwise, you are not convincing anyone who would rather know what’s really happening instead of flinging around accusations willy nilly.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
RE: comment #21
Maybe I’m confused, but it sounds like legal action is being threatened against Councilors for taking a vote and I think that is inappropriate. If their vote violated a state law then I court could/should simply render it unenforceable and thus null and void. This would be like Congress passing an unconstitutional law which happens from time to time. If the investigation is simply to determine whether the vote can take effect that’s fine, but Councilors should never have to wonder whether their votes per se will land themselves in legal hot water.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Lynne,
How about Bernie’s backroom deal with trinity ambulance…if that’s not cronyism I don’t know what is?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Maybe that’s called “professional” cronyism?
Please enlighten us
July 13th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Christopher: if the City Councilors voted to murder someone, would that be OK then too?
This weird thing you say that they have some right to vote on whatever they want just because it’s an official vote is, to say the least, extremely puzzling.
The statute in question makes it VERY clear: violations are prosecutable. Fines, jail time, and loss of ability to hold local office. What part of this do you think doesn’t apply?
July 13th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Oh here we go…
TJM: Prove to me that this was cronyism and not the best deal we the city could get at the time this was enacted? No, seriously. This is ridiculous. Just because someone knows someone doesn’t mean automatic cronyism. If the best deal/best person for the job sends a proposal, they shouldn’t be eliminated just because someone knows someone. What is, however, supposed to happen, is that transparency should reign and all cards be on the table so we can, as the public, evaluate it. So far as I know, there’s nothing that came out of any of these accusations that shows there was an issue, short of enemies of certain people trying to get some traction.
Show me the money. Until then, expect to be dismissed.
July 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“…but Councilors should never have to wonder whether their votes per se will land themselves in legal hot water. ”
Absurd. I want Councilors considering the legal implications of their votes (to themselves and to the city) all the time. It sounds as if you’re envisioning a world in which it is impossible to commit a crime with a vote,… a situation that would cripple just about all public corruption law with regard to legislators. Thankfully, that’s not the world we live in. We actually have laws that carry consequences. If your contention is that the plan E law isn’t fair,… fine. Petition the legislature to change it. In the meantime it is what it is and should be enforced.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Paul And Lynne,
I did “spit out facts” many times before on this blog and now it appears as though someone else is bringing it up, The Ambulance Contract?? How do you know this was the best deal for the city when in fact no one else was allowed to bid??? The problem here is that John Chemaly has greased so many palms no one wants to discuss it. I’m asking you to be a little more impartial here and admit that Mr. Lynch may have made a mistake.
July 13th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
He’s talking about this, presumably.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Mr. Lynne-Yup!
July 13th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Did I read that link correctly…chelmsford is given 60k for an 1/8 of the call volume of Lowell and we only get a 150k?
Chemaly must of had kevin murphy negotiating for him..
Uh,oh Lynne…this isn’t looking good for Bernie
July 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I wouldn’t get all excited TJM. I doubt that the Ambulance business scales up or down linearly with call volume. Most business don’t, which is why we get the term ‘economies of scale’.
Just noting that it isn’t linear isn’t actually very suspicious at all.
July 13th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
What, just because you say “Uh,oh Lynne…this isn’t looking good for Bernie” I’m supposed to believe you?
As I recall this has been looked into already, but if you insist, I’ll go ahead and look into it again. *rolls eyes*
July 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Without the risk of loosing my job I will offer the following…Lets be clear about something…this ambulance thing is far from over….The Sun has been calling around to the “players” involved…I would expect a article in the Sun soon looking into this a little deeper…which they should be…I could care less about Bernie or the GOBs but this whole deal STINKS of cronyism…Chelm recently put their ambulance contract out to bid…The TM didn’t HAVE to put it out to bid as it fell under the same statutes as the towing contract…but guess what… he did!…Chelm was also serviced by Trinity for the last decade or so…but the TM decided not to play politics and put it out to Bid…in the BEST interests of the taxpayers…..As far as Lowell goes….I do know FOR A FACT another very local, very able well respected provider is very much willing to do this contract for MORE money than the deal that was negotiated between Bernie and his long time ummm….”business” associate” John Chemlay of Trinity Amb…but guess what Lynn how are we supposed to know the city “got the best deal” w/o a competitive bidding process?..And Lynne your comments that “transparency should reign” and that “all the cards should be on the table”…Do you read what you write!? How in your good consciense could you say that this ambulance deal is both transparent and in the best interests of the city? Even the city councilors were caught off guard.. Ask yourself this ?, imagine the LIL response had former CM Cox privately negotiated a towing contract w/ Alan Kazanjian 4-5 years ago when the city decided they could be reimbursed for their expenses related to towing? OMG!!!…this site would have blown up!! But no… all you’ve done is defend his actions by “amending” the current ambulance contract w/ Trinity…”amending” a contract by adding in a payment of $150K! What!? Any lawyers on this blog? Thats not amending a contract! Try “amending” a purchase and sales agreement by adding in a few zeros at the end and you could end up in jail….seriously, take a step back and objectively evaluate this situation…this contract smells of old school “I’ll wash your back if you wash mine”…And Mr Lynne..as far as “economies of scales”…Fitchburg gets $400K from their town ambulance provider..I believe Fitchburg is about 1/2 the size of Lowell…food for thought anyone?…. oh and while I’m on my rant..the city council voted to line item a budget item…not a position…which is entirely within their right…and a resounding 6-3 vote!
July 13th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
http://www.ci.fitchburg.ma.us/.
Fitchburg has about 41,000 residents according to their own site and they recieved $400k!????
Bernie - say it isn’t so…you must have had good reason for only getting us 150k…what is it?
July 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Re: Comments 30/32
Maybe the law needs to be changed, but voting itself on the part of elected officials should never lead to jail and fines. They should follow the advise of legal counsel, but still the only consequence is that the vote is not executed. As for a vote to murder, that is essentially a Bill of Attainder which would have no force of law even if the vote were unanimous. The one who actually pulled the trigger should be prosecuted under state law and hopefully the ones who voted for it would suffer at the polls. Protecting rights against legislative votes is a legitimate concern, but that is why we have courts, to make sure that bad laws and votes for something illegal do not take effect. As to corruption, while the vote could be introduced into evidence, I contend that the prosecution is for taking the bribe, not for taking the vote. For centuries of development of constitutional law in the English tradition, legislatures have insisted that their acts not be legally challenged. It is indeed essential for a free government to function. In this case in particular, I’m puzzled why it would not be well within Council’s right to eliminate a city position, but if they can’t do that all they did is waste their time with an invalid vote; Mr. Sheehan gets to keep his position after all and life goes on.
July 13th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
“…votes for something illegal do not take effect.”
Sure, but what you are saying is that those same votes (correctly not taking effect or illegally actually taking effect) should have no legal consequences.
What they can’t do is use a legal mechanism toward an illegal end. The illegal end here is interference in the CM’s personnel prerogatives. It’s legal for me to drive my car, but that doesn’t me blanket immunity for any vehicular act. Same with votes.
I don’t buy your English cite. We had a war over the particulars of government accountability.
As for the bribe example, we’re talking about different phases of the same crime. The setup and then the follow-through. The bribery in and of itself is a crime, but the vote is additionally a corrupt act.
This concept that official duties should be prescribed some kind of official immunity is exactly the thinking behind the ‘following orders’ defense. Acts that are part of legal duties have never been considered ‘legally sacrosanct’ by definition.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
The man has a blog and an email address. Please, by all means… go over there and (respectfully) ask the man for his reasoning. Then come back here and post the same comment. If you’re concerned about your anonymity, go make a new gmail account.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Thank you Lynne.
July 13th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
The current ambulance contract was signed 4 years ago at an annual rate of $1 for 5 years.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Waittilnextyr- What a deal they’ve been getting huh? Just on a side note-Check out the political contributions from the owners of Trinity to the City Councilors? You will see that they’ve exceeded their yearly contributions as individuals, so they’ve had to “reach out” to family members for their additional contributions. NO ONE wants to take this on because the owners of Trinity EMS are such ” charitable guys.” Come on- dig deeper! This is a pot that needs to be stirred!!
July 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
RE: Comment #42
“Sure, but what you are saying is that those same votes (correctly not taking effect or illegally actually taking effect) should have no legal consequences.” - exactly right, I feel very strongly about this.
“I don’t buy your English cite. We had a war over the particulars of government accountability.” - and there IS accountability via both the ballot box and institutional checks and balances. One could argue that certain provisions of the Patriot Act, for example, are unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court were to indeed rule such are you really calling for jail time for every member of Congress who voted for it? Expulsion from Council may be in order in extreme circumstances, but I don’t know if that’s provided for in Lowell.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Political liability and legal liability are two very very very different things. One has the effect of setting legal precedent. The other does not. Illegal dictators can get political liability. In your system you’d have to conclude that if a legislature engineers a (non-due-process) coup and the judiciary lets them do it should be ok. By this standard the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe was ‘legal’.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:22 am
The ambulance discussion started with this comment:
“How about Bernie’s backroom deal with trinity ambulance…if that’s not cronyism I don’t know what is?”
Then the “concerned” taxpayer jumped on it. However, with the 5-year deal for $1 having been signed well before Lynch was City Manager, one has to wonder how recently the taxpayer has become concerned.
As far as contracts such as the ambulance and towing, it is wise for the City to cover all its related costs through these type of contracts. If it takes competitive bidding by qualified providers to achieve those payments, that is the better way to proceed. However, bidding up the return to the City should not be another form of taxation, where the City receives substantially more than its costs, as the citizens end up paying the bill.
The CM has included $150K in his revenue forecast on the basis that he could reasonably cover the associated City expenses with that. Given that the contract is for $1 for the next year, it is reasonable to assume the provider will want a contract extension (is it 1 or 2 years) to up is payment for this year. Alternatively, we could live with the $1 payment for this year and compete for a longer term contract next year. That would have required the CC to reduce this year’s revenue in the budget by $149,999, and action they did not take.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:45 am
The loss of that budget savings might also have been for next year depending on when the contract was up. This wasn’t just a ‘get the savings’ issue, it was also a cash flow issue. The question is ‘does the benefit of applying the savings now, given current cash flow issues, make up for not having those savings until later when the contract is up but potentially getting more savings through a bid process?’ I’d guess the answer depends on ‘how much savings now?’ and ‘how long an extension?’ (all negotiations are give and take). This is a judgment call.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:01 am
RE: #48
Well, yes, though it would be most unfortunate. We do have to trust that our checks and balances will work, but there’s just as much chance that law enforcement would be in cahoots and decline to prosecute. Law enforcement is an executive/judicial function, but cannot and should not infringe on a vote. Again, if a legislative body took illegal action (say actually went to Mr. Sheehan’s office to physically drag him out) that would be prosecutable, but a vote itself is just a vote and the Council chamber is involable. To this day the British monarch cannot so much as step foot in the House of Commons after Charles I entered and demanded the arrest of five of its members for taking official action he didn’t like. Even the Queen’s messanger, Lord Black Rod, gets the door slammed in his face as reminder that the legislature is independent. Instead of worrying about extreme examples, let’s go back to this case. If Mr. Sheehan believes he was wrongfully terminated he can go to court to get his dismissal enjoined. The court would ultimately rule whether Council had the authority to dismiss him/eliminate his office and I would be fine with either decision. My argument in a nutshell is this:
Checks and balances - YES!
Legal penalties - NO!
July 14th, 2009 at 10:16 am
“…a vote itself is just a vote and the Council chamber is involable.” That’s an opinion of preference, not a statement of current law.
“If Mr. Sheehan believes he was wrongfully terminated he can go to court to get his dismissal enjoined.”
So the only way to get a court to rule would be for Sheehan himself to bring it up. Problem is, this isn’t fair at all to Sheehan because taking your boss to court is never good on a resume. So he’s disnincentivised to ‘break the log jam’. Furthermore, the legal cover you give the Council can create a situation where the Solicitor gives ‘pliant’ legal advice for fear of her job as well. That leaves outside action, which you would prohibit.
Giving legal cover to any vote a Council might want to take is to give them license to act like a Mafia for as long as they can get away with it politically.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Hey hon, sorta like any given Tribunal, eh? Popularity contest…
(Sorry, gaming reference which no one but Mr. L, Ryan, and me will get, LMAO.)
July 14th, 2009 at 11:47 am
RE #53
I’ve said already that maybe it’s the law that needs to be changed. There may be others with standing, such as the Manager himself, if he wants to argue that Council is unlawfully interfering with his authority to run the city, but again that’s a court case. I’m interested in remedying the final result and action, not punishing people for voting incorrectly. To me THAT carries the much higher risk of potential abuse. We don’t arrest members of Congress for improper votes and Council should be given the same consideration.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Waittil-
I became “concerned” when the contract wasn’t put out to bid and no one else was ALLOWED to bid. I’m really surprised that you don’t find fault with this.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
So Taxpayer, you were concerned five years ago but didn’t get around to mentioning it? Or was it because it was Cox that was giving out the contract and getting nothing for the City? But now when Lynch is getting something you are “concerned”? Or, are you now interested and “concerned” because you’ve started an ambulance company?
July 14th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Sigh, do we really need to rehash this?
The fact is, we would have got zilch, zip, nada without the (very short as I recall) extension on the contract. Because we were stuck in a dumb contract by the former CM.
Second, this WILL be put out to bid when the contract terms are up. Let. Me. Repeat. The work will be put. Out. To. Bid. When. The. Current. Terms. Are. Up.
Third, if you were so concerned about cronyism, why aren’t you even more pissed about the Sheehan vote among other things and plastering yourself all over those comments? Or is it WHO is perceived (however incorrectly) to be perpetrating the cronyism?
Fourth, really, don’t you cronies have anything better than this? Because it’s really sad.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Elmer & Lynne
Just for the record, I don’t own an ambulance company. I’m actually employed in a vastly different industry. I’m also not a GOB, but I guess when you disagree here, it makes you one. There are more than just 2 factions in this city other than the liberals and the GOBs and my opinions are independent of either. I just call them when I see them. I will give credit where credit is due and say that I think the CM is doing a pretty decent job running this city and my comments are not an attempt, as you assume, to bring him down. My one criticism of him has been clearly stated in many earlier posts, and I don’t think I need to rehash my points. Quite honestly I’m sick of paraphrasing my points here. As far as the Andy Sheehan thing goes, I actually don’t agree with the way in which it was done, but I think he’s just another victim of Lowell Politics, and there will be many more, on both sides. I didn’t comment earlier because it really didn’t interest me enough to and I don’t have that type of time or energy.
July 14th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
I’mmmm bbaaaaaccckk!! I apologize, I have not been granted the opportunity to address some of the pertinent issues that have been raised in this column…as one sided as they might be. I think its ironic that this column (yes you LIL folk will deny this) that this blog more or less was created to advance your left sided agenda…ahhhaa…we finally get a chance to be heard..what I think is somewhat comical is the fact that the “other side” has invaded your sanctity and offered sobering criticism…god bless the first amendment…anyway as far as Andy goes…he got what was coming to him…he admitted “gallows humor” during the termination process of over 40 city employees by laughing during the process…he lacked any form of human decency and humility..youve got 48 employees loosing their jobs and their livelihood and suddenly we’re supposed to have compassion for this guy….please…go back to Acton! It appears Milinazzo fell flat on his face tonight and his 20 supporters in the audience could do nothing to stop it…the former CM of 2 cities cited specfic law and the cities own lawyer said they were within their right so its done….btw…didn’t Milinazzo finish close to last in the previous election? Also, as long as we’re on the amb thing…I thinks its kinda funny that NONE of you true blood LILs have enough objectivity in them to admit that its an inside deal…shame on you…I agree w/Chelm Red…this needs to go out to bid!! Chelm was faced w/ the exact same situation and choose to do whats right for the body of people he serves not a favor for a friend..hey Lynne…if this did go out to bid and the winning bidder was awarded the contract w/ a $500k “pay to play fee” then I think that would more than make up for the paltry $150k that city intends to recoup…..but then againwe’ll never know…What troubles me and a few more on this site is the latent hyprocrisy of you failing to admit that although the tow contract and ambulance fall under the same bidding laws that the CM has failed to look at the best interests of the taxpayers….and waitinnextyear…because I’m “In the Know” I’ve spoken to some of my friends in the business who informed me that the OIG only recently (say the last 2-4 years) were able to give a concrete opinion of the legality of the ambulance “pay to play” scenario….hence why the former CM Cox was legally unable to get reimbursed for the cities cost…also I think its sad that we have to start accusing certain bloggers of having a hidden agenda (ie …Elmer accusing “A concerned TP” of owning an ambulance company…which brings me to this…who doesn’t have an agenda, hidden or not, on this site? I see the “Concerned TP” just calling the cards like they see em…and if “TJM” is correct and Fitchburg, a grissled town of 40K, is netting $400K in revenue for their ambulance service than I think I may throw up…all over your professional CM!
In the future, please use paragraphs and periods. This ellipses stuff makes it hard for us to read. Thanks. Mimi
July 14th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
My bad! Good point, I will try to do better.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
In reference to Prof. Forrant’s editorial in July 20th edition of the Sun, I am concerned about the lack of leadership in Lowell. While I agree with him that our leaders should be focused on the pressing issues, I feel that he left out a piece of vital information. Politicians are not going to be focused on society’s greater good. Even though the MV has unemployment percentage points nearing double digits our leadership hardly cares. If it does not involve them or their friends they are not going to care. For example, our politicians are disgruntled that John Cox is not the manager. This is not surprising considering that they all profited from him being in office. Our politicans are ethically comparable to our former House speakers. If the money does not follow them they hardly blink an eye on the issue. If we want politican’s who care about the issues, we need a substantial change in our citizenry.
1) People need to vote. We cannot continue to allow the Highlands and Belvidere for making decisions for us. Of course issues affecting these communities will only be dealt with since they are only the one;s participating in our moral duty.
2) We need to change our form of government. Instead of proportional representation we need to have district seats. These seats will allow all communities to have a voice.
3) Lowellians need to write to our politicians telling them what the real issues our. Why should are elected officials care who the City Manager has on his staff if city residents dont care.
4) Our elected officials need to look at the city as a whole and stop seeking power for themselves. Dont they realize that unless we had a strong mayor government none of their positions really matter. The buck stops with the Manager not the city council.
I would love to read other opinions.