Left In Lowell

The Price of Democracy

23 Responses to “The Price of Democracy”

1. Right In Lowell Says:
   July 15th, 2009 at 7:55 pm

   11. Use the $85 cut from the manager’s budget. Why wasn’t $$ for a primary included in the budget in the first place?

2. jed bartlet Says:
   July 15th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

   They must have budgeted for the primary, how could you not?

   If this is pursued, hopefully the delegation and legislature will stand by their statement the last time that the last time was the last time and the City shouldn’t look to get a waiver for a primary ever again.

3. ned Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 6:15 am

   Mimi, here’s a few more for the list…

   http://mrmillcity.com/2009/06/10/sounds-like-the-city-needs-our-assistance/

4. Right In Lowell Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 7:09 am

   I hope the delegation does stand by their statement. A primary is part of the process and should be held to give the ‘newbies’ at least a fighting chance to see how they stand. Shock of shocks but I suspect less than glorious motives on the part of the incumbents.

5. kpem Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 8:21 am

   I spent some time this morning emailing the elections committee about the primary. They said they would not waive the primary for the City Council again and I asked them to stand by their word.
   I just wanted to post the link:
   http://www.mass.gov/legis/comm/j15.htm

6. Smooth Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 8:55 am

   Why does it cost $60k anyways? Aren’t all the voting locations donated? And how much do they pay the poll workers? Hopefully not more than $12/hour…

7. Jack Mitchell Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 10:55 am

   At the Tuesday meeting, the CC was talking about employing our state delegation in an appeal to waive the primary. They should hear from those who want a primary to happen.

   CC K proposed the primary would not eliminate enough candidates to justify the expense. His point was something like, ‘a primary would narrow a field of 21 by 4.” My question is, when is the filing deadline? That’s an easy one. The city webpage informs us: August 11th - Last day to submit nomination papers, no later than 5:00 PM.. Do we know how many candidates will be in at that time? Is a primary justified, if we have 30 candidates?

   The consensus was the decision needs to be made quickly, but his logic cannot be tested until after the filing deadline passes, Aug 11th.

8. Bob Forrant Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

   According to an article in today’s Sun our vaunted delegation has already caved to the craven effort to curtail the democratic process. What’s next? Opps, we don’t have enough money for the November election so I guess our wonderfully representative councilors can stay on, thanks to our state reps and senator. Last time was supposed to be the last time, but I guess good old boy and girl love means never having to live up to a well-documented public promise. And, as I read somewhere else - why does the election cost so much - anyone ever seen a budget breakdown? Democracy is messy and sometimes it costs dough to implement. However, it remains the best route to take when dealing with very sitcky situations like the one we now find our city in. How much was raised, by the way, to blow stuff up for twenty minutes? Just wondering!:)

9. Felicia Says:
   July 16th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

   Even more reason to get choice voting on the ballot and passed in November. The process would both preserve the democratic process of all voices being heard while having the ability to do instant run-offs via ranked preference thus saving the dough needed for primaries. Find out more at http://www.fairvotelowell.org. FYI - the campaign is looking for folks to take the petition door-to-door. Volunteers had a great weekend this week and got over 1000 signatures.

10. Prince Charming Says:
    July 16th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Remember something this Veteran’s Day all you phony politicians that hide behind your American flag lapel pins: Thousands of our men and women have died to give us the opportunity to vote. And to some, this election is not worth 60 thousand dollars. The opportunity to throw you bums out in a primary is priceless.

11. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    July 16th, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    The entire CC is opposed to having a primary for the same reason they are opposed to opening up the charter to consider district representation.

    They want to be re-elected! Period!

    If we allow a primary when there are more than 18 candidates…as is provided in the charter…one or more could be knocked off!

    It was argued that 19 was too low a number although that’s not what the charter says…now it is in the low 20’s…still too low a number!

    If the CC wants to eliminate the primary we need to change the charter, something they want to avoid since a charter commission will probably recommend something other than an
    at-large government and the CCs would have to run against each other and give other neighborhoods a voice in government!

    It’s no surprise to anyone that Lowell has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to hold two elections a year.

    Why don’t they vote to eliminate the primary election for State Rep and Senate when there are no opponents to the imcunbents (or better yet the General Election when there are no challengers)? Because it’s against the LAW!

    Something the current CC is apparently above!!!

12. K-R-S Says:
    July 16th, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    I might suggest to all that you contact State Rep. Tom Golden, as he is on the ctte. that would bring the Home Rule petition before the Governor. Had a conversation with Golden this eve. and since he has an obligation to our City Council he will be rec. to the Governor that the City of Lowell waive the primary.

    Talk amongst yourselves..Better yet, email the Governor,Golden (or call him) and the ctte & express your opinion.
    Myself, am not in favor of waiving an election, just so encumbancy(sp?) can be perpetuated. I’d like to see our candidates work their asses off for our votes.

13. Observant One Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 1:00 am

    After much thought on this issue, I too agree that the City of Lowell should not be awarded the right to waive another Primary Election. As a traditionalist, I respect the fact that those who drafted our City Charter many years ago probably had very good reasons to structure the primary requirement component as is currently written.

    As a comparison, banking & securities regulations such as the Glass-Steagall Act were drafted and legislated when the wounds of the Great Depression were fresh. As we have so painfully learned as of late, the dismantling of these regulations 60 years later was a catastrophic error that was based on the fading memory of the pain suffered and the self-serving objectives of a powerful few at the expense of the many (sound familiar?). In the end, we should have respected the efforts of those who were most personally & historically associated with the reasons why. And so should we respect the wisdom of those who saw fit many years ago in Lowell’s history to require a post-18 candidate primary as our Charter currently necessitates. To knee-jerk this late in the election season based on a dubious and unconfirmed dollar figure cost ($60,000 in Kazanjian speak) is irresponsible and unfair to those 12 or more challengers who are not allowed a voice in this decision.

    Also, the simple fact that Councilor Kazanjian raised the motion to waive is reason enough to convince me that it would be the wrong thing to do. In my opinion, every one of his motions can be linked in some way to his own self-service or to those of his buds. This guy doesn’t even try to veil his true intentions nor his exaggerations. Why should he? Nobody in this City has ever had the guts to tell him no – on anything! Until now….

    And if it is true that our local State House delegation is acting favorably toward the request of these 6 incumbents (I believe that Martin & Milinazzo expressed opposition in the last CC meeting to dropping the primary – yes?) than they are nothing but big fat “Indian Givers” for they stated firmly the last time that ‘this is it!’ Oh really?

    To Rep. Golden, I would appeal to him that his efforts to convince the powers at be on behalf of the Six are ill served and that aggressively representing the intentions and ambitions of a minority of comfortably entrenched crony incumbents sends a very bad message to his constituents. Especially in light of the glaring political division that currently exists among our council members and our citizenry. Are you really obligated to do their dirty work for them Tom?

14. lowellgal411 Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 8:20 am

    I am in complete favor of waiving the primary this year. Such a small percentage of people actually take the time to vote in a council primary its a waste of money. None of the incumbents that are so hated on this blog are going to be eliminated in a primary. We’re going to spend $60k to eliminate people without even a chance. It’s so cynical to think every thing someone says must be a lie. Lighten up for gods sake. Saving $60K is a good enough reason.

    One of the toughest things to do as a new candidate is to raise money to run ads, print literature, radio commercials etc. You expect them to raise money to run essentially two campaigns? If a new candidate is going to win they have to do more than write on a blog and show up at a council meeting and say nothing. Unless they are well known and have an established base, they have to have some guts and take a stand on something. I didn’t see one new candidate the other night speak on this issue or the other “big” issue of the night.

    We just laid off 48 employees. $60,000 could be used to save a couple of police officers through the balance of the fiscal year. The manager said that if grants don’t come in by Dec 31 police officers will be laid off. I’d rather have cops on the street than a useless primary. No-one is taking the right to vote away. There will be a general election. And to suggest that the general election will be the next to go is so paranoid and crazy. Its a useless primary with no real meaning.

    “Many years ago” there were 50 to 60 candidates for City Council. Hence the reason for a primary. The charter probably should be changed permanently. A charter change requires a percentage of the registered voters to actually vote. Since very few people are interested in voting at all how do you all propose this would happen? Don’t give me the crap about energizing people “blah, blah, blah”. People just don’t care. To go through that whole process just to have people not show up at the polls would be a waste. In the mean time asking for a reprieve on the primary in this particular year seems the best action.

    The cost of an election goes beyond poll workers. Ballots need to be printed and police details are required at every polling location. Neither of which is free. Lowell has far too many polling locations to begin with.

    With state rep and senatorial seats the primary is the vote to nominate the party reprsentative to run in the general election. It acually serves a purpose. A primary in a council general election is simply to eliminate weaker candidates. Its fine if you have 50 candidates but no with the few that we have running it’s a waste. This is not just a trend. This is how it is going to be from here on out. People aren’t interested in voting.

    I don’t think the councilors are scared. I think they’re being pragmatic. And even your heros (Milinazzo, Martin) were in favor of eliminating it. Conspiracy theories aside, I beg to differ, it’s all about the money this year.

15. Lynne Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 11:40 am

    All the challengers I’ve talked to are in favor of a primary, so your argument of “it costs too much to run for two elections instead of one for the poor poor challengers” are sort of moot.

    $60K, if that indeed is the cost, is a tiny drop in a drop in the bucket of our budget.

    Democracy is worth it.

    I have to wonder why you’re making such an impassioned plea to flout our democratic system. The rules state that over 18 candidates triggers a primary. End of story. This constant “but think of the children!” argument is such bologna. And that goes for any allies on the Council also thinking that we should waive the primary. They have a conflict of interest of not having to work harder to remain on the council. They are not the right people to make this determination. (And I was under the impression Milanazzo at least was not fighting FOR this, given that he was under the impression that the subcommittee meeting had decided not to. If he was so gung ho to support it, why the fight at the meeting with Kazanjian?)

    “$60,000 could be used to save a couple of police officers through the balance of the fiscal year.”

    Hahaha, that couldn’t even cover the cost of ONE police officer, so, bad argument there.

    Hey, let’s just cancel the whole election. That’ll save us $60K times TWO! Think of the savings that would net us!

    Bullocks.

16. lowellgal411 Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Honestly Lynne, you are so school yard. Na na na na na “bad argument there” How much do you think a patrolman makes Lynne? Look at your hero Bernie Lynch’s budget. A low level patrolman is making in the high $40’s to low $50’s. And they would be the positions laid off first. Half of that would be $20-25K. $60K is enough to save TWO police officers for 1/2 a year. Learn to do some math.

17. Mr. Lynne Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    It’s not just the patrollman’s salary,… it’s his wages, the retirement plan expenses the municipality pays into, the payroll taxes, the employer contribution to the health plan. In the case of an officer I’m sure the insurance contribution for an officer ain’t no picnic either. I’d be surprised if $60K covered all of that for an actual, on the beat officer.

18. joe from Lowell Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    If we cancelled the elections entirely, we could save twice as many patrolmen’s jobs. Shall we?

19. Jack Mitchell Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    The race is on for sure. I’d swear I saw Councilor Mercier talking from an SUV to a couple of guys on the sidewalk at the new CVS tonight. It was hard not to notice as the SUV was at the end of West 4th about 15 feet from Bridge Street. Plus the SUV was in my lane. I had to cross into the other lane to get around. Sorta risky on my part, but I didn’t want to beep and break them up.

    It might not have been her. It was an SUV with stickers all over the back. One said MERCIER.

20. Cassandra Says:
    July 17th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

    I like Smooth’s question. Why does it cost $60,000? Seems pretty high to me. Where does the number come from and is it accurate?

21. Jack Mitchell Says:
    July 18th, 2009 at 8:39 am

    I forgot to mention, that SUV was facing in the wrong direction in my lane. The driver had crossed lanes, parked in the right of way and was chatting it up with the pedestrians. The lady driver, with short hair and a tan, hung out the driver’s window, all smiles.

    She didn’t seem to notice that there was an oncoming vehicle and that the situation was slightly dangerous. The driver was engrossed in the conversation, as I crossed the yellow line to make my way to pick up my daughter at Capoeira school.

22. waittilnextyr Says:
    July 18th, 2009 at 9:18 am

    If there are 33 precints, and 4 poll workers at each for 12 hours, and they get paid $9/hr, that works out to be something less than $15K. Printing ballots should be relatively cheap (maybe $1K), but there are the costs for police and the workers that deliver and pick up the ballot boxes. If this is special duty for police, they probably get $40/hr, so 12 hrs at each of 33 precincts would add another $16K. Even with the other costs for delivery and pick-up of the boxes, and the election office OT, it doesn’t seem that the total cost should be much more than $40K, unless they are being inefficient in the process. Maybe the CC should look into how elections are costed to make sure they are not overpaying.

23. Right In Lowell Says:
    July 20th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Each poll worker gets $100 stipend for the day and the precint wardens get $125, no hourly rate. 6:30AM until the ballots are organized after the 8PM closing. One officer at each precint by law for the duration.

Leave a Reply