Dick Howe posted MMC’s tweets, which gives a basic overview of the action last night from his perspective. Jackie has also posted as well.
It was a well-run event, CNAG is obviously old hands at this. 20 ballot-placed candidates plus Patricia Stratton (running a write-in) were there. Curtis Freeman was the only no-show.
Since it’s difficult to post on 21 candidate’s 3-min intros and 2-min answers to questions in totality, and since it was taped (the tape was just handed in to the muni guys at LTC for editing), let’s just review some highlights…
Bud Caulfield is a very angry person, was the first thing any observer would get from his rather-ranty rundown of every new business he was personally taking credit for somehow. What I would respond to his phrase, as MMC put it, about the “‘few people’ who think city is moving backwards” is that he is so missing the point of the anger in the city (which is from more than a “few people”). Then again, I’m not surprised he misses the point.
The point is that this city ISN’T moving backwards, it actually has moved forward…despite the majority of the city council, not because of it (like, say, the actions of firing the Assistant to the CM). And that we’re in threat of moving backwards after this election, if they manage to do what they’ve been threatening to do for two years, and chase CM Lynch out of the city in favor of one of their GOB-connected friends.
Contrary to revisionist history, John Cox and his ilk are not good for this city. Putting them back in charge would clearly be “going backwards.” Raise your hand if you think this Council majority, as it stands right now, would “search far and wide” for the best candidate to replace Lynch should he leave? Or that they would do all in their utmost to prevent CM Lynch from leaving in the first place (ie, renew a fair contract)? Didn’t think so.
Rita Mercier didn’t disappoint either. (Did I mention how unfair it was that she got the mic for several minutes at Ben Opara’s fundraiser Sunday night? How unfair to the rest of the candidates in the room.) She had her own incoherent rant last night as well, on her answer to the question about mixing up the names on the ballot. Sounded like she doth protest too much, about how much she loves democracy. Too bad her actions don’t speak softer than her words, eh? (If she really wanted to save money but be fair to democracy, she should have proposed mixing up the names on the general election ballot in the Home Rule bill that eliminated the prelim. I mean, that would have been bravely standing up for fair democracy. Your words mean nothing, Rita.)
OK, onward…Jackie on her post raises a damn good point about the answer Armand Mercier gave to the question, would you support the .75% meals tax increase, to which he answered, “no.”
How disingenuous of him to say that now, having very clearly and deliberately voted for the city budget that had this as a revenue stream in it. Gee, you think it might have been better to raise this problem you have with the tax increase then rather than deprive the city of money it’s already budgeted, by your own approval?
But “insignificant” revenue stream or not, as Mercier was trying to get away with saying about this meals tax increase, cutting this out of the budget as a line item in June would have meant several more layoffs at the time, and that wouldn’t be politic, wouldn’t you know. Those unions might get a little miffed. If it wasn’t a significant enough revenue stream, then why not get rid of it as a revenue stream before? But he’ll be safe from the wrath of the union vote, since that .75% increase is not likely to come up for a vote until after the election. Those city jobs will just hang in the balance, but not eliminated, in the meantime. So this way, he gets points for being some sort of hold-the-line soldier on tax increases, but withhold the problem with the unions til it’s too late.
The mind explodes.
Here are a few other observations, though, now that I got those off my chest:
First, I do respect anyone who is willing to stand up there like that and be a candidate. Second, that 5 total minutes per candidate is no where near enough to establish the best candidates, but that we have a pretty good group to choose from (minus the GOB incumbents, of course).
Who came off best in the evening? Well, pretty much all of them hit good notes in their intros. Having seen many of these candidates in front of me taping their questionnaire answers, I will say that most of them seem genuine, to care about the city, and they are interested in most of the things this blog has endorsed (professional city management, etc). There is some interesting quibbling on some details, but by and large I would be happy to be represented by almost any of the challengers on the ballot.
I will not be endorsing Doyle or Stratton. The former because, well, it’s rather obvious, and the latter because I don’t think she has a clear understanding of what’s at stake. (In answer to the question about the CM’s contract, she says she doesn’t support having one, because as a former union person, management didn’t ever have one. She obviously hasn’t studied the very specific problems of working for a political body as a city manager.) Also, because she should have gotten herself on the ballot, and picked a race, but she didn’t.
I almost choked when Kazanjian got the question on the Lowell Transitional Living Center. For all that half of his term he spent ranting about why can’t we get rid of the homeless shelters and sent them to Tewksbury or whatever, he was shrewd about his answer tonight. But I don’t believe him, given his past…er…obsession.
Elliot and his Selective Fiscal Responsibility…sigh. Yes, we get that you tout yourself as such, but seeing how selective you were on what gets cut in the budget (Sheehan, preliminary) and finding no other way you wanted to be fiscally responsible this budget season, I find that claim pretty thin. Sorry, gotta walk the walk. Where was he in the concern over the budget posing future revenues To Be Voted On in the meals tax increase? Isn’t it fiscally irresponsible not to bring that up then? Because my guess is he’d vote against it now. Same problem as Armand. Yup. Fiscally responsible all right. My you-know-what.
Then again, he’d rather be the safe 6th vote on Stupid than actually stand up for something he purports to believe in, like fiscal responsibility. (Again, folks, actions speak much louder than words.) Keep in mind he was the safe 6th “vote” back before he flipped and wanted to butter up the GOB when they got in the majority. Bear that in mind when weighing your vote in November…
Yeah, we’re tough on LiL. This post will piss off a few folks (then again, they don’t like me anyway). But don’t let this fool you…I am very optimistic that we’ll see change this election. We have a great opportunity here, and some great challengers who can bring it about. So stay tuned for more awesomeness by way of video, forums, and other electoral rituals of passage. You’ll want to show up in November. Trust me.
