Left In Lowell

In his post on the Sun’s parent company filing for bankruptcy protection, Dick asks “Affiliated Media asserted that all but one of its 54 newspapers are profitable. That sort of begs the question, if it’s such a profitable company, why is it in bankruptcy?” Perhaps it is bad planning and poor management.

Back on December 26, 2008, the editor of the paper sang the praises of his “visionary CEO,” Dean Singleton. I would link to the column but it is archived. If you want to spend $3 or use your library card (internet or at Pollard), you can read it.

After accusing bloggers of rooting for the demise of the paper, the editor wrote “The fact is newspapers do a great job covering themselves, and making full disclosure on declining profits and job losses often paints a skewed picture in the minds of the misinformed.”

No one is rooting now or ever has for the demise of that paper or any other newspaper. There are many of us who want a quality paper, that is why we are concerned about its future.

In that same December 26th column, the editor quotes Singleton: “The Sun has a special place in my heart. It has stayed rooted in the community when others have left and it has stayed committed to improving the region through so many positive initiatives.”

This is the same guy whose company filed for bankruptcy and he ends up not losing a penny but those who lend him money lose over $137 million. So now we will see how big of a place the Sun has in his heart when the next consolidation comes along.

It’s a work in progress, retraining the site to do new stuff, but we’re getting there (you will notice a few old items, but I want to get the new stuff up first and foremost).

We have started posting agenda links, packets, meeting schedules, and such for as many meetings as we can get our hands on. We are also trying to write reports having sent an MLF member to those meetings. We started with the School Committees because those are the groups least paid attention to. Look for more reports over the weekend, I just have to sort through them.

Meetings posted on our front page along with the latest reports, but you can find our first one here, on the GLTHS meeting of 1/14/2010.

It appears, from reports of the meeting and from the Lowell Sun, that Mary Jo Santoro has a lock on the superintendent job at the GLTHS. (So much for a nationwide, transparent search eh?)

Has anyone asked, is Santoro actually qualified? Because I don’t want her anywhere near the job if she’s cut from the same mold [mixed metaphors aside] as Mr. Cassin, thanks. Given she was hired by him (I think - correct me please if I am wrong), I’m not encouraged. However, I don’t know the woman so I wouldn’t presume to know.

But the question should be asked, nonetheless.

The Sun reported today about last night’s subcommittee meeting on the subject of the next Super’s salary. Apparently some on the committee are worried that if the base salary range starts too low, Santoro could have to take a pay cut should she get the job. She [currently, as assist. superintendent] makes “$139,000 annually, with a $10,000 annuity.” Laferriere of Lowell and Olson of Dracut both made the point that a starting range of $125K was too low, specifically because Santoro makes more (not kidding). They should damned well be worried less about Ms. Santoro, and more worried about our kids, don’t you think?

We’re off to a great start, here. WTF? Kudos to Steven O’Neill who is out of Tyngsboro, for being the one to inject a little sanity.

The Sun also reports (bold mine):

Also last night:
[snip]

* Subcommittee members said they want candidates for the position to be certified as a vocational superintendent through the state, have a minimum of five years classroom experience, as well as experience in finance and business management and a master’s degree in education or administration, and have familiarity with state education practices.

* Members also said they would prefer the next superintendent to have a doctorate in education or a related discipline.

Really? Does Santoro have all of the required or preferred qualifications they are looking for in this list? Just thought the question should be asked. I should also ask, if another candidate from outside the system had more of these qualifications than Santoro, will the voke Committee hire that person instead?

There’s also this peach of a snippet from last night:

O’Hare doesn’t want potential candidates downloading the job application and information from the school’s Web site. All interested applicants will have to call the school to have information packets mailed to them.

“That way you capture the identity of the person applying,” O’Hare said.

Don’t people still put their names on resumes? Another WTF moment brought to you by the GLTHS SC…

Talk about breaking news night. The Sun is reporting:

City Manager Bernie Lynch terminated the head of the Inspectional Services Department on Thursday amid a state probe into that office.

Lynch said Commissioner Robert Camacho leaves under “mutual agreement.” Camacho immediately cleared out his office.

Lynch later Thursday announced that Rosemary Cashman, who retired earlier this month as town administrator of Tyngsboro, will serve as interim commissioner starting Monday.

OK, Bernie, any more shoes to drop today? LOL

The Lowell Sun breaking news section reports that City Manager Bernie Lynch has selected Henri Marchand as his new assistant.

The Sun writes of Mr. Marchand: “…56, a life-long Lowellian, is a community relations associate at UMass Lowell and had served as the producer of Sunrise, the university’s morning radio talk show for four years. He spent 18 years working for the Lowell Plan, the last 11 as the assistant director.”

Interesting! Congratulations and best wishes Mr. Marchand in your new position.

This will probably be just a blip on the news, but it should be screamed from the rooftops: the Supreme Court has overturned the ability of government to regulate the political spending of corporations. If you thought your politicians were bought and sold on the open market under the current flawed loopholes of campaign finance, you ain’t seen nothing yet. This is a big deal, folks.

The premise of conservative judges to rule this way is the application of the “free speech” provisions of our Constitution, which they say corporations have a right to. This is because under precedence, corporations are considered to have “personhood” - one of the most terrible rulings ever made, by the way.

And also patently not true. We completely block the free speech of corporations all the time. For instance, cigarette companies - they are banned from advertising on any broadcast or cable medium, and a lot of print mediums. A bit of a curb on those corporations’ free speech, don’t you think? But you don’t see that being overturned in the Supreme Court. Just political speech. WTF?

I’ve long said that the danger in the Bush conservative court was not the threat to choice, or other social liberties we’ve enjoyed. It is in the extremely pro-corporate background and history of these people Bush put on the Court during his term that would kill us.

Just to add: The Court says this is about Freedom of Speech. But given the concentration of wealth into corporations, some people’s speech is more important than others.

Also, I think this is a good point by Pogo in comments:

So David, as our resident legal scholar, and this is a serious question and the serious answer depends on what the majority opinion says, but could this lead to stronger criminal sanctions against companies and executives that break the law?

Instead of the usual fines and civil penalties, now that corporations are granted the same rights as people (as absurd as that sounds) it seems they should face similar penalties people face when we break the laws society creates. So instead of Exxon paying a fine of $100 million for breaking the law, the chairman of the board does six months in jail…or the company is sentenced to one month of not being able to conduct business in the jurisdiction where the law as broken? Yes, these are crazy thoughts, but no crazier than this ruling.

Dick Howe (and his son in comments) have some numbers. Looking town by town (so far), the MA Republicans didn’t really increase (very much - in the range of 3-4%) their voter turnout. So what this means is, they were able to capitalize on Dems staying home. Hardly a Big Red Angry Wave.

If this analysis holds true statewide (and the sampling was pretty wide in Dick’s post and comments), this means a couple of things…first, the Republicans still have a ceiling, and it’s about the same ceiling they had in 08, and given a few numbers Andrew threw out on Facebook as well, not a great deal more than Romney in ‘02 either.

Second is that the big danger for state Dems is not keeping up the enthusiasm of your own people (D’s and D-leaners), which holds some cause for nervousness…but also shows us a path to consistent Democratic victory should we put the work in and run great candidates.

So, get involved and find great candidates!

We could all (well, those of us on the losing side anyway) use a little funny in our day.

Crooks and Liars provides.

Hat tip to Mr. Lynne sitting across the room over there.

A very prescient Move On polled people yesterday on why the Obama-Brown voter voted (or didn’t vote) the way they did. The polling outfit they used, Research 2000, is a reputable firm, before you get your whine on. The poll points out that this loss by the Democrats isn’t a message of “whoa, slow down Democrats! You’re too liberal!” It was more of a “hey!! Where’d that public option go? Idiots!” message.

HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT “DOESN’T GO FAR ENOUGH”

* by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
* by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home

(18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

* 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
* 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

* 57% of Brown voters say Obama “not delivering enough” on change he promised
* 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home

PLUS: Obama voters overwhelming want bold economic populism from Democrats in 2010.

So, before the storyline becomes about how Dems need to moderate and govern from the center, let’s makes sure we take into account the reality, okay?

Sure, we were hoping to have a victory podcast today with Mass Democratic Party Chair John Walsh, but we’re plucky Dems and move on fast. We’ll chat about what this election means, and what’s to come, on Left Ahead’s live podcast today at 2:30pm. If you miss it live, you can always catch an archive at our website. Join hosts Mike of Massmarrier, Ryan of Ryan’s Take and myself as we dust ourselves off and look ahead.