Left In Lowell

When Independent Commissions Attack…

34 Responses to “When Independent Commissions Attack…”

1. Mr. Lynne Says:
   April 6th, 2010 at 9:29 pm

   My thoughts (not very well composed):

   Caufield going off on stats was getting off topic. He was making a case for a salary - not a case for whether or not to get outside data. A lot of what he was quoting were the salaries of Mayors, which of course are different from CM and are not a measure. Of course this way him and Rita get to have their cake and eat it too - simultaneously ‘I don’t care what other people make’ and then listing a litany of what?… what other people make.

   The last thing this town needs is making decisions based on Caulfield’s amateur data analysis. The next thing will be him making engineering recommendations. Bad road to go down.

   Rita and Bud have to go. Millinazzo pointed out advisory commissions of the past. Is this a case of “I was for czars before I was against them”?

   Millinazzo shouldn’t have said ‘incorrect’ and rather should have said ‘incomplete’. His point was a good one, however,… that just reading off salaries is not sufficient information for judging relative worth. The scope of the job has to be considered as well and so on.

   Gathering data before making a decision is wise. That being said, people should be cautious that the data they are getting isn’t deliberately framed to form a foregone conclusion. I’d advise that if they get such a thing, that they also look for alternate opinions on the quality of the data they’ve received and their implied conclusions. Get the data and be smart - treat it skeptically (thoroughly) and see if it holds up. And sure, motive should certainly be considered. I will certainly judge councilors harshly for trying to do governance based on amateur data analysis, but I’ll also judge them harshly if doesn’t appear that they didn’t do due diligence in examining that data. It does bug me that we aren’t going to see the data. I’d recommend for accountability’s sake that the data provided be made public after the contract negotiations are concluded, so that we can properly judge the council’s use of the data - whether it was used usefully and with proper diligence or used as cover for a ‘back room deal’.

   And can I just say I believe Frankie when she said she came in undecided and was convinced on the merits. Wish we had more of that.

2. Mimi Says:
   April 6th, 2010 at 9:42 pm

   What bothered me the most during this heated discussion was the attack on the civilians. When politicians do it to each other, that is somewhat expected but when innocent civilians are dragged in to make political points, I cringe. I am referring to CC R. Mercier’s comments on the motivations of the Lower Highlands Neighborhood Chairperson and CC B. Caulfied’s question about the residency of the members of this advisory committee.

   When he was Mayor, CC Caulfield had no problems asking the Executive Director of the Greater Lowell Foundation for funds so that the City can enjoy a fire work display but today where this man lives is an issue.

   And I agree with Mr. Lynne, Frankie’s sincerity was obvious and much appreciated by me.

3. Mr. Lynne Says:
   April 6th, 2010 at 9:49 pm

   I do think Murphy was sincere as well. I take his conflicted position as genuine. That’s why I make the suggestion of making the report public after the fact… Trying to add sunlight so that we can adequately judge any appearance of impropriety while preserving their negotiating position.

4. Jack Mitchell Says:
   April 6th, 2010 at 10:45 pm

   Some folks are sensitive to the growing influence of UMASSLowell and many are skeptical of Meehan. I think the Mayor got caught a bit “tone deaf” in his zeal.

   Data is good. I am a data file.

   The CM position is the political fault line in this City. This Council was elected on the promise of “professional government.” This is the mandate of the sitting Council, old and new.

   This contract negotiation will be the politcal equivalent of health care reform. It will suck for the Council, so they best get to it and do it well. They will NEVER get a pat on the back for their efforts, so they should do what they can, in accordnce to their conscience. Then they must trust that the voters can see through the fog.

   Winners tonight: Franky, Joe & Patrick
   Broke Even: Bill, Kevin and Rodney
   Losers: It twern’t pretty folks.

5. Robby Says:
   April 7th, 2010 at 10:48 am

   Bernie Lynch has been our city manager for years now and deserves a fair raise. I think the man has proven himself to be a an effective and successful manager. Even during these times, you deserve a raise every now and then. Bernie has done a decent job of staying out of the “Cox vs. Lynch” mindset that divided the city for a long time. He has stayed professional and has not let the political game come into conflict with what is best for te city. I still have the gut feeling that Bud and Rita would choose to have Cox back in a heartbeat. They have certainly given the manager a hard time needlessly on countless occassions. Why can’t they just accept the fact that Bernie is our city manager, has been the manager for some time now, has done a decent job in most minds’, and deserves the pay that the mans worth?

   With all of that said, the city council should take charge and do thier job. What business is it of Marty Meehan? Someone oughta tell Marty to worry about his own job at UMASS. You know, Im not knocking the man personally or the school. But is anyone even a little concerned about this mans desire for power and fortune? The Chancellor of a college has no business getting involved in city council affairs. If he wanted to be more of a voice in the CITY, then he should have run for city council. It seems UMASS is going to buy just about every available property in the city, why not just change the name from Lowell to Martyville?

   Any raise for the city manager is up to the council. If they want to look at data then they can do that. I just hope that they look at useful data. Who cares what a CM makes in another city that has nothing to do with Lowell? Who cares what Marty thinks? But at the end of the day, Bernie has done a hell of a fine job and deserves the raise and praise he will get.

6. Lynne Says:
   April 7th, 2010 at 11:17 am

   Robby - the thing is, Rita protested about how MUCH she supports this manager, likes this manager, thinks he’s going a good job…then proceeds to be a PITA about the stupidest things!

   But on your other point, I disagree - this city has long (longer than Meehan was Chancellor) had partnerships with UML, MCC, and many many other organizations besides, in order to do all sorts of things, including independent commissions to help make decisions in the city. (It’s always one of the things cited as a reason to envy the City of Lowell - its public-private partnerships are rather unique in scope.)

   The thing that makes this difficult is that normally, for any other type of thing (like what to do with a vacant city building), the CM talks to his people in the relevant department, gets ideas, and makes a recommendation from his (hopefully expert!) info gatherers. But in this case, it involves the CM’s contract itself, and he is on the other side of the negotiating table, so we cannot use our normal resources of information gathering. That makes this situation unique, and getting some experts independent of the city government is the only choice, really.

   The plans for this is literally just info gathering - not even a recommendation. But the info is complex (just looking through the Cambridge budget to see what they do for the performance and measurement is a chore, one that I bet Cauldfield is not willing to do “at his kitchen table”). That’s just one comparative city whom we might want to emulate or find elements for our own process. Then there’s interviewing people who were involved with that negotiation, etc etc. All useful, and all very time consuming.

   At the end of the day, of *course* the City Council will be the ones deciding. This commission isn’t even going to give a recommendation, it’ll be up to the subcommittee to do that.

7. Ned Says:
   April 7th, 2010 at 5:08 pm

   I would be equally disturbed if Bernie’s market value was determined using information provided by Bud Caulfield hunting and pecking on his Commodore 64, or Marty Meehan.

   The only one I trust in the matter is the UML Grad Student. Why don’t we grab a couple of his buddies, stick’em in a room with computers and red-bulls and vodka, and see what they come up with. We’ll leave all the sensitive folks out of it.

8. Maggie Says:
   April 7th, 2010 at 7:03 pm

   I rather like Ned’s idea- minus the vodka. What I don’t like is Marty Meehan’s hand in this. I would also rather see reps from all of the neighborhood groups, not just the one. As for the other members - no opinion yet.

9. observer Says:
   April 7th, 2010 at 8:04 pm

   Ned, once again, you are 100 percent correct. Great plan!

10. K-R-S Says:
    April 7th, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Maggie, I was thinking along the same lines, with regard to more representation from the neighborhood groups..I also like Ned’s idea.:0)

11. Mr. Lynne Says:
    April 7th, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    I really don’t mind if they get data, even if it is from interested parties. What I mind is if they treat such data as cover rather than data. Data is meant to be scrutinized. So all I want is an ability to ‘check their work’ and verify that they scrutinized the data they received. So, as such, if they made ‘their work’ public after the fact, I could be armed with the information I need as a voter to exact accountability on my representatives one way or the other as warranted.

12. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    April 7th, 2010 at 11:06 pm

    Okay, here’s a freebe for the commission.

    I did not include the #1 populated city in the state, Boston, because the population is so much greater.

    Based on population figures it looks like Bernie is being paid a fair wage now. (hopefully the columns will not corrupt or this will be pretty unreadable!)

    #2 172,648 Worcester
    City Manager $182,776
    Mayor 18,000
    CC 15,750

    #3 152,082 Springfield
    Mayor $95,000
    CC

    #4 105,167 Lowell
    City Manager $145,000
    Mayor 19,000
    CC 15,000

    #5 101,355 Cambridge
    City Manager $270,798.65
    Mayor 103,037.
    CC 70,329.

    77, 478 Somerville
    Mayor $125,000

    83,829 Newton
    Mayor $97,876

    47,283 Revere
    Mayor $116,227

    MAYOR
    • Agawam - $85,000 pop 28,144
    • Chicopee - $85,000 pop 54,653
    • Greenfield - $70,000 pop 18,168
    • Holyoke - $84,674 pop 39,838
    • Northampton - $80,000 pop 28,978
    • Springfield - $95,000 pop 152,082
    • Westfield - $90,000 pop 40,072
    • West Springfield - $85,000 pop 27,899

13. Lynne Says:
    April 8th, 2010 at 11:48 am

    I question the real relevancy of mayoral salaries. Mayors are not required to have any sort of degree or professional muni experience to become mayor, and most do not even come close. Underneath them, mayors hire one or more muni professionals - Note Cambridge! It appears they have a full time mayor (we don’t) and a professional CM (who I hear is pretty good). The total amount for “management” at the top level for Cambridge, with similar population (though definitely more economic clout) is like, $300K plus. So we’re no where near on a par with them.

    And, frankly, I DO NOT want to be Springfield in any way, shape, or form, so let’s please not emulate them in any way.

14. Mary Says:
    April 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    If this is just an advisory board collecting data why did Luis Pedroso say in the paper today that he “wouldn’t be opposed to the committee providing the City Council with a recommendation in addition to general information”? ding, ding, ding, give the man his prize. Because that’s what the original intention was all along until this firestorm erupted. Just a nice cover for the council to give the manager a raise.

    I’m not completely against a raise for the Manager. I just don’t think it is the right time with the budget constraints we’re facing and the fact that many union contracts expired years ago and still aren’t resolved.

    You have to lead by example. The Mayor in Methuen took a pay cut because he asked the unions to take pay cuts. That’s leadership. How can we tell the teachers and police and fire no raise, and we want you to give money back, and then give the Manager a raise? It’s hypocritical. It’s like treating one of your children better than the others. It causes dissention.

    And truly, can you actually see any of these folks “gathering data”. The grad student is going to do all that work. So why bother to have a committee at all? Why not just ask the university to provide the council with a grad student to collect salary data for course credit? And why is there only one Lowellian and two people from Andover and only one neighborhood represented?

    The council should do its own research with help from the Mayor’s staff if necessary. It’s really not that hard to get the data and a copy of every employment contract you want. It’s all public information. Plus, didn’t we just fund a $60K data analyst. Have that person collect the data.

    Regardless of any data the bottom line is affordability for the individual community. It doesn’t matter that Cambridge pays in the $200’s. Lowell doesn’t have the tax base they have. So what difference does the data really make? It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to form an opinion on what the manager should be paid.

    And the idea that we need to find out what “support staff” each mayor and manager has is irrelevant. I guess that means if he has less support staff it must mean he is performing more clerical type work so maybe we should pay him less.

    This is not an issue of pay from the position of the council it’s an issue of politics. Welcome to Lowell.

15. Lynne Says:
    April 8th, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Here’s where I have a problem with “the manager deserves a raise, just not now.”

    He has spent four years under the same contract with no raise. Everyone else in the city got some raises in that same time period, but not him. He accepted this, I think, because the political climate was tough - not the budget (at the time), but the political reality. His contract was extended beyond the last CC’s tenure because he would have been ousted otherwise (and a prescient move it was at the time too). They didn’t have time then to go under extensive negotiations and modifications to change the terms of that contract. Having a contract was new at the time, anyway.

    But you are all missing the real point. The real point is that this isn’t just about the amount of a raise, IF there’s a raise, or anything like that! This is about an opportunity to change the way we do these things completely. Something the GOB definitely does NOT want - a performance-based contract that sets goals and where the CM can be evaluated under those measurements.

    Imagine if we’d had that when Cox was here? Now you know why the Rita/Bud contingent are making hay out of nothing. They want to stop all this performance-based nonsense before it starts! But it would be so good for the city to have a REAL process, as Broderick stated, to undergo an evaluation of the CM and where the city is headed, rather than fly by the seat of our knickers.

    FYI, you’re wrong as far as I can tell that “Because that’s what the original intention was all along until this firestorm erupted.” Joe Mendonca, at least as I recall, mentioned he had suggested that this commission not produce a “recommendation” when he was at the subcomm meeting. I’d have to go back and watch again, but that’s what I took away from his statement. So, no, it’s not about backtracking and cover.

    Hell, the whole thing might come up with a “no raise this year, next year a raise contingent on the budget etc etc” but THAT is not the point.

16. Big Dog Says:
    April 8th, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    Well well well….I won’t say I told you so when the election happened and I stated emphatically that Jim Millinazo was not the right fit for Mayor and a lot of folks took their shots at the old dog here…well low and behold…who rears his ugly head? The Mayor! If this guy didn’t weaken his already weak self over this whole outside evaluation jazz…I don’t know what else to say! What’s next! To me this is crazy…it’s not the time and who the hell cares who deserves a raise. When you’re laying off people and slashing budgets to the tune of 40% in some departments.

    let’s go spend more money we don’t have to give the manager a raise with more money we don’t have! Hey I know…when I want my yard waste picked up maybe the cost will go so far up I can give the manager a raise!

17. Lynne Says:
    April 8th, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    Whine whine whine. Did you miss the part that during his entire tenure, the CM hasn’t had a raise?

    And again, you are missing the whole damned point, which isn’t surprising.

18. Mary Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 11:16 am

    Then what is the whole damned point according to Lynne? I think Big Dog completely hit the point and then some. Who cares if he hasn’t gotten a raise? If you can’t live on $145K; plus an annuity; plus a car; plus gas until the econonmy turns around there is a problem. Are you making that? Are most of the people reading this making that? We simply can’t afford it!! I don’t care if you like Bernie or you don’t like Bernie. It’s irrelevant.

    With one hand we’re going to be laying people off and with the other we’re going to be giving a raise out. It’s completely schizophrenic. People who don’t know how to manage their personal finances make these types of decisions. They’re up to their eyeballs in credit card debt and they take their paycheck and blow it on something else.

    You’re like a johnny one note with these “GOB’s” you’re always referring to. The majority of councilors are currently to your liking and you’re still referring to these GOB’s lurking in the shadows. It’s very paranoid. Are those of us who were born here, and lived here, and worked here, and chose to raise our own families here are we the GOB’s?

    I know you’d like to sweep aside those of us that are from here but we’re not going any place. We haven’t fled to the suburbs like many of our counterparts and classmates. Long after you and others like you leave for greener pastures, we’ll still be here. Can only people that have moved here from somewhere else be altruistic with only pure intentions and have an opinion that counts?

    Just because Joe Mendonca stated his personal opinion in a subcommittee meeting does not mean that those councilors that got together and put this plan in place prior to the subcommittee meeting even taking place didn’t have a different agenda. Joe obviously had his own view of what he’d like to see or not see. Which may or may not have been influenced by the article.

    Discussions on the makeup of the panel and the role of the panel took place BEFORE the subcommittee meeting. And the newspaper article hit BEFORE the meeting. So the subcommittee already knew the position of councilors that were not informed of the panel in advance (unlike others) so it was a C.Y.A. exercise.

    The Mayor and others, in my opinion, had a different idea of what this panel was going to do and not do. And I think Luis Pedroso let the cat out of the bag as to what the original concept was for the panel. Rookie mistake on Luis’s part.

    I didn’t hear anyone say they didn’t want performance measures for the Manager. What I heard was that the measures don’t belong in an employment contract. Do you put specific performance measures directly in an employment contract? No you don’t. You put a clause in the contract referencing that there will be a review and performance measures developed annually by the Council. And you do it that way because with a three or five (as some have suggested)year contract the performance measures will CHANGE over time. You don’t hog tie yourself with outdated measurement criteria. Once you place the criteria in the body of a contract it is set in stone until the successor contract is negotiated.

    You say that the panel may conclude “no raise this year, next year a raise contingent on the budget etc etc”. I thought they were just supposed to gather information and not formulate an opinion or develop a conclusion? Of course they are going to develop an opinion. There is no way that anyone could look at all of this data and not formulate an opinion. Whether the council formally asks for an opinion is another matter altogether. But it will leak out or be so obvious one can only draw one conclusion. If they’re going to be taking city finances into consideration and whether we can afford it or not they’ve just completey usurped the role of the council.

19. Mr. Lynne Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    “Do you put specific performance measures directly in an employment contract? No you don’t.”

    Sure you can, but your point is well taken about how the incentives you need as a municipality might change with future circumstances. Your suggestion seems reasonable. One thing you might do in the contract, however, is write a ceiling on those incentives, so at least negotiations can be based on a some information. Furthermore, you might want to write the first year’s incentives into the contract and reference subsequent incentives, just so there are as many concrete terms as possible.

    I’ll tell you one thing you don’t want to do with incentives,… you don’t want to do is merely spend an hour at your kitchen table brainstorming for these criteria. Sorry, but the ‘kitchen table’ theory of contract negotiation will get us into trouble.

    I agree that the danger here is that the panel could just be (or look like) political cover, but at the same time I see an efficacy in it. So let there be sunshine such that we can judge if it was used as political cover.

20. Lynne Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Well, I hope you can actually read because I talked about the “whole damned point” multiple times.

    RE ‘If you can’t live on $145K” etc, well, if he can make more elsewhere, we’ll lose him, and a lot of the progress we’ve made having a professional city manager. Now, granted, maybe we’d get another professional muni manager, but given the history of this city, that isn’t a guarantee. Plus, the transition time will cost us.

    Put it this way: Would YOU stay in a job that hasn’t give you a raise for four years if something else opened up and that would be the only way you could move your salary up - remember, inflation happens.

    If you want the best and brightest then you better be competitive in salary and benefits.

    And to belay your other strange points, the likelihood is that there will be no raise this year, either, so stop your whining. If there was one, it would be very modest and wouldn’t even save 1/5th of a city job to not do it. And given how much money Lynch and his team have SAVED the city over the last four years, he’s saved more jobs than he’d ever threaten by a tiny salary raise, which is all he’s likely to get for the time being anyway, if at all.

    “You’re like a johnny one note with these “GOB’s” you’re always referring to. The majority of councilors are currently to your liking and you’re still referring to these GOB’s lurking in the shadows. It’s very paranoid.”

    Don’t be naive. Anyway, LOOK at the crazy behavior which basically has destroyed the ability for the CC to do something effective and untarnished on the CM contract. If you want paranoid and hysterical, my friend, you only have to watch Rita and Bud last Tuesday night. If you don’t think that the GOB has no bearing on the conversation that happened Tuesday, I have a bridge to sell ya, as Bud so sarcastically put it.

    “Are those of us who were born here, and lived here, and worked here, and chose to raise our own families here are we the GOB’s?”

    I dunno, do you act like one? The Howes have lived in Lowell a long time too, but they don’t act like GOBs. I can’t determine what you act like, since I don’t know you. I respect and like a LOT of people who are “townies.” However, the attitude I’ve often encountered from *some* townies is condescension that I wasn’t from here. How dare I raise my voice, I mean, I didn’t grow up here! I think there’s plenty of room in Lowell for newcomers and townies alike, but I will not abide by anyone who shuts people out of civic life because they don’t have a relationship with the powers that be. Access for all. Under Lynch and this current council, and the one two terms ago, is far more to my liking than the one with Kazanjian types in the majority.

    But I have NO INTENTION of “sweeping” anyone aside because they’re from here, and shame on you for accusing me of it.

    Discussions on the makeup of the panel and the role of the panel took place BEFORE the subcommittee meeting. And the newspaper article hit BEFORE the meeting. So the subcommittee already knew the position of councilors that were not informed of the panel in advance (unlike others) so it was a C.Y.A. exercise.

    Really? The article came you before the subcommittee meeting? This is the earliest article I can find on the subject on the Sun’s website. It states: “Milinazzo told the personnel subcommittee Thursday night that the proposed panel, made up of five or six people from the city’s business and nonprofit communities, would be appointed by him.”

    Kinda sounds past tense to me.

    “I didn’t hear anyone say they didn’t want performance measures for the Manager. What I heard was that the measures don’t belong in an employment contract.”

    Actually, what I heard was, Bud petulantly screaming numbers out loud, and Rita childishly replacing her name placard with a silly phrase. But I digress.

    They weren’t, by the way, objecting on the very idea of performance measures in the contract or not. That much was VERY obvious. They were just making noise because they saw an advantage to it - an opening for them to make hay and score political points.

    “Do you put specific performance measures directly in an employment contract? No you don’t.”

    Actually, yes, you might. (And in fact, employers DO.) Specifically, you might say something like, “Year #1: no raise. Year #2, 2% and 1% performance raise, based on goals which will be determined by X date. Year #3, 2% raise plus 2% performance raise, based on goals determined by the CC by Y date.” That would BE in the contract. Sure you can make it so the actual goals are set in the year prior to the raise to be so determined, but the ELEMENT of performance raises HAS to be in the contract. Or else, how is the CM going to know WTF to expect?

    “You say that the panel may conclude “no raise this year, next year a raise contingent on the budget etc etc”. I thought they were just supposed to gather information and not formulate an opinion or develop a conclusion?”

    OK I misspoke. What I meant to say (and this isn’t backtracking, so don’t try to make it look like that) is that the OUTCOME might be, no raise this year and ones the next year. Of course, the panel itself will be looking at what other cities have done and therefore would be giving info on whether or not something like that is viable.

    It’s probably the case that originally, the panel was to give a recommendation. That’s what panels DO all the time in Lowell, BTW. It only seems to be controversial when it’s regarding anything to do with Lynch, and the GOBs don’t like it - convenient, that.

    I wouldn’t have a problem with a panel recommendation, as I said we get them all the time. It’s obviously politically not viable this time around because of the whining, but a recommendation is ONLY that - a recommendation to accept, change, or completely ignore

    There are “blue ribbon panels” for everything, for all levels of government, getting all sorts of recommendations and whatnot - a process that is used often everywhere, but only NOW it’s controversial? Give me a break. This was manufactured outrage.

21. Jack Mitchell Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 12:57 pm

    One thing that worries me about incentives is that the CM could potentially favor the “rewarded metrics.”

    Don’t we hear about the MCAS, “Teachers teach to the test.”?

    Let’s not let “pot hole filling” be incentived, if ya know what I mean.

    The metrics need to be broad based while still being definable and measureable?
    —————————————-
    Mary,
    Save the bytes and just say “blow in.”

    I know you’d like to sweep aside those of us that are from here but we’re not going any place. We haven’t fled to the suburbs like many of our counterparts and classmates. Long after you and others like you leave for greener pastures, we’ll still be here. Can only people that have moved here from somewhere else be altruistic with only pure intentions and have an opinion that counts?

    That dead horse is still good for a few more whacks. :v|

22. Lynne Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    I know. I love the part, “Long after you and others like you leave for greener pastures, we’ll still be here.”

    Like buying a pretty large house that’ll do us the rest of our lives if nothing else happens, and wanting to be PART of developing greener pastures here IN Lowell was, like, indicative of the transient nature of people like me.

    Whatev.

23. Mary Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Lynne, these are not goals they are terms:

    “Year #1: no raise. Year #2, 2% and 1% performance raise, based on goals which will be determined by X date. Year #3, 2% raise plus 2% performance raise, based on goals determined by the CC by Y date.”
    Goals are items like: Finalize the sale of the arena to the University; Work with delegation to ensure that the courthouse is built by 2015; etc etc. Of COURSE any salary increase belongs in the contact. Those are terms of compensation. It’s not the goal of the manager to get a 2% raise in year one. Have you ever negotiated an employment or union contract before?

    And I “misspoke” as well. The article was after the subcommittee meeting but the decision to create the panel was made by a few CC members before the subcommittee meeting. There were a number of councilors who were caught off guard and completely unaware of the proposal until it was announced at the subcomittee meeting and the article came out in the paper.

    “It’s probably the case that originally, the panel was to give a recommendation. That’s what panels DO all the time in Lowell, BTW. It only seems to be controversial when it’s regarding anything to do with Lynch, and the GOBs don’t like it” Actually no, it’s only controversial when its an employment contract the council is in charge of. I didn’t see a panel set up for the Auditor’s contract or the Clerk’s contract or when CM Jim Campbell had a contract. It’s the council’s role to negotiate this not involve everyone under the sun.

    This is the negotiation of an employment contract not a study to find a re-use for the old senior center. It should be negotiated with the utmost respect and privacy for the individual or individuals (in the case of a union) afforded under law. You don’t see the teachers union negotiating in public with the School committee. We’re putting our cards on the table by providing public information that can be used in a negotiation against us. Maybe we should ask CM Lynch to televise his stategy sessions with his attorney if he has hired one.

    Would you have had the same opinion if Mayor Caulfield had handpicked a group of five people to negotiate a contract with John Cox? I think you’d be singing a different tune. Whoever those five may have been I’m sure you’d consider “GOB’s”.

    To compare studies like the Senior Center or yet another study of the downtown with the negotiation of an employment contract is like comparing apples to oranges. It’s just a red herring. They’re not the same.

    Come on, you give me a break. A panel that the council establishes makes a recommendation and the council just ignores it and there is no political fallout? So if the panel recommends say a modest $2,000 raise and the council objects due to budget constraints, you are just going to roll over, let them off the hook and acquiesce the point that they have the power to “completely ignore” the recommendation.

    Ya,right. That’ll be the day. Or as Councilor Caulfield would say “I have a bridge to sell ya”

24. Lynne Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    “We’re putting our cards on the table by providing public information ”

    Um, the info that would be researched IS largely public, which means, if Lynch wanted, for instance, to find the same info, he could feel free.

    This isn’t a negotiation with a union. This is quite different. It’s a very rare thing, since there aren’t that many “direct employees” of the Council. But to say this is the same as a union negotiation is to ignore the fact that, quite honestly, it ain’t. Lynch has to put up with a LOT of more public political strife than the unioned guys under him. That’s part of why he gets paid better.

    So long as Caulfield made transparency a part of the process I’d have been fine with it. Of course, they didn’t give Cox an actual contract. So it’s kinda moot.

    “So if the panel recommends say a modest $2,000 raise and the council objects due to budget constraints, you are just going to roll over, let them off the hook and acquiesce the point that they have the power to “completely ignore” the recommendation.”

    Ignoring recommendations of panels happens ALL the time. In fact I seem to remember a lot of such things ignored back when Cox was in charge…

25. Lynne Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    Also, your last point is moot, anyway, or at least hypothetical, since there WILL be no recommendation.

26. Lynne Says:
    April 9th, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    And just one more point - I loooove how these guys project.

    I mean, it *must* be a backroom deal…per Jim Campanini at the Sun…because that’s exactly how *they* would operate!

27. dmitra Says:
    April 10th, 2010 at 11:56 am

    I must admit to the guilty pleasure of occasionally listening to Howie Carr. (OMG). He is right about one thing though. They should rename Lowell as “Meehanville.”

28. The Know It All Says:
    April 13th, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    http://continuinged.uml.edu/CSCE/Current_Semsearch_detail.cfm?coursenum=46.265&secnum=-021

    How can Marty Meehan sit on an advisory committee when Bernie is now his employee at UML. They are in bed together and no one is saying anything.

29. Ned Says:
    April 14th, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I actually just signed up for the course “The Know It All” hoping I’m one of the chosen ones…

    http://mrmillcity.com/2010/04/14/for-those-that-havent-moved-on/

30. Lynne Says:
    April 14th, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    omg you people crack me up. Meehan in bed with Lynch? Have you guys been paying any attention???

    What drugs are you guys on, I want some!

31. bd Says:
    April 14th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    The CM has taught at UML well before Marty got there. Got to believe he sees the writing on the wall and needs to make some money there, the council appears to not have the will to actually pay him for performance.

32. Ned Says:
    April 14th, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    “What drugs are you guys on, I want some!”

    How can you be into drugs and not into gambling?

33. Paul@01852 Says:
    April 15th, 2010 at 7:53 am

    The CM was my instructor in Political Science way back in 1982-83! Marty Meehan wasn’t even in politics back then never mind associated with UML!

34. Ned Says:
    April 15th, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    Lol…I get your point Paul, and Lynne, but there is a HUGE conflict of interest here, regardless of timeline. I recommend giving the committee another try, but using a council session to fantasy draft the participants.

    I don’t think MrMayor had any other intention here other than gathering the appropriate information…but the appointments are unnecessary and worthy of folk’s suspicions.

Leave a Reply