Left In Lowell

I attended the state senate primary debate that was sponsored by WCAP tonight. There’s a lot of debate to react to and I’m certain that Dick Howe [edit - here it is!] will have a complete rundown (since he was sitting next to me taking notes) but I do have a couple of things I want to take exception to, before I embed the video for your viewing pleasure (or torture - given streaming video quality).

There was a lot of candidate asking candidate moments, in which both sides tried to score a hit on the other by tripping up the other one. In particular, Doherty took the tact of trying to claim Donoghue communications director Scott Ferson is a lobbyist (with very little actual evidence). His claim is that since some members of Liberty Square Group (Ferson’s firm) are registered lobbyists, that it’s guilt by association. Also because Ferson was hired as a spokesperson for Raynham Park, that he’s a lobbyist and should be registered and that Donoghue should somehow be ashamed.

First, Ferson appears to be an excellent PR guy. He worked for Kennedy, as well as for Lt. Gov. Tim Murray’s successful bid (which is probably why his name is so familiar to me). I have a general favorable view of him from the Murray campaign - he was effective. One would also guess that Ferson is well aware of lobbyist rules - and being hired by an entity (be it political, non profit, or for profit) as a spokesperson is not lobbying. Sorry, but not in this universe (maybe in Doherty’s).

Now, I dislike the entity that hired him of course (as I am against racinos) but as a business person, I’ve worked for people whom I disagreed with politically or as a business. Like this is really unusual? Come on. These sort of amateur hour attacks from Doherty are really getting old.

Lastly, as a result of the whole “you have lobbyists working for you na na na na boo boo” tact, Doherty unearthed the attack that he “challenged Donoghue to not self fund,” which brought, from Donoghue, a renewal of the challenge from her to go transparent and publish donor lists online before they are due the week before the primary.

Answers Doherty, “I already did!” in a rather snippy superior voice.

Now, I will say, Doherty did the right thing in publishing his donor list. I commend him for that. But I have some serious reservations on the manner and the method with which he did so.

First, he published this seemingly right before the debate - it wasn’t on his site prior to this week. This means he snuck the info onto the site without a press release or announcing it - solely, it appears, so he could have another “na na na na boo boo” moment on the stage. Lame. If I were Doherty, I would have forgone acting like a petulant kid, and made a big, extravagant announcement ahead of time. The decision to spring it on Donoghue in order to make her look bad was rather, well, 8th-grade-ish.

Sure it’s a tactic, and it sort of worked for about 5 seconds, but…it’s lame, and childish. Sort of like the whole Doherty campaign thus far…attack attack attack on the little tiny molehills you make a mountain out of, and hope it dents your opponent enough to bring her negatives up and maybe you get to squeak by. It might be one valid tactic for an “underdog,” but it’s also a very dishonest one. Distorting an opponent’s record or character or campaign is poor campaigning for someone out of real ideas how to make a splash. It is, in essence, desperation.

All right, now that I’ve aired my problems with the tactic, let me air the problems I have with the execution of his so-called transparency…

First, I searched far and wide on his website for this so called donor list when I got home tonight. It wasn’t easy to find - not prominent and definitely not “above the fold” of his website. It’s located, in case you don’t find it yourself, on the “Contribute” page - below the sidebar of the Facebook feed, which takes up a lot of vertical space. See the above the fold screenshot here, and the below the fold screenshot here.

So you finally find the link to the donor list (PDF). Think you can do a search in the PDF, or copy and paste the information into a spreadsheet so you can sort it properly and look through it? Think again. The PDF is encrypted. The search doesn’t work and neither does simple copy-paste.

And another issue - most of the info is available. That’s commendable. However, you see something that’s missing on that PDF? The dollar amounts of total donations. That information is pretty important, and it’s missing. Now we all understand these are not official OCPF reports, subject to correction, but to leave out the donation amounts is rather glaring.

—

All right, on to the promised videos. LTC was also taping (and they don’t run out of batteries) so there will be a high quality full version online soon, but meanwhile, you can view a sampling from my Qik feed.

First, the intros from the candidates (apologies in advance for sound issues, particularly that Doherty failed to speak into the mic):

A question about the recent Home Rule bill (on health care plan design for Lowell public unions) and more:

And some video of the candidates asking questions of each other, and more:

It was a small item in last’s week Column (I cannot link to the Lowell Sun’s static political blog; it is not available on their on-line edition) on Zoning Board meeting that prompted me to watch the meeting on August 9th. The Column’s prediction of a “humdinger of a meeting” came true.

Subsequently, the Sun published a number of articles on the meeting and its aftermath. The meeting was covered by a correspondent for the Sun, Elizabeth Lane. Here is the link to the her article “Pool hall OK’d despite protest from Hindus.”

“Emotions ran high during last night’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as officials contemplated permits that would allow the operation of a pool hall 20 feet from a Hindu temple on Middlesex Street.

The board voted 4-1 to approve the petition submitted by Billiard Partners, LLC, despite the presence of nearly 200 members of the neighboring International Swaminarayan Hindu Temple opposing the plan. Board member Vesna Nuon was the lone dissenter.”

During the following days, Erin Smith followed up with an article on the appeal to be filed by the Temple’s lawyer, Louis Saab. And the Sun finished off with an editorial:

The Lowell Zoning Board of Appeals followed the letter of the law Monday night in approving permits for a business owner to open a billiards parlor next door to the International Swaminarayan Hindu Temple on Middlesex Street. Both properties are located in an area zoned for suburban multi-use development, which allows for commercial, residential and industrial use.

While the ZBA did its job fairly and honestly, the 4-1 decision somehow doesn’t feel right under the circumstances.

They are so correct. Something just does not feel right. Yes, this Board had to only focus on a minor variance requirement, nothing else, but by easily approving this first hurdle, I wonder if they felt let the next guy (license commission) do the heavy work.

Here is a 13-minute clip of the meeting.

You can watch the entire proceedings, recorded and originally broadcast on LTC, on the bliptv web site. Here is the link to watch a replay of the 2 1/2 hour-long meeting.

As for the drama associated with the meeting, certainly Saab and State Rep. Kevin Murphy representing the two sides added to the intense atmosphere; especially Saab. Interesting choice of counsel.

And when this comes in front of the license commission, we will have added drama. Murphy law partner and nephew, who sits on that board will need to recuse himself and we will only have the other two members making the decision.

By the way, I thought there was a law that allowed places of worship to prevent establishments that served alcohol from locating so close to them? I am not sure why that has not been raised. Perhaps, that law does not apply to this situation.

This morning’s front page Lowell Sun http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_15767689 story, written by City Editor Chris Scott, on Acting Building Commissioner David St. Hilaire is disturbing on so many levels.

If you not read the story, in spite of what St. Hilaire says the facts are that he purchased his neighbor’s house, assessed at $128,300, for the price of $50,000. The elderly neighbor signed the deed over to him on July 26th while in a nursing home; the next day she was transported to Sts. Medical Center and she passed away yesterday.

Although the lady did not have any relatives she was well known throughout the City. I do not think any of her well-connected friends are going to be too happy if she someone took advantage of her while she was on her dead bed.

This morning St. Hilaire visited WCAP to explain himself, unfortunately he chose not to go on the air so it was left up to Ted Panos to recap the conversation. Nothing that Teddy said made me feel good about this story.

So now we have another police investigation of a City employee and we are left to wonder, when is this kind of behavior going to end? Even if nothing illegal took place, it just does not feel right.

I get MassEquality’s emails, having worked with and donated to them in the past. They were an instrumental group in retaining gay marriage in Massachusetts, and are an excellent activist group. MassEquality PAC has come out with their endorsement for the primary in our state Senate race, and they chose Eileen Donoghue (bold theirs):

I am pleased to inform you that the MassEquality PAC has endorsed Eileen Donoghue to be your next state senator.

This race offers an opportunity to fill a seat that’s been held by an anti-equality lawmaker (who is not running for re-election) with a pro-equality candidate. There are more contested seats in the state legislature this year than any in Massachusetts in the last 50 years. It is critical that we re-elect pro-equality candidates and fill open seats with candidates who support our rights in order to preserve our 151-vote super-majority in the state legislature to defend against anti-marriage initiatives.

Eileen is the former mayor of Lowell. She is a strong supporter of marriage equality and has pledged to sponsor the Transgender Civil Rights Bill.

Today we urge you to spread the word about Eileen and to get involved in her campaign. Please vote for Eileen Donoghue on Tuesday, September 14 in the Democratic Primary.

‘Nuff said! One of the biggest issues I have fought outgoing Senator Pangiotakos on, is on gay rights and gay marriage. He was on the wrong side of history then, and continues to be. Changing this seat to a pro-GLBT-rights seat will help ensure continuing progress on equality for all the Commonwealth’s citizens.

The City Council will go into Executive Session tomorrow not merely to discuss one issue but to discuss three topics:

Council meet in Executive Session relating to Strategy Sessions for City Manager Contract in preparation with negotiations of non-union personnel.

Grand Manor-meet in Executive Session as it relates to real property and matters subject to litigation.

Update ongoing Union Negotiations-meet in Executive Session as it relates to strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation.

In the past an Executive Session meeting would be held and on occasion somethings would leak, or should I say the spinning would begin. But now with the new law, Executive Sessions, these minutes should become public sooner than later.

This is the section of the law that applies to Executive Session: “It has long been true that executive session minutes are to be made public when the need for secrecy ceases to exist. Now, the chair or his designee is required “at reasonable intervals” to review the executive session minutes to determine what can be released. That determination shall be announced publicly at the next open session. What is “reasonable interval?” The answer may come in regulations to be issued by the Attorney General. If anyone makes a public record request for a set of executive session minutes, and the public body has not conducted the review just described, then it must do so and release any part of the minutes that no longer require secrecy no later than the body’s next meeting or 30 days after the request, whichever comes first.”

So if I understand this new law correctly, within two weeks these minutes could be made available to the City Council along with the regular meeting’s minutes. At that point, Mayor Jim Milinazzo needs to review the minutes and determine what can be released.

I am not sure if the Mayor is required to announce that he has reviewed the minutes and at this time cannot release anything. I would think that Executive Session meeting minutes have the same level of detail as the regular meeting minutes. All this will be revisited in a few weeks.

Tomorrow night the City Council will be entertaining 7 Councilor motions. My bet is the one about the dogs will be the one creating the greater buzz. “18. C. Elliott-Req. Law Dept. draw language to require muzzling of Pit Bulls involved in incidents.”

If you are counting, this will be the fourth time, yes fourth time, that the Lowell City Council will be trying to decide what is an evil dog and what can we do to muzzle (excuse the pun) that animal. Here is the link to my post on discussion I (1/13/2009); discussion II (6/8/2009); and discussion III (3.24.2010).

The problem are not the dogs but the owners. I will leave it up to the Lowell City Council to figure out how to prevent irresponsible individuals from using dogs as a tool to prove their manhood.

Meanwhile, the motion that really should grab all of our attention is the one introduced by CC Patrick Murphy. “22. C. Murphy-Req. Mgr/Council discuss use of FY10 Snow/Ice Deficit assumed in FY11 Budget.”

Here is part of a letter sent by the PAC Move Lowell Forward to the City Council Financial Sub-Committee regarding this matter:

“The FY ’11 city budget includes a line item for the FY ’10 (listed as FY ’09) estimated snow and ice deficit of $1,292,165. However, at the July 13th City Council meeting the CFO provided a summary reconciliation of the FY ’10 budget that showed that the actual snow and ice overrun was nullified by transfer from other accounts. Therefore the FY ’11 budget now has nearly $1.3M of cost eliminated.

“In developing that allocation plan you should consider these funds as non-recurring, and therefore limit any allocation to recurring expenses to a small percentage of the total. Whereas the City has less-than-desired reserves it may be wise to dedicate a significant majority of the excess funds to the reserve account. Other areas of potential allocation could be reduction in tax levy, increasing the contingency account, or providing for a unique expense that has arisen since the budget was approved. Although the tax levy is effectively a recurring line item, some reduction in that line item would certainly be welcomed by the citizens.”

I think it would be fair to assume that this motion will pass and will be sent to the Financial Sub-Committee. I do not expect the discussions to be as emotional as the motion on dogs but I hope that the City Council has an in-depth conversation and does what is right by the City (IMHO). Put that money in the reserve account.

I don’t know if it’s for the right reasons, but Patrick is sending the casino bill (3 resorts, 2 racinos) back “with amendments” - a procedure whereby without a veto, he can send the bill back to the legislature.

Governor Deval Patrick says he will send an amended gambling expansion bill back to legislators today that would eliminate a provision for two slot machine facilities, and he retracted a previous compromise offer to allow one slot parlor in the state.

“I’m done. I’m done with that,” he said of his earlier offer.

This effectively kills the bill for this legislative session. The legislature would have to be called back into session, something Senate President Murray isn’t interested in, and without racinos, Speaker DeLeo won’t be, either. The Governor has consistently cited racinos to be bad policy (why they are bad and slots at casinos aren’t is for another discussion) and he refuses the no-bid nature of the compromise policy for racinos:

Patrick also reiterated his strong opposition to awarding slot licenses to racetrack owners.

“I’m not going to be a party to no-bid contracts for track owners,” he said.

Maybe now he can finally see the corrupting nature of gambling money in politics. If you think lobbying is a problem, look at the gambling lobby, which uses money sucked up mostly from addicts, and other states have had a lot of corruption surrounding casino interests. (Hell, look at Abramoff!) Heck, we have only to smell the stench of corruption regarding the current Treasurer-turned-gubernatorial-candidate Cahill and the state lottery!

Regardless of why, though, this is the right thing to do, and it kills a bad bill that would have cost the state far too much - in money and in broken lives - in the long run. Massachusetts is better than profiting on the misery of countless new addicts of predatory gambling that casinos and racinos would have created.